Sitting of 13 February 1996

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

    INHERITANCE TAX
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances of Gifts) (Netherlands) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Life Expectancy
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average life expectancy in 1979; and what it is currently. [13304]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Life expectancy in 1979 was 70.4 years for men and 76.5 years for women in England and Wales. By 1993, those figures had risen to 74 years and 79.3 years respectively.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the blessing of a longer life results from two factors: first, Government policy, which has meant that an additional 1.5 million patients have been treated each year, 800 major building projects in hospitals have been brought on board, a greater range of treatments have become available and quality in hospitals has improved; and secondly, the skill and the dedication of nurses, doctors, carers and managers who operate hospitals?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. We have seen a dramatic improvement in life expectancy and the quality of life enjoyed by many citizens as a result of the success of the national health service. He is quite right to draw attention to that measure of its success, which is in the end the measure that matters to the patient.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister not aware that life expectancy has improved in every decade this century? Since it improved less in the past decade than in some previous decades, what is so special about the figures?
    Mr. Dorrell: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who has not only worked in the health service but espouses its cause, would have wanted to join an all-party celebration of the success of the NHS.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS patients are covered by general practitioner fundholders in the Northern and Yorkshire region. [13305]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Forty per cent. of the population in the Northern and Yorkshire region are registered with general practitioner fundholders. We expect that to rise to more than 50 per cent. in April.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that fundholding has driven the way through and enabled greater emphasis on a primary care-led NHS, from which all patients benefit? Is he aware, for example, that one first-wave fundholding practice in my constituency has its own consultant clinic for neurology, which treats patients from other practices, whether fundholding or not? Does that not show just how good the NHS is becoming under the Government, and that the best way to secure it is to vote Conservative at the next election?
    Mr. Malone: I disagree with my hon. Friend only in one respect. Voting Conservative is not the best way to secure fundholding GPs under the next Government: it is now the only way, because the Labour party is pledged to abolish fundholding.
    My hon. Friend is quite right to cite one example of an improvement in primary care through GP fundholding. I congratulate him on espousing the service. Indeed, I understand that, as recently as 10 days ago, he took the cause to the British Medical Association in Scarborough, where he won by 16 votes to 12 a debate on the question "Is the health service safe in this Government's hands?" despite being opposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley).
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must tell the Minister that his comments did not relate to the question. I may shortly have something to say about hon. Members and Ministers who stray far away from the questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister acknowledge that, in the Northern and Yorkshire region, a two-tier health system is operating? Will he confirm that the Central Sheffield Universities Hospitals trust provides conclusive evidence that there are two tiers? Cardiology patients of fundholders wait nine weeks, while those of non-fundholders wait 26 weeks. For hip replacements, patients of fundholders wait 12 weeks while those of non-fundholders wait 26 weeks. Can the Minister justify that, or is he saying that fair waiting lists and a one-nation health service have been abandoned for a two-tier health service—a fundamental part of the unacceptable face of Tory health policy?
    Mr. Malone: No, I will not attempt to justify those figures, because they are wrong. Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to read his newspapers this week, he would have seen the purchasing authority's precise reply, which stated exactly what happens between fundholders and non-fundholders and in relation to waiting lists. I shall return to that topic in today's debate. The truth is

    789
    that non-fundholders' patients are doing marginally better than those of fundholders, so the hon. Gentleman had better be careful when he peddles muddled facts.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will not give funds to fundholders in the Northern and Yorkshire region, or anywhere else for that matter, towards the costs of surrogate motherhood on the NHS? Does he agree with me that, sad though the circumstances are surrounding the woman in question, the estimated cost of £15,000 would be better spent on other priorities?
    Mr. Malone: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. That matter raises difficult ethical issues. I can tell her that we shall carefully examine the issues which have been raised in the British Medical Association document and look at those which have been raised more widely.

    Private Health Market
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the growth in the private health market since 1979. [13306]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): The value of the private acute health-care market has increased from an estimated £132 million in 1979 to more than £2 billion in 1994 according to Laing's "Review of Private Healthcare".
    Mr. Banks: I cannot recall which party the Minister was in when Margaret Thatcher stood at the Dispatch Box and said that she wanted to make the NHS so good that no one would want to take up private medicine. However, that really has not come about—he has just told us of the enormous growth in the private medicine market. Since Tory reforms, about £1.5 billion has gone out of the NHS to pay for private treatment. Does the Minister accept that that is obscene when people who are waiting for operations can hear radio advertisements which tell them that, if they go private, they can get an operation, and, moreover, that they can borrow the money to pay for it under a finance arrangement? That is obscene, and the Minister should feel ashamed. He has not only let the people of this country down: he has betrayed the words of the blessed Margaret Thatcher.
    Mr. Horam: I thought that, these days, the Labour party believed in choice. The hon. Gentleman said in today's Evening Standard that he would like to spend his money on skin toners and vitamins. Why are not other people allowed to make their choices and have waiting times cut and their surgery earlier?
    Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report which found that long waiting times for NHS treatments boost the take-up of private health assurance? Does he agree that the dramatic decrease in 12-month waits, from 20 per cent. of patients to only 2 per cent., is a stunning achievement which strengthens the NHS?
    Mr. Horam: Those figures are absolutely right, and they reinforce the point that the hon. Member for
    790
    Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who tabled the question, should have done his homework. He will find that the private sector is, in fact, getting extremely tough competition from the NHS for precisely those reasons.

    Regional Health Authorities
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the savings resulting from the abolition of the regional health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [13307]
    Mr. Dorrell: By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million a year. A further £50 million a year has also been saved from the creation of single health authorities at local level. These substantial savings will be retained by the NHS and spent on improved patient care.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and warmly endorse his determination to remove an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy in the NHS. Will he reaffirm that Conservative Members believe—that the Government strongly believe—in putting patients first, in putting money into medical provision, and not into unnecessary bureaucracy?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We believe in an efficiently run health service, in which the administration function is subject to exactly the same efficiency scrutiny as that to which managers subject all the other activities of the NHS. It is because we are engaged in that activity that, over the next few years, an extra £300 million will be devoted to improving patient care in the NHS.
    Ms Harman: How can we rely on the figures that the Secretary of State has just given the House, given that he misled the House during the previous Health Question Time? Will he now admit that, contrary to what he said last time, no new beds have been opened in Consett, no new beds have been opened in Good Hope, no new beds have been opened in Newham general and no new beds have been opened in Chester? We believe in a Secretary of State who tells the truth about the national health service.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is wrong on every one of the examples that she cited. What I told the House was exactly what happened—that, faced with an increase in the emergency work load, the managers in each of those hospitals provided extra bed space to ensure that it was dealt with. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would recognise that as good management delivering a good service to NHS patients.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of changes in the regional structure, it was expected that some £11 million extra would be available for patient care in West Sussex? This is a matter of great importance to my constituency, because Worthing is the most underfunded district in the country-13 per cent. below capitation compared with 9 per cent. elsewhere. It now appears that a high percentage of that money will not

    791
    go to reduce underfunding in the most underfunded district, but will go elsewhere. If the matter cannot be resolved, will my right hon. Friend receive a deputation?
    Mr. Dorrell: Of course, I am always ready to receive a deputation led by my right hon. Friend, who has been a relentless and assiduous exponent of the interests of Worthing. I am sure that he will recognise that, as a result of last year's public expenditure survey settlement, West Sussex district health authority's allocation reflected a growth rate that is very much faster than the national average, reflecting the fact that Sussex is a below-target area. Worthing will benefit from that reallocation of resources in favour of Sussex, reflecting the operation of the weighted capitation formula, but I look forward to receiving my right hon. Friend's delegation.

    Royal Liverpool Hospital
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were transferred from the Royal Liverpool hospital to Broadgreen in the last six months. [13308]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Between 1 April and 31 December last year, the most recent period for which figures are available, the total was 483.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that since the closure of Broadgreen's accident and emergency centre—against the wishes of community health councils and, indeed, of the local communities which fought a long battle to retain that particular facility—all patients now have to go to the Royal Liverpool hospital for assessment before they are moved on? That includes stroke patients and those with heart problems. They have to ride in an ambulance from one side of the city of Liverpool to the other which, as anyone with any common sense will agree, puts them at risk. That is especially true of the type of patients to whom I referred. Is it not a fact that the Minister and the Government do not know what is going on in the national health service? They have abrogated responsibility for accountability. When will they tell us why the chief executive would not answer a very simple question—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. This is not an Adjournment debate, but Question Time.
    Mr. Bowis: If I am allowed to say something, perhaps I could calm the hon. Gentleman down. We do know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman talked about the 483 people who were transferred between the two hospitals which are, after all, in the same trust. Only two were A and E transfers; 238 were being transferred to the recently opened rehabilitation unit at Broadgreen. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have welcomed that, as well as the fact that, as a result of recent investment, the Royal Liverpool hospital's A and E capacity has increased from 80,000 to 120,000 patients a year.

    Cardiac Arrest
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the speed at which those who suffer a cardiac arrest receive treatment. [13309]
    Mr. Malone: The Department will continue to work with the national health service to find ways of speeding the delivery of treatment to patients.
    Mr. Sheerman: What kind of national health service is it when a man collapses with a heart attack in the centre of one of our major cities, is refused by 12 or 14 hospitals, and has to be helicoptered to a far-off town to receive treatment? That is not an isolated incident, because, as the Minister knows, there is a lack of slack—that is what the British Medical Association calls it. There are not enough intensive care beds to deal with that kind of emergency, and there are not enough nurses to support the intensive care units. Last week's decision to give nurses a measly 2 per cent. will not help recruit many more.
    Mr. Malone: I beg to differ from the hon. Gentleman. That incident was isolated, but important. Isolated incidents are vital for those involved, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman will meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 February to discuss that matter. Intensive care has grown rapidly in recent years, and the number of intensive care beds has risen by 100 since 1989. The number of nurses working in intensive care has increased by more than 1,000 since 1990. Other bodies of work are being undertaken by the Department of Health that will show us how we can better use the intensive care facilities that we have.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend send congratulations to the Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS trust, which I visited last year? It has invested a vast sum of money in a sophisticated tracking system so that it can deploy ambulances around that large county to ensure that they get to those patients who need ambulances most urgently.
    Mr. Malone: Yes, I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend raises an important point about the need to provide care as quickly as possible to people who suffer from cardiac problems. Some of the essential components include improving response times—that is happening, as my hon. Friend points out—and putting paramedics in ambulance teams. The whole question of the provision of emergency care outwith the context of an acute hospital is being considered by the chief medical officer, who will report to Ministers in due course.
    Ms Eagle: If there are no beds to receive patients, it does not matter how good the ambulance service is, because there is nowhere for the patients to go. Is not the difficulty that, since the NHS has been run as a business, new, lean-production techniques have abolished all the spare beds, so there is no capacity if sudden accidents or emergencies arise? Is not that the basic problem that is now emerging in our health service?
    Mr. Malone: It is rather bizarre that the hon. Lady makes that point in the context of the number of intensive care beds rising steadily in recent years. She makes a false

    793
    point. Much of the work that has to be done is to make better use of the facilities that are available. For example, following the Wells report, procedures have been set up to share intensive care beds in London. Sensible use of existing facilities can improve performance in an expanding service.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the impact of the private finance initiative on the hospital building programme. [13310]
    Mr. Dorrell: The NHS has so far seen schemes worth more than £200 million approved under the private finance initiative. The momentum is increasing, and is providing modern tools to NHS professional staff to allow them to deliver an ever-improving quality of health care to patients.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that has been given in the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust, which I visited last week, to the £35 million rebuilding programme for High Wycombe and Amersham hospitals, announced under the private finance initiative late in 1995? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that welcome project will provide improved services for patients and better working conditions for NHS staff? Does he also agree that the project provides a telling contrast to the policy of savage cuts in hospital building that was imposed by the Labour party when it was in office?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right on each count, and I shall add one more. The project to which my hon. Friend refers has commanded widespread support among the clinical fraternity working in the same hospital because they understand that the PFI route that has been chosen by the trust offers the best prospect for them to improve the quality of care provided to their patients.
    Mr. McLeish: The only one.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says "the only one"—the Government have increased state-funded capital expenditure in the NHS by 80 per cent. in real terms over the figure that they inherited. We have further improved the prospect of capital investment by abolishing the controls that were the necessary concomitant of the old-fashioned means of capital planning.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State recognise that that sort of initiative is often not appropriate in many scattered and rural communities? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that public finance should be available where trusts start to adopt that policy and find that the necessary money is not available?
    Mr. Dorrell: Public finance remains available to support the capital investment programme of the NHS. But we are looking for partnerships with the private sector to allow us to modernise the capital stock for NHS patients wherever they need their health care. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is any reason to
    794
    sign rural patients out of that deal. The PFI offers the best prospect for improving the capital stock of the national health service wherever its patients need health care.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI is an excellent way to lever capital from the private sector into the health service? Could he rationalise the recent actions by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) with her statement on the "Today" programme that the PFI provides a ramp for privatisation in the health service?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. The Labour Front-Bench team seems to be in difficulties. The Leader of the Opposition said in the House that the PFI was "right in principle". The hon. Lady says on the "Today" programme that the PFI is a new trick to privatise the health service. Presumably they cannot both be right.
    Mr. Barron: Are not clinicians in this country suspicious of the PFI and what is behind it? A few months ago, the Secretary of State said that clinical services would not be run by private companies. But clinical services are currently being privatised by the use of market testing. When will the Secretary of State stand up in the House and give a definition of clinical services? He knows, as I do, that many clinicians are suspicious that the measure is no more that a vehicle to privatise the national health service.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. In my answer to the original question I referred to the fact that where a set of clinicians was presented with a specific proposal for the modernisation of its hospital, it did not simply accept it, it warmly embraced it because it saw an opportunity to improve the service available to its patients. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about what a clinical service is, and, indeed, what a clinical support service is—which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, although he might have done—they are both well-known terms of art within the health service. The scope of those terms is well defined.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend will know from the county that we both represent that there have been tremendous improvements, both in terms of new building and rebuilding, at the major acute hospitals in Leicestershire: the Glenfield general, the Leicester general and the Royal infirmary. Will he confirm that he will do all in his power to influence the health trusts in that county to make use of the PFI further to improve the capital building project system in our county?
    Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly assure my hon. and learned Friend that exactly the same opportunity is open to all the Leicestershire health trusts, as to every other trust throughout the national health service, to use access to both private capital and private management of health service facilities to give NHS clinicians the tools to improve the quality of care available to NHS patients. The PFI offers the national health service an escape from the bind in which it has been caught since the day it was established—short-term capital planning being dictated by short-term, Treasury-inspired horizons. We are now free of that as a result of the PFI, and I should like to have seen Labour Members celebrating that freedom.

    Care of the Elderly
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the provision of care to elderly people living in the community. [13311]
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued about the provision of care to elderly people living in the community. [13316]
    Mr. Bowis: Various guidelines have been issued to local and health authorities in relation to the care of elderly people.
    There is clear evidence that community care is a success both from our own monitoring and from independent reports.
    Mr. O'Hara: Can the Minister confirm that 40,000 old people have had to sell their homes to finance their care in old age, and does he agree that, therefore, a whole generation has been betrayed, especially those who fought in the second world war, who were promised a better Britain and care from the cradle to the grave? They now find that they must pay twice for their care in old age; they have already paid once through their taxes, and now they must pay once again through private provision.
    Mr. Bowis: The people who fought through the war then lived through a Labour Government, and it was the Labour—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may think that that is funny now, but many people remember that with horror.
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that it was that Labour Government in 1948 that introduced the charging system for residential care that applies to this day. The Labour party has made no proposals about that. As a Government, we have made proposals on occupational pensions and on the capital disregard and, as announced in the Budget, we are consulting on partnership schemes to alleviate the problem that some people have in that respect. If Labour Members would make constructive proposals instead of sniping from the sidelines and trying to frighten people, they would do a lot better.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Would that we had the welfare state that was introduced by Labour in 1945.
    Does the Minister agree that, if Beveridge were alive today, he would be horrified to think of what is happening to old people? If the Minister disagrees with that, does he agree with me that a royal commission should be appointed to inquire into the condition of old people and care in the community?
    Mr. Bowis: May I welcome the hon. and Scottish Lady to English Health questions? I suggest to her that, if Beveridge, Bevan and others were alive today, they would be astonished at the rates of investment by the taxpayer in the care of elderly people, and they would notice that, in the past six years, investment in personal social services has increased from £3.6 billion to £7.4 billion—I suspect, more than either of those two gentlemen would ever have dreamed of.
    Mr. Sims: To ensure that the resources devoted to community care are used in the most cost-effective
    796
    manner, should not local authorities be required to publish the true cost of care in residential homes run by local authorities, so that a comparison may be made with similar residential care provided in the private sector?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and valid suggestion. When those who are interested in value-for-money reviews of social service provision—not least the Audit Commission and district auditors—seek to discover whether that value is being provided by a local authority, they need to be able to compare like with like. It is easy to see the price of residential care in the private or voluntary sectors; it is very difficult to see the price in the state sector. That is something that we shall certainly inquire into and which may emerge from our review of inspection regulation as a whole.
    Sir Jim Spicer: On the subject, not of residential care but, care in the community, does my hon. Friend agree that the social services budget has doubled in the past six years? Can there be any excuse for county councils such as Liberal-controlled Dorset increasing their charges for home care help and all other aspects of care in the community and spending the resulting funds on unrelated services? Is it not time to reconsider responsibility for social services? Is there not a strong case for social services to move over to community trusts, which are non-political and not manipulated by Liberals?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes a long-term suggestion of a solution. It is true that, in the county of Dorset, during the last six years resources have increased from £43 million to £93.8 million. Those resources are fair by anyone's standards.
    As to the county's charging policy for domiciliary and day services, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is entirely at the discretion of the elected local authority. If anyone is unhappy with that authority's charging policy, he or she knows where to look—the elected leaders of the council are accountable and responsible for it.
    Mr. Milburn: By passing the buck to individual health authorities and allowing them to decide eligibility criteria for long-term care, have not the Government created a lottery in health provision for elderly people? Do not the care that elderly people receive and the price that they pay for it now depend on where they live? When will the Minister take responsibility for defining the boundaries between provided and paid-for care, so that once again we have a one-nation national health service where access to care is a matter of right and not a matter of chance?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the distinction between social care and health care, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. We want a fair system and we shall be as open as possible about the definitions on either side of the dividing line. That is why we have introduced our guidance in that regard, which has been widely welcomed, and why authorities up and down the country have been consulting on the future eligibility criteria for those services.

    797
    The truth is that the hon. Gentleman and his party want a standard society: they do not like flexibility or choice and, above all, they do not like the independent sector. As new Labour marches on, it reminds us ever more of "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to the care of the elderly in the community. However, does he accept that today many elderly people must pay for services which, until relatively recently, they received free under the national health service? Will my hon. Friend join me in campaigning for some form of assistance for those people—whether it is through fiscal means or other ways—which will help them to meet the cost that they must now pay for care that is essential for their health and well-being?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right: one of the great successes of our health service is that many people who would have spent their last days in geriatric wards are now able to have operations, receive treatment and take new medication which allows them to return home or to a homely setting. That is a triumph for the health service. Taxpayers—and the Government on their behalf—must now plan ahead to ensure that the cost is reasonable and affordable and that they make the necessary preparations to meet it. I believe that we have taken those steps through our various announcements, both before and in the Budget.
    The other side of the coin is that we must keep pressure on the authorities to ensure that they provide services at a reasonable cost. That means using the independent sector as well as the part 3 sector—which is something that the Opposition are remarkably reluctant to do.

    Accident and Emergency Waiting Times
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the average waiting time of accident and emergency visits at hospitals in London; and if he will make a statement. [13312]
    Mr. Malone: Information is collected to monitor patients charter standards, which cover initial assessment and accident and emergency departments. Patients requiring emergency treatment are always treated immediately. National health service trusts and health authorities are working together to ensure that all patients attending accident and emergency departments are seen as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that there is increasing concern all over London about the length of time that people spend in accident and emergency departments awaiting treatment? In view of last Friday's tragedy in east London, should not the Government reappraise the proposal to close Edgware accident and emergency department and consider reopening St. Bartholomew's accident and emergency department, so that Londoners may be secure in the knowledge that at least they will receive treatment at a nearby casualty unit, rather than being shuttled miles away in ambulances through a very congested city?
    Mr. Malone: The accident and emergency and all other services performed magnificently in light of last Friday's tragedy, and I add my thanks to those that have been expressed already in the House.
    798
    The hon. Gentleman tries to generalise from a particular incident. I shall give him the overall figures for accident and emergency attendances at Whittington hospital, in which he has a constituency interest. From April to June, 75 per cent. of patients were seen within two hours and 96 per cent. within four hours. From July to September, 81 per cent. were seen within two hours and 99 per cent. within four hours. From October to December, which is a tough period, 60 per cent. were seen within two hours and 96 per cent. within four hours. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues try to characterise the service as insufficient; if they look at the overall record, they will find that they are precisely wrong.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend accept that we need no lectures from the Labour party on how to run a modern health service, as when the Labour party was last in power it closed or reduced 60 hospital units a year? Does he agree, however, that there are legitimate anxieties about future provision at Edgware general hospital, and that there is every reason to keep its accident and emergency facilities intact?
    Mr. Malone: I understand that there are legitimate anxieties, but they have been discussed with my right hon. Friend and properly taken into account.

    NHS Nurses
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take measures to improve the morale of nurses in the national health service. [13314]
    Mr. Dorrell: High-quality health care requires high-quality clinical staff. That is why NHS trusts have greater freedom than ever before to reflect and reward the valuable contribution of highly motivated and skilled nurses.
    Mr. Jones: Is not the Government's commercial approach to the health service making the professional lives of nurses quite intolerable? Is it not time that the Secretary of State took action to help our nurses, who are now under great strain because of Government policies?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that it is time that the Government took action. The Government have taken quite a lot of action over the past 16 years to improve the lot of nurses in the national health service. If the average nurse were now paid what he or she was paid in 1979, he or she would be paid £186 a week. A nurse now receives £311 a week. On average, nurses in the national health service today are £125 a week better off at today's values than they were when the Labour party left power. That is a single proposition for every nurse in the national health service to think about this evening.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses' pay was reduced by 23 per cent. in 1976? When that lot were last in power, not one hospital was opened in 1979, thanks to the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, and if a loved one died in 1979 we could not even get him or her buried? When that lot were last in power, the national health service was a total fiasco.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend, as ever, is accurate and rapierlike in his comments. Once again, he has underlined

    799
    the central fact that, when nurses compare the records of the two parties, they will remember that the Labour Government cut nurses' pay and that the Conservative Government have increased the average earnings of a nurse in the national health service by £125 a week in real terms. Those are 125 reasons for supporting the Government in the development of the national health service.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The figures that the Secretary of State gave the House may be correct, but if two thirds of hospital trusts report difficulty in recruiting nurses, 75 per cent. of nurses regard staffing levels as too low to give adequate care to patients and 20 per cent. of nurses regard staffing levels as dangerously low, how will a below-inflation award of 2 per cent. assist either the recruitment of the additional nurses we need or the retention and morale of the nurses still in the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have always thought that, like the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman and his party supported the principles of review bodies. The review body looked at exactly the case that the hon. Gentleman has set before the House—the proposition that there is a shortage of nurses in the NHS. It found there was not a generalised shortage, but isolated local shortages. The review body recommended in unambiguous terms that the right way to deal with the shortages was by locally negotiated pay in a national context. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government in full, and we are acting on it.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the worst thing for nurses' morale would be the election of a party that had no policy on NHS revenue funding, capital funding or primary health care?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It becomes more and more obvious, week after week, that where there should be a national health service policy among Labour's Front Benchers, there is a vacuum.

    Residential Beds
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of long-term residential beds for the elderly in the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authorities. [13315]
    Mr. Bowis: Cambridge and Huntingdon health authorities, in common with all others, have been consulting on and reviewing local provision for people with continuing health care needs.
    Mrs. Campbell: Why will beds be lost at Brookfield and Chesterton hospitals in Cambridge, when there is already an estimated 1,350 shortage of nursing home and long-term residential beds? What will people in the Cambridge and Huntingdon health commission areas do if no alternative provision is made before those beds are lost?
    Mr. Bowis: People will be pleased to know that the local health commission has decided to invest a further
    800
    £1 million in the area, and that the region is considering further support from the strategic charge levy fund—which will enable exactly that sort of planning.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February. [13333]
    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. Turner: Will the Prime Minister accept from me that the national health service is holding together at this moment only because of the dedication and good will of its professional staff? In Wolverhampton, beds and wards have been closed, staff have been made redundant, and accident and emergency services have been closed dozens and dozens of times in recent months. May I assure the Prime Minister that the good people of Wolverhampton do not regard the health service as safe in his hands?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman chooses this day of all days to make that old charge. As was announced yesterday, the number of patients facing waiting times in excess of one year has fallen yet again. There are now only 20,000 people waiting more than 12 months. Five years ago, the figure was 187,000. People are getting treated quicker, better and more comprehensively at all levels in the health service than ever before. It is about time that Opposition Members—I do not mean only the hon. Gentleman—realised the tremendous advances made in the health service by doctors, nurses and administrators in the treatment of people from one end of this country to the other.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware, from The Mail on Sunday, that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was persuaded to vote against the new clause IV relationship on the ground that it was only a change of words?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question on a matter for which he has responsibility.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change in words with which the hon. Member for Dundee, East disagreed was typical—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Order."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change in words often disguises a change in meaning?
    The Prime Minister: I do not regard the hon. Member for Dundee, East as the only voice of the Labour party, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct: we are increasingly learning that we get a different Labour policy depending on which Labour Member writes it.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister agree to the request that has been made by Members of Parliament on both

    801
    sides of the House—and now, very strongly, by Sir Richard Scott—that the Scott report be published at 2.30 pm rather than 3.30 pm on Thursday? Members of Parliament will then have an opportunity to study the report before commenting on it.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the way in which the Government, or our predecessors, have conducted business in the House. The proposed arrangements are in line with the usual practice of publishing a report and making it available to hon. Members at the same time. The Government have arranged for there to be a debate, in Government time, 10 days after the publication of the report. Hon. Members will therefore have time to absorb and to understand the report and will be able to speak to it with knowledge rather than with ignorance—which is what Labour Members have done for the past three years. There will be a full and open debate on the report.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has relied on precedent. I suggest that a report containing 1,800 pages and of this complexity is almost without precedent. Ministers having a report for eight days before anyone else is also without precedent. The campaign to discredit the judge who conducted the inquiry—before the report has been published—is also without precedent. Will the Prime Minister reconsider the request? The refusal to allow Members of Parliament this facility, on the day that the report is published, effectively disables them and prevents them from holding the Executive to account and discharging their duty both to Parliament and to the country.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and he knows that. The Government will answer questions about the Scott report on the day that it is published, and we will debate it when all hon. Members have had time to study it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a campaign to discredit the report before it is published. That campaign has come from the the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party. Without a single scruple, time and time again, the Labour party has made it clear what it believes will be the outcome of a report that has only just been concluded. If anyone has prejudged the report, it is not the Government but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.
    Mr. Blair: Does not what the Prime Minister has just said—in a ridiculous attempt to blame Opposition Members—underline why we should have the Scott report early, so that people can comment on it? In the interests of proper parliamentary democracy, will not the Prime Minister reconsider hon. Members' request, especially as it is backed by the inquiry judge?
    The Prime Minister: As for the Government having had the report, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the House will expect my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to be at the Dispatch Box to answer questions, quite properly, put by the House when the report is published. That is why the Government have the report in advance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that
    802
    that has been the position under both Conservative and Labour Governments for as far back as he may care to remember. He is trying to twist public opinion before the report is published, just as his hon. Friends have done for the past three years. The report will soon be published, and Labour Members will have to consider the issue on the basis of fact.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the privatised utilities are such a good investment that, while slagging off British Gas and Yorkshire Water, a group of Labour councils in West Yorkshire—notably Leeds, led by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett)—were investing 170 million of their pensioners' money in those companies? Is that not a classic case of saying one thing and doing another?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the unions on making a successful investment. I live in hope that the day will yet come when the Opposition recognise that, if they talk about the virtues of the market, they ought to support private ownership, not attack it on every conceivable occasion as they have been doing.
    Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for a moment the interests of the House, will the Prime Minister at least consider the interests of his civil servants? How can it be right that Ministers, who can defend themselves in public, have eight days in which to read this 1,800-page report and prepare their defences, while civil servants who are criticised may not get even six hours?
    The Prime Minister: Let me explain what has been agreed, so that I can remove the misunderstanding from the right hon. Gentleman's mind. At present, the report has been made available only to Ministers or civil servants who need to see it in order to help to prepare the Government's response to questions in the House—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen to the answers.
    The Prime Minister: That is the fact of the matter. Other Ministers and former Ministers and civil servants have not had access to the report. That is how the matter has been dealt with; it is an entirely proper way to deal with the report—we have dealt with it entirely properly.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to introduce a parliament in Edinburgh? It would leave Westminster Scottish Members with very little to do, because most of their business would be devolved; so they would become part-time, and should probably be paid part-time. They would also avoid paying the tartan tax, because they would be based in London.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. The advocates of a Scottish Parliament among the Labour party who live in London would not themselves have to pay the extra tax that would be levied on everyone else living in Scotland. I can certainly confirm that we have no plans for such an assembly, or for such a tartan tax, or to allow Scottish Members to vote on matters in Scotland on which English Members cannot vote, and then to permit Scottish Members to come to the House

    803
    and vote on similar matters for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that, were anyone to introduce such plans, that would be the most blatant gerrymandering of the constitution that we have ever seen.

    Royal Docks
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the royal docks. [13334]
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister does visit the royal docks, will he also visit the adjacent Silvertown fire station, whose crews joined their colleagues in Millwall on the Isle of Dogs at the tragic incident on Friday? Does he know that crews at both stations, not to mention the inhabitants of docklands, face the prospect of having the two appliances at each station reduced to one? Does he recall that his name appeared at the top of a successful motion at 10 o'clock last night, calling on local authorities to exercise their freedoms responsibly? If he were charged with denying them those freedoms, because of the policies of the Government towards the public services, what would he say?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we require councils to exercise their freedoms and opportunities responsibly, but there must also be fallback powers for when that does not happen:
    "we believe there must be fall-back powers to enable central government, in extreme circumstances, to protect council tax and business rate payers".
    Mr. Spearing indicated dissent
    The Prime Minister: I was quoting a Labour policy document, so I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it.
    When looking at the royal docks area, the hon. Gentleman might also like to look at the dramatic improvements there: the 5,000 new homes and the
    804
    2 million sq ft of commercial property. The whole area has been revolutionised by policies that we have followed but many of his colleagues have opposed.

    Economic Indicators (Lichfield)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what recent analysis he has made of economic indicators and their effect on Lichfield; and if he will make a statement. [13335]
    The Prime Minister: Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government's policies, which have given this country the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the longest period of low inflation for 50 years. Unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has now fallen by some 40 per cent. from its peak.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lichfield is not only a beautiful cathedral town but a centre for light industry? Is he further aware that people in Lichfield will be heartened by the report in The Times today which showed that the average net take-home pay of production workers in France, Italy and Germany is now less than that in the United Kingdom? Is that not because we have consistently refused to enter into an agreement on the social chapter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under a Labour Government, workers would suffer, because the Labour party's idea of negotiating in Europe is rather like the Trustee Savings bank—it is the party that likes to say yes?
    The Prime Minister: They certainly were very startling figures to set out what net take-home pay will purchase, which was the basis on which they were done. That stands in stark contrast to the claims of a sweatshop economy about which we so often hear from the Labour party. It is no coincidence that those figures were achieved. Business is attracted by flexible working practice and low cost—precisely the benefits that would be wrecked by the social chapter as it is and by the social chapter as it would be if any Government were to sign up to it in this country. This Government will not.

BILL PRESENTED
  COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to establish a democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Wales dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens; to establish fundamental human rights within that Commonwealth; to lower the voting age to 16 years and to make other provision with respect to elections, including equal representation for women; to prescribe a constitutional oath; to establish a Commonwealth Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the House of the People and to make provision for the term of a Parliament and for legislative and other procedure; to establish the office of President, and a Council of State, and to prescribe the powers of each; to provide for the formation of governments; to amend the law relating to official information, the armed forces and the security services; to make fresh provision for the participation of Britain in the United Nations Organisation and the European Communities and European Union; to make the basing of foreign forces in Britain dependent upon the approval of the House of Commons; to make new provision with respect to the judicial system and to establish a National Legal Service; to set up national Parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales; to amend the law relating to local government, the district auditor and the accountability of police forces; to end the constitutional status of the Crown and to make certain consequential provision; to abolish the House of Lords and the Privy Council, to end the recognition in law of personal titles, and to provide for the acknowledgement of service to the community; to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the offence of blasphemy, and to provide for equality under the law for all religions and beliefs; to end British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland; to provide for a Constitution and for constitutional amendment; and to make transitional and related provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  AGRICULTURE
  That the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 1996, No. 27) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

  PRISONS
  That the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 32) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

  Point of Order
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, not on the point about which you so kindly wrote to me this morning, but on the rights of Back-Benchers, which you are always so keen to protect. My question relates to the use of Adjournment debates by hon. Members on the Front Bench.
  I notice from the Order Paper of Thursday 8 February, page 1488, that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) sought to raise with the House the question of the roads programme—a matter for which he has responsibility as shadow spokesman. I see that, subsequently, the debate has been changed and now the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) will raise the question of the 1994 Coventry air crash. Did you encourage an Opposition Front-Bencher perhaps to be more respectful of the rights of Back-Benchers, or was it the Labour Whips, who were worried about the ways in which the debate might expose the bankruptcy of their party's policies?
  Madam Speaker: I would not know what action anyone else took, but I encouraged nobody. Hon. Members have asked before to withdraw Adjournment motions. Indeed, that occurred the other day, with the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Many hon. Members have withdrawn their Adjournment debates, so it is a perfectly usual thing to happen.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that I was a beneficiary of someone removing their Adjournment debate? I benefited from it.
  Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear that.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) withdrew two Adjournment debates in a matter of three weeks. Hon. Members often find that they have other things to do.

  National Parks (Scotland)
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer upon the Secretary of State powers to establish national parks in Scotland.
  National parks were given to the world by a Scotsman, John Muir, yet today Scotland is one of the few nations that still has no national parks.
  In 1945, two committees were set up to look into national parks in the United Kingdom. They produced the Balfour report for England and Wales and the Ramsay report for Scotland. The recommendations of the report for England and Wales were implemented, but those for Scotland were not. The reasons for that difference are not difficult to discern. The mountains, the wilderness and the beautiful areas in Scotland are much more extensive, and there was little pressure on them at that time. The distances from the population were large and visitors to Scottish areas were relatively few.
  In 1952, the Scottish Health Department, which was responsible for such matters, introduced plans for national parks. Again, they fell by the wayside. In 1970, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs asked that plans be brought forward for national parks, but nothing happened. In 1988, a Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), asked the Countryside Commission to introduce plans to manage Scotland's mountain areas. That resulted in the Countryside Commission's 1990 report, entitled "Scottish Mountain Areas". It proposed national parks for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis, Glencoe, the Black Mount and Wester Ross. I think that the proposal should have included Skye, where pressures are increasing, particularly in Sligachan and Glen Brittle. I am undecided, however, about the case for Wester Ross.
  Ben Nevis, Glencoe and the Black Mount is an important area requiring protection. Inappropriate development and bad planning are leading to significant blight and degradation. A national park is essential there.
  There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, however, about the absolute and overriding necessity for national parks at Loch Lomond and in the Cairngorms. The problems of the two areas are different—at Loch Lomond they are of people management and, in the Cairngorms, of land management. It is clear in both areas, however, that the problems cannot be solved other than with an overriding authority that has planning powers—in other words, a national park.
  The Cairngorms are of exceptional nature conservation and scientific importance within Britain and the European Union for a range of bird species associated with mountain plateaux, open moorland and Caledonian pine forest. Breeding birds of prey are particularly important and include hen harrier, golden eagle, osprey, merlin and peregrine. Breeding on the mountain plateau are ptarmigan, dotterel and snow bunting. Specialist pinewood birds include capercaillie, crested tit and Scottish crossbill. The Cairngorm lochs have been designated as a non-bird Ramsar site, and it is a candidate for special protection area and special area of conservation status.
  The position has moved on since the Ramsay report of 1945. As I have said, in those days visitors to the mountain and wilderness areas were few. Even in
  808
  the 1960s, I could climb the north face of Ben Nevis, both in winter and in summer, and rarely see another person. That is no longer the position. With motor cars have come people to enjoy the outdoors in all its glory. I welcome that, but we must deal properly with the realities.
  The plans proposed by the Countryside Commission for Scotland are not those for replicating the system in England and Wales. Such replication would not be appropriate. Scottish areas need Scottish solutions. In Scotland, national parks will be based on an amalgam of local communities and conservationists, who will work together in eliminating conflicts that sometimes arise between the two.
  Parks will be organised into zones. There will be a core mountain zone, which will be protected from any development and used only for recreation. There will be a countryside management zone, where recreation will be developed close to the roadside. There will be a community zone, where visitors will be catered for.
  These useful plans were put out to consultation and gained universal support. Unfortunately, the Government are against them. They fear their landowning supporters in another place and, as a result, no progress has been made in establishing national parks in Scotland.
  The Government recognise that there is a problem, but they do not understand how serious it is. They maintain that areas of wilderness can be managed solely on the voluntary principle. The voluntary principle has failed in the past, however, and has resulted in the desecration of the countryside, such as the punching of roads through Glen Feshie.
  In response to pressure, the Government have set up a joint board for the Cairngorms, working on the voluntary principle. There is no doubt that that is an improvement. There are members on the board who never expected to be on it, and that in itself has been a victory for conservation. The difficulty, however, is that the board has no land management powers. Indeed, that is the main problem in the area. That power is left in the control of landowners, and it is difficult to deal with the problem.
  Loch Lomond is under considerable pressure, where the problem is one of people management. Despite universal support for national parks from everyone, including the landowners in that region, the Government have simply proposed another joint committee. Not even Scottish Natural Heritage wants it. Its response to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party report states:
  "The joint committee … would depend on the voluntary delegation of powers and functions by the local authorities involved. We are concerned that, on present indications, this may not materialise."
  The problems in Loch Lomond are becoming desperate. The road on the east side to Balmaha must often be closed due to traffic volume. Cars are driven down on to the loch side, eroding the bank. With boating restrictions being imposed in the Lake District national park and with the improvement in the M74, more and more traffic and boats are moving to Loch Lomond. Even though the road on the west side—the A82—has not yet been closed, it has functionally come to a halt on a number of occasions, with huge traffic jams extending from Luss to the Balloch roundabout.
  The water is now crowded with speedboats and jetskis zig-zagging across its surface, interfering with fishing and polluting the air. Their engine whines can be heard even high up in Ben Lomond. Surely it is now time to call a halt.

  809
  In both the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond, there are too many authorities and too many agencies. Co-ordination is difficult, if not impossible. It is time to sweep them all away and to replace them with a body with real planning powers. It is time to replace them with a national park.
  3.40 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: This important subject has been debated regularly since the war. I reluctantly cross swords with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), because of his particular interest in the countryside in Scotland, which I share. As we have often said in the House, however, if something works, do not try and fix it. He has underestimated what is happening and has happened over many years in Scotland towards solving the problem that he raises in his Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman overstates the problem, bearing in mind developments in recent years. The theme that has been developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and is being developed now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of partnership. That has been highlighted through the Cairngorms Partnership, the investigation into Loch Lomond, the recommendation of the committee to local authorities and the many people involved in the community.
  We must also bear it in mind that we have a sound planning system in Scotland for our scenic areas of national beauty and that we should not implant a bureaucratic system such as that which exists in many of the national parks in England. At one time, I was responsible for them so I know the difficulties there, as I have known about the issues in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman underestimated what has been achieved in Loch Lomond. I am glad that byelaws are in place to deal with the problems that he raised, especially those relating to speedboats. The quick action taken by the Government in introducing legislation so that byelaws could be used speedily shows what can be done with co-operation. We have something in place for this summer. The regulations and the ranger services should have an important impact on the Loch Lomond problem.
  The partnership system in the Cairngorms, the other extremely sensitive area, is working well and has an important part to play in current issues such as those
  810
  involving Aviemore, the funicular railway and skiing developments. The breadth of experience in the partnership—involving environmentalists, the governing bodies or those involved with economic development—should go a long way towards the right decision being made.
  We must always remember that many people must live and make an economic living in all these sensitive areas, which are not just to be admired. It is therefore important that we let this develop before we consider any further way forward, which is not essential at present.
  In relation to all the developments, we need to consider what is going on in terms of the access concordat, which stems from good work by Scottish Natural Heritage. That organisation resulted from the Government putting together the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and has been a great success. I am glad that the Government have been able to fund it far above the funding for the two organisations before they were amalgamated.
  Moreover, there have been immense developments in agriculture, and help for environmentally sensitive areas in the form of substantial grants and management agreements. There have been improvements in policy relating to forest development, including the community forest and the central Scottish woodland.
  All that shows that the Government are working hard to improve Scotland's environment. We should not throw it away by introducing legislation establishing a whole new system when that has been shown to be unnecessary.
  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. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Brian Wilson, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Elliot Morley, Ms Joan Ruddock and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

  NATIONAL PARKS (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Sam Galbraith accordingly presented a Bill to confer upon the Secretary of State powers to establish national parks in Scotland: 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 59.]
  Opposition Day
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  National Health Service Staff
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.46 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the growing demoralisation of those who work in the National Health Service; recognises that those who work in the NHS are dismayed that they cannot provide the quality of care that they and their patients want and that they feel that, without consultation, changes in the NHS detrimental to patient care are forced upon them; notes that NHS staff are concerned that they are spending more time on paperwork and less time with patients; notes that the number of managers is growing while the number of beds and nurses is cut; deplores the unfairness that saw the pay of chief executives rise by more than twice that of nurses; notes that there are now staff shortages both in hospitals and in the community and there is an increasing reliance on unpaid overtime, locums and agency staff; and calls on the Government to recognise demoralisation in the NHS, affirm that the NHS staff are its most precious resource, affirm that there should be fair pay and proper attention to staff security, end the growing use of short-term contracts, ensure that all NHS staff should be able to speak out about their professional concerns, and that at all levels of the NHS the views of staff should be heard and acted upon.
  I make the usual declaration: all declarable interests appear in the Register of Members' Interests, as required.
  Today's debate is about one of the most important problems facing the national health service today. It is about the demoralisation of doctors, nurses and the rest of the health-care team, the large number of vacancies caused by NHS staff voting with their feet and leaving the service and the damage to patient care. It provides a chance for the Secretary of State to admit that there is a crisis in NHS morale, and to set out the action that he plans to take to tackle it.
  The NHS team—from porters to professors of medicine, from catering assistants to consultant cardiologists—are the most important resource of the NHS, our most precious public service. Yet this Tory Government have systematically trampled on them, and on the service in which they serve. Doctors and nurses see their work as a vocation, not just a job.
  When NHS staff look at the Secretary of State, they do not see a man who recognises or reflects their concerns. He is going in the opposite direction from NHS staff. They want beds to stay open; the Secretary of State closes them. They want more nurses at the patient's bedside; the Secretary of State wants more managers. They want to spend more time caring for patients; the Secretary of State makes them spend more time on paperwork. They want a public sector NHS; the Secretary of State wants commercialisation and privatisation. Doctors and nurses work longer and longer hours to cover vacant posts, as advertisements for staff remain unanswered month after month.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am fascinated. The hon. Lady is telling us, with great authority, what various people in the national health service think. Only a short while ago, she was busy telling us that doctors did
  812
  not want fundholding practices to be introduced. Can she explain why more than half the GPs in the country are now fundholders, and making a success of it?
  Ms Harman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in the wrong debate. I explained at great length why GPs joining fundholding represented not a vote of confidence in fundholding but an attempt to get the best for their patients in an unfair system. He should listen.
  The last straw for NHS staff is the Secretary of State's refusal to recognise the damage that he is doing, as he is in this debate. "Crisis? What crisis?", he says. "Morale? It is fine," he tells us. "Recruitment? No problem." The debate will illustrate two different approaches to NHS staff. On one hand, we see staff as the most vital asset of the NHS and a resource on which to draw. On the other hand, the Government see NHS staff as a nuisance and a cost to be reduced as far as possible.
  Demoralisation affects doctors and nurses throughout the NHS. In hospital and in the community, the evidence is overwhelming. The shortage of doctors in accident and emergency departments has worsened the casualty crisis. I spoke to an A and E consultant in the south-east. Unfortunately, he asked not to be named. Increasingly, that is a problem among NHS staff, who are concerned but not able even to speak out.
  The consultant works in a busy casualty department that treats 60,000 patients a year—from a toddler with a squashed finger to an old lady who has had a heart attack. There are supposed to be two A and E consultants in that hospital; there is only one. The other post has been vacant for 12 months; they have found it impossible to recruit. As a result, the consultant has to work longer and longer hours. He says that he is spread too thinly to be supervising and training junior doctors and that he spends less and less time caring for patients. He works at least 60 hours every week and is able to spend only nine hours seeing patients. Yet caring for patients took him into the NHS.
  I asked the consultant what would happen if he left his post. There was a long pause before he said that there would be a major crisis, the department would probably no longer be recognised for training purposes, they would lose their junior doctors, it would probably be run on locums for a bit and then it would shut. That is what people on the front line feel. It is the same story around the country.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Lady has cited the experience of a particular health service doctor who does not wish to be named. He has no reason to fear being named.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Consultant.
  Mr. Dorrell: Consultant. If on the basis of total confidentiality the hon. Lady wants to send me details of the experience and the hospital to which she has referred, I will have the case examined and reply to her in detail about the background. I will protect the confidentiality of the doctor. The doctor need have no concern. Instead of shadows and innuendo and erecting a theory to which it is impossible to respond, the hon. Lady should allow us to examine the specifics of the case and respond to them.
  Ms Harman: I shall discuss with the doctor to whom I spoke—I have a verbatim account of a discussion that

  813
  I had with him at the end of last week—how his confidentiality can be protected. The Secretary of State says that the doctor has nothing to fear, but people do have something to fear and they are afraid to speak up.
  Mr. Dorrell: Send me the facts.
  Ms Harman: It is no good saying, "Rubbish"; it is a fact that people are afraid. I will make sure that the Secretary of State is satisfied that I am citing a real circumstance. We will get back to the doctor and sort the situation out. They may say, "Rubbish," but staff tell the same story around the country.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The case that my hon. Friend mentions is not unique. We have all heard of similar experiences. I sent details of the case of one woman, whose doctor told her to write to me, to the Secretary of State for Health. She was trundled across the M62 from an intensive care bed where she had been told that she had only a 50:50 chance of survival, brought back a few days later and dared not speak out. I received the most unsatisfactory answer from the Secretary of State. He thought that that was good practice.
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises a very important case. It is a tragedy when those caring for patients are unable to speak out about what they face because they fear not support, sympathy and action from the Government, but retribution and gagging.
  The morale of NHS staff has never been lower. Those who can leave do so. It has become ever more difficult to recruit staff to vacancies; posts are covered by locums and unpaid overtime. Staff are under stress, and their morale falls further—it is a vicious circle. It is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit GPs. According to Dr. Ian Banks of the BMA:
  "The problem of GP recruitment has now reached crisis proportions and is bound to affect the quality of care to patients."
  Nearly one quarter of newly qualified young doctors are considering not entering the profession for which they have trained. Those who have become GPs want to quit. Almost half of Britain's GPs are leaving general practice, and those who stay in general practice want to quit early. Six out of 10 GPs plan to take early retirement because, for them, there is more time spent on paperwork and less time spent with patients. They are unable to keep up with medical developments, and they are angry at the damage to patient care that has been caused by the Tory NHS reforms.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Is the hon. Lady aware that, by April, every GP in Lichfield will be a fundholder? Is she aware that several GPs have told me that, were a Labour Government elected who would abolish GP fundholding, they would wish to quit the NHS?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman fails to address the issue. There is a serious problem of recruiting GPs, and not enough GPs are going into training to enter general practice. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that there is not a problem? The situation is not acceptable.
  814
  The same story applies to nurses. Nurses' morale is at an all-time low. More than one in three nurses have said that they would leave nursing if they could, and one in five say that they will leave nursing in the next two years. They are overworked, but they feel insecure. It is hardly surprising that 78 per cent. of the nurses who were surveyed by Unison felt that morale in their wards had worsened during the past year. It is tragic that 46 per cent. of nurses no longer enjoy going to work, and that 28 per cent. of them regret their decision to go into nursing.
  Those nurses dread the occasion when the next person leaves—the next vacancy that cannot be filled except by unpaid overtime by those who remain. I shall give the Secretary of State an example of somebody who, fortunately, is prepared to be named. A district nurse in south London, Jane Tierney, told me about working in her community last weekend. On Friday, with the increasing pace of discharge from hospital, a patient had been discharged with a feeding tube inserted. They had been in such a hurry to discharge the patient that they had not performed the normal test feed.
  When the patient arrived home, Jane was there to nurse him. She discovered that she could not feed him because a bit of the feeding apparatus was missing. She spent her whole weekend ringing round and trying to get the piece of equipment that was unsatisfactory, because of the patient's early discharge. The patient was desperate: he could not be fed.
  Jane Tierney joined the NHS to care for her patients, not to spend all weekend telephoning the hospital. She even telephoned the manufacturer. She said that she is spending increasingly more time battling with hospitals about discharge—they, too, are under pressure—and battling with social services about who will do what. Social services are under pressure; hospitals are under pressure; and the nurses get squeezed in the middle.
  There is a vacancy on Jane's team which has been empty for 18 months, which is not surprising. She is therefore working increasing amounts of unpaid overtime. Her team is dreading the time when the next person leaves and there is yet another vacancy.
  It is clear to everyone that the Tories value managers more than front-line staff. Last year, chief executives' pay increased at twice the rate of nurses' pay increases. Chief executives' pay rose by 7.6 per cent., while nurses' pay rose by 3.2 per cent. Since 1989, there have been 20,000 more managers recruited, while the number of nurses has been cut by 50,000.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Is the hon. Lady including in her attack on NHS managers those who used to be called ward sisters? Technically, they are probably managers according to her description, yet they are on the front line of health and patient care. The hon. Lady should be careful when using such statistics, because the regrading of staff means that ward sisters may be included as managers although they are in the front line of patient care.
  Ms Harman: The new managers have been recruited to run the internal market. I am not talking about those who manage NHS staff and who have always been there. The Secretary of State says that he will cut bureaucracy, but it is ironic that he is cutting not the sales or finance

  815
  directors—even more of them are being appointed—but the very nurse managers to whom the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred.
  Since 1989, 20,000 more managers have been recruited whereas the number of nurses has fallen by 50,000. That is the Government's record. When the Government can afford to spend an extra £1.5 billion on bureaucracy to run the internal market every year, it is hard to understand why nurses should have to accept a below inflation 2 per cent. pay increase without having lower morale and without more of them voting with their feet and leaving the NHS. It will only make matters worse if the pay award has to be funded by further bed cuts.
  It is not that the Secretary of State has not been told about staff shortages; it is simply that he has refused to listen and is still refusing to do so. The Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee reported last year that 25 per cent.—one quarter—of consultant posts were unfilled and that 12 per cent. of advertised consultant posts received no applications at all.
  Most trusts are struggling to appoint doctors. According to a survey by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, the worst problems are in psychiatry and anaesthetics. A third of trusts are now offering recruitment incentives. Hartlepool hospital was so desperate to get an anaesthetist that it paid for his jeep and Rottweiler to be flown over from the United States.
  As doctors leave the NHS through early retirement, the shortages get worse. Consultants and specialists are being driven out of the NHS by the intolerable pressure put on them by the Tory market in health.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ms Harman: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Chicken.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that the district general hospital in Rotherham has had to spend £250,000 to recruit accident and emergency doctors from South Africa where they are desperately needed? Half their salaries go to a private agency—such is the poor morale and unwillingness among our junior doctors to work in A and E departments.
  Ms Harman: As my hon. Friend says, the staff shortage is leading the NHS to spend huge sums of money. When people leave, their replacements have to be advertised for and then trained. Expensive locums and agency staff have to be used, so the failure to retain staff in the NHS is paid for not only in terms of patient care but in terms of hard-pressed NHS cash.
  Let me cite the example of a consultant who was prepared to allow me to use his name in the debate. I am grateful to him. Dr. Peter Fisher is a consultant at Banbury who has been in the NHS for more than 30 years. He says that he is the only person he knows of his age who is not seeking early retirement. He says that the bed cuts have
  816
  profoundly affected the quality of care that doctors are now able to provide. All over the hospital, patients are shunted around—
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman although I think that I heard him call me a chicken, which is rather an odd description of me. I do not quite know how to describe him.
  Mr. Dunn: I did not call the hon. Lady a chicken; perhaps she should have her ears syringed. Does she remember the debate on health during the week in which she was having a little local difficulty with her party? A member of her staff contacted Dartford and Gravesham health authority to ask how many beds it had cut in the previous six to 12 months. Will she please tell the House the answer that she was given, because it might reveal that the facts that she is using today are highly selective?
  Ms Harman: I have quoted from surveys by nationally accredited organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts and the British Medical Association. I have quoted from every national, independent source possible, so I do not think that the hon. Member's intervention is to the point.
  I was in the middle of talking about Dr. Peter Fisher—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I am certainly not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman who, I understand, called me a chicken.
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Lady referred to my district and I would like to give her the answer.
  Madam Speaker: During the course of speeches, hon. Members refer to many districts. The hon. Lady has said that she will not give way at this stage.
  Ms Harman: I referred to Banbury, if the hon. Gentleman will listen. He is referring to a previous speech and he is two weeks late with his intervention. I know that Tory Back Benchers have difficulty getting their act together, but that is ridiculous.
  Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would be grateful if you would ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that disgusting remark. She would not give way in the last debate or in the one before, when I raised the issue.
  Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood. If I understood correctly, the hon. Lady referred to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr

  817
  Arnold), who tried to intervene. Is that right? [Interruption.] The hon. Lady referred to the hon. Gentleman who was trying to intervene. Is that correct?
  Ms Harman: Yes.
  Madam Speaker: So it was not the hon. Member for Gravesham.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Lady referred to me when she said that the point was a point of debate two weeks ago. However, the point I wished to make was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and, if the hon. Lady allows the hon. Gentleman to intervene, he can make the point.
  Ms Harman: I do not think that I can help the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). They need to discuss with each other what is going on. Neither of them is from Banbury, and the point that I am trying to make is about Banbury hospital.
  Dr. Peter Fisher says that morale is at rock bottom. I shall explain the situation, because the Secretary of State does not talk to doctors who are working in the NHS so he does not know the circumstances. When beds are closed and more and more patients come in, surgical patients are put in medical wards and medical patients are put in surgical wards. The surgical team of nurses, who are experts at dealing with surgical patients, end up missing problems with medical patients, and vice versa. The nurses hate that situation and the doctors hate it. It breaks up the team and it undermines the quality of patient care. Danger signs are not noticed, and the patients suffer.
  Doctors and nurses also hate the misrepresentation that is constantly perpetrated by the Secretary of State. He has done it again. The Minister of State tried to challenge the Sheffield memorandum in questions today. I remind the House that the Sheffield memorandum shows that there is a two-tier waiting list for out-patient prospective waiting times in the Royal Hallamshire hospital, the Nether Edge hospital and the Jessop hospital for women.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is an important point. The hon. Lady said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State misled the House. My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House and of the hon. Lady to a letter written by Mr. Kevan Taylor, the head of contracting for Sheffield health authority. He is a person who presumably knows what is going on in Sheffield, and he says:
  "There are no marked differences in access times for fundholder and non-fundholder patients."
  Those are not the words of my hon. Friend or the words of anyone divorced from the situation. They are the words of the person who is responsible for the quality of care
  818
  delivered to the patients whom the hon. Lady has mentioned. The letter says "no marked differences". That is not what the hon. Lady told the House last week.
  Ms Harman: I told the House last week—I stand by what I said and repeat it to the House today—that the average out-patient prospective waiting times show a two-tier list. The Secretary of State has quoted from a letter in The Independent that is not from the hospitals that are making the appointments and carrying out the operations, but from the purchasing organisation. If he looks at the letter from Kevan Taylor, he will see that it does not contradict the Sheffield bulletin.
  Mr. Dorrell: The service being delivered today to patients does not reflect the difference that the hon. Lady talks about. I shall quote from another passage in the letter, which states:
  "The facts about the current situation are shown in the fully validated waiting time data for December 1995"
  that was five weeks ago, which is fairly recent by most statistical standards. The letter continues:
  "This data shows that at the end of December 85 per cent. of fundholder patients and 83 per cent. of non-fundholder patients had been waiting less than 13 weeks."
  Those are the facts as reported by the people on the ground. They are wildly at variance with what the hon. Lady said to the House of Commons last week.
  Ms Harman: The Secretary of State has once again made the position worse. Only this afternoon, my assistant spoke to the deputy chief executive of the hospitals running the waiting lists. He confirmed that the differentials between the waiting lists that we quoted are absolutely right. It does the Secretary of State no credit when he seeks to conceal the situation instead of finding out about it and sorting it out.
  Mr. MacShane: As Member of Parliament for a constituency in the catchment area, I can assure the Secretary of State that that list is in every doctor's surgery and in most hospital doctors' hands, and is causing outrage and scandal. The Secretary of State would not dare to come to Rotherham or South Yorkshire with the mendacious nonsense that there is not a two-tier waiting list system for fundholding and non-fundholding GPs.
  Ms Harman: Last week, the Secretary of State acknowledged that there was a two-tier waiting list in Sheffield, and tried to defend it. This week, he has changed his position and is trying to deny it. There are two-tier waiting lists—he is not quoting the facts. We are right on this point and he is wrong. He does himself no credit by continuing to deny that.
  Mr. Dorrell: When the hon. Lady can produce an example of one patient from a fundholding practice and another patient from a non-fundholding practice whose waiting times show the differential to which the hon. Lady referred, I shall withdraw my remarks in the House. Until the hon. Lady can produce a specific case where that difference has been established, I shall rest on the

  819
  evidence from the statutory health authority, whose job it is to deliver good-quality care to patients of the Sheffield area.
  Ms Harman: I do not need to produce a patient; I can produce the deputy chief executive who runs the hospital that provides the services. When will the Secretary of State recognise a fact?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend call on the Chairman of the Select Committee, who last week said that, as Chairman of that Committee, she was prepared to look at the list? Will my hon. Friend call on her to have a Select Committee inquiry so that we can establish the facts?
  Ms Harman: When we know that the facts are that there are two-tier waiting lists in the national health service and when the Secretary of State, even when confronted with documentary evidence, cannot admit it, it is indeed time for the Select Committee to look into the matter.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, I asked a few weeks ago whether the ombudsman would be prepared to look at complaints that non-fundholder patients are being put behind fundholder patients on waiting lists. Does my hon. Friend agree that her evidence and that of other hon. Members should be put before the ombudsman so that he can investigate it?
  Ms Harman: The only person who denies the evidence is the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Select Committee investigation and a reference to the ombudsman will clarify the facts that we all know, but which the Secretary of State still tries to deny.
  Mr. Barry Porter rose—
  Mrs. Marion Roe rose—
  Ms Harman: I give way to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Health Select Committee.
  Mrs. Roe: As the hon. Lady knows, the Select Committee has already been considering the purchasing element of—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Look at the list.
  Mrs. Roe: I prefer not to be constantly interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, who never allows anyone to say anything.
  The Committee has considered the purchasing element of the purchaser-provider split and has already produced a report on that. One of my colleagues who serves on the Select Committee is already sitting in the Chamber and will no doubt contribute to the debate later, and we have heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I am sure that members of the Select Committee will take heed of what the hon. Lady says as well as the hon. Gentleman, and in due course they may well wish to take those opinions into account and conduct
  820
  an inquiry, but it is for them to decide. In my Committee, we act democratically and the whole Committee decides, not only the Chairman.
  Ms Harman: I am sure that the House will be grateful for that intervention, and we look forward to hearing the later contribution.
  Mrs. Mahon rose—
  Ms Harman: I give way to my hon. Friend again.
  Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for once again giving way, and for her patience.
  I would welcome an inquiry into the two-tier system that is developing, but when I sent the Secretary of State a letter, of which my hon. Friend has a copy, showing clearly that one cannot have access to clinical psychology services in Calderdale unless one is on the list of a GP fundholder, I received an unsatisfactory answer from the Secretary of State. He has a copy of that letter.
  Ms Harman: I believe that that letter was submitted in the previous debate and, once again, the Secretary of State refuses to acknowledge it. He also refuses to acknowledge the shortage of nurses.
  Two thirds of hospital trusts find it difficult to recruit nurses. Leighton hospital in Crewe has 76 unfilled vacancies. Glasgow Royal infirmary delayed opening its winter medical ward by two months because of a problem in recruiting nurses. One thousand Australian nurses are being recruited by the British Nursing Association. "Golden hellos" of £2,000 each are being offered as incentives for nurse recruitment. King's College hospital in my constituency in south London has sent managers to Ireland, Australia, Finland, Canada and Hong Kong.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
  Ms Harman: It is not only that hospitals cannot fill the vacancies; they cannot even bring agency staff to the patient's bedside, and staff shortages are affecting patient care. The Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham had four intensive care unit beds, two of which stood empty for six months because it was impossible to obtain specialist intensive care nurses. With the two intensive care unit beds always occupied by emergencies, patients waiting for heart surgery had to have their operations cancelled repeatedly.
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State admit to the House that there is a national shortage of nurses and doctors? Will he admit that there is too much reliance on unpaid overtime, locums and agency staff?
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Ms Harman: In parts of London, one in 10 hospital doctors is not part of the team but only temporary. Consultants work 30 per cent. more hours than contracted by the NHS. More than half of all nurses work unpaid overtime to keep the service going.

  821
  What is the Government's response? Where is their action to lift staff morale and to retain staff?
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Ms Harman: Opposition Members recognise the low morale in the NHS and regard it as being of the utmost seriousness. We propose today five steps that the Government might take to start to rebuild the confidence of NHS staff.
  First, the Government should give health professionals a say in planning the NHS.
  Mr. Barry Porter rose—
  Ms Harman: Instead of trampling over their opinions, they should respect their expertise and experience and involve them in planning the future development of the NHS. Trust must be rebuilt—
  Mr. Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be extremely helpful if the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) would confirm whether she intends to give way to any hon. Member at any stage. If riot, I shall not continue to waste my time here.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) knows full well that right hon. and hon. Members must decide whether they wish to give way.
  Ms Harman: I am putting before the House five proposals that I believe would lift the morale of national health service staff and help to stem the tide of staff leaving the NHS which is threatening patient care. I shall not give way to any more Conservative Members today.
  Trust must be rebuilt, because no one trusts a word that the Government say about the NHS. Trust is built on dialogue and dialogue starts with listening. Labour listens to nurses and doctors, but the only doctor that the Secretary of State listens to is a Dr. Mawhinney.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State should act to end the gag on NHS staff. Health professionals should be able to talk about their work in the way that they used to. Doctors, nurses and health professionals are now afraid to speak out and express their views. Labour believes that all health service staff should speak freely about their professional concerns—that is in the public interest. We endorse consultants' freedom to speak out and we wish to see that right respected and extended to all health professionals in the NHS.
  Thirdly, safety at work for NHS employees is becoming a major issue. The Secretary of State should address NHS employees' growing concern about their personal safety at work. It is a problem for GPs, for staff working in the community, those working on their own and going into people's homes, community psychiatric nurses, staff working in accident and emergency departments, and particularly for women staff. The NHS should ensure their safety at work and it should always prosecute assailants when they are identified.
  822
  Any staff member who is injured at work should receive the support of the NHS, but, in reality, staff believe that that support is not there. A London GP, Dr. Anthony Inwald, went to the defence of a colleague who was being threatened by a patient wielding a kitchen knife, and he was stabbed by the patient and seriously wounded. The incident caught the attention of the nation, but it did not attract the attention of the Secretary of State: he was not interested.
  Fourthly, there should be fair pay and conditions in the NHS. Will the Secretary of State agree to ending the short-term contracts that are now spreading throughout the national health service? In some trusts, almost a third of nursing staff are on fixed-term contracts, and one in six nurses are on a bank or an agency contract. That is no way to create a sound basis of teamwork in patient care. Many trusts are going even further, proposing contracts which allow the hospitals to alter work locations, working hours and working patterns. Zero-hours contracts are beginning to appear in the NHS. That must stop.
  On top of that, the Government are diverting scarce NHS resources away from front-line staff who are caring for patients to managers who are running the internal market. We believe that there must be fair pay and conditions. A national service needs national pay—local pay bargaining, as it currently stands, is divisive and wasteful. It leads to hundreds of different pay negotiations across the country and it takes nurses away from the wards. This morning I met a nurse who said, "I joined the NHS to nurse, but I am spending all my time negotiating".
  Fifthly, there should be a moratorium on the bed closures that are causing the casualty crisis and an end to two-tier waiting lists, which are damaging morale in the NHS.
  The test today for the Secretary of State is whether he is prepared to acknowledge that NHS staff morale is at an all-time low. The eyes of 1 million NHS employees are upon him. Will he rise to the challenge and pledge action to tackle the NHS staffing crisis? We have proposed measures to start rebuilding staff morale; we have offered the solutions. Does he have the courage to take that action?
  4.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `pays tribute to the dedication and commitment of the NHS's staff; welcomes the investment in professional development for all NHS staff made by the Government since 1979, in particular the investment in high quality nurse training represented by Project 2000, the development of new nursing specialties, for example, in general practice and paediatric intensive care nursing, the increase in the number of doctors, nurses, midwives and consultants, the reduction in on-call hours for junior hospital doctors, the establishment of an independent Pay Review Body for nurses, the increase of nearly 70 per cent. in nurses' earnings, the establishment of the principle of local pay for nurses which has delivered fair and flexible settlements and the development of high quality NHS general management: commends the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Health of an 8 per cent. real terms cut in administration budgets for health authorities and trusts next year, together with an efficiency scrutiny which will identify and eradicate unnecessary paperwork; and looks forward to the further development of the National Health Service.'
  The title of the debate is: "Morale of National Health Service Staff', and I shall have quite a lot to say about that. However, it was clear from the speech by the

  823
  hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that the substance of the debate is morale in the Labour party. The Opposition are really concerned to give their troops something that they can talk about. They have had some difficulty with that this year, and they have been casting around for an issue that they can approach.
  The Leader of the Opposition went to Singapore to talk about stakeholding, but that did not work. Then he started talking about the tartan tax and the Scottish Parliament, but that did not work either. Now he puts the hon. Lady in to talk about morale in the NHS. On the basis of her speech this afternoon, that does not seem likely to work any better than it did last week, when she tried to secure the support of her right hon. and hon. Friends in rejecting the words of her predecessor as Opposition health spokesman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in a Labour amendment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those are selective quotes.
  Mr. Dorrell: Mr. Enoch Powell once said that a quotation is, by definition, out of context. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find a quotation that is in context.
  Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Peckham? During a recent debate, a member of her staff, presumably paid for by Unison, rang the Dartford and Gravesham health authority to ask how many beds had been cut in the past six to 12 months. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Lady would listen for a moment. This is a debate. The answer that was given to a Mr. Ross, who works for the hon. Lady, was that no beds had been closed in the past six or 12 months, and that 22 extra beds had been provided to take account of the winter influx of patients. The hon. Lady did not use that statistic—why not?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend asks what I think is a rhetorical question, and the answer is that it did not suit the hon. Lady's argument. When I used that as an example of the national health service responding to the increase in the emergency work load by providing extra medical bed space to allow extra medical admissions during the peak of winter demand, the hon. Lady said that I was misleading the House. She is quite wrong about that. It beggars belief that anyone could seriously believe, as the hon. Lady apparently does, that, if a hospital has a short-term peak of emergency work load, it should respond by building a brand new ward block.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: That is silly.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that is silly. Perhaps he should persuade the hon. Lady of that, as she attempted to use that argument.
  The hon. Lady is in some difficulty. She is trying to rebuild morale in her own party. I am setting out to destroy that morale, and there is not much of it left. When
  824
  she tried to advance her arguments a week ago, 32 of her hon. Friends chose not to support her in the Division Lobbies, including the deputy leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish," but he was not there.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was paired.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that he was paired, but the Government majority at the end of the debate rather gives the lie to that proposition.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Lady saying that there should be no short-term appointment of nurses, but that there should be large-scale, permanent recruitment to cover every possible event and shortage in the event of a sudden disease? Surely that would require the most enormous increase in expenditure. I thought that the Labour party was being very careful not to make any public expenditure commitments. Surely the hon. Lady has blown the gaff in that direction as well.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady blows the gaff in that direction most times when she is on her feet. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the good management of a NHS hospital, now as in the past, must ensure not only good employer provision for the majority of the long-term work force in that hospital, but the capacity to respond in a short-term way to short-term needs. If the hon. Lady does not understand that, she has not reached first base on how to deliver good value out of the resources available to the NHS.
  I will deal now with the substance of the arguments that the hon. Member for Peckham put before the House. I begin by reflecting that, given the pressures to which the health service has been subject over the past couple of months with the increase in its emergency work load—there is no argument about that—I might have hoped for an acknowledgement from the lips of the hon. Member for Peckham this afternoon of the debt that every NHS patient owes to health service staff—doctors, nurses, midwives and administrators.
  They have delivered through the winter emergency care at the time that it was needed, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to an extremely high clinical standard. They have done so while at the same time maintaining progress on the elective surgical work load, maintaining the development of primary care and maintaining the development of mental health services.
  This winter, the NHS has been working under strain, and I had hoped that the hon. Member for Peckham might have seen fit to recognise the skill, dedication and commitment of NHS staff in a debate of this nature. However, the hon. Lady did not. I simply observe that she did not, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, I suspect, most Opposition Members—join me in reflecting that debt in the House this afternoon.
  Mrs. Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at Halifax general hospital, men were put on the

  825
  gynaecological ward because of the shortage of beds? How does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that things will carry on after Northowram hospital is closed and another 300 beds are lost in the next couple of years?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have already acknowledged that the health service has been working under unprecedented pressure this winter, in responding to the emergency work load.
  Mr. McLeish: What about the bed cuts?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks about bed cuts, but the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked whether it was ideal for a man to be treated on an obstetrics and gynaecology ward. The answer is no, that is not ideal—but if I were a man in need of emergency medical care, I would prefer to be in one of those beds than in no bed at all. That response is one that the health service has always provided—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no use asking the Secretary of State questions if he is not allowed to answer. I am having great difficulty hearing the right hon. Gentleman, so I am sure that the rest of the House is having the same difficulty.
  Mr. Dorrell: I hoped also that the hon. Member for Peckham might have recognised some of the progress that we have made over the past few years with a number of key issues that must be addressed if the NHS is to be a good employer.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I should like first to make some progress.
  The hon. Member for Peckham talked a lot about nurses. One key improvement over the past few years has been the dramatic rise in the quality and record of training NHS nurses.
  Mr. John Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I want to make more progress; then I will give way.
  I remind the House of the starting point on nurse training. The Judge report in 1985 recorded the position that prevailed then in NHS nurse training, and which had prevailed for some time. In 1983–84, 25,000 students of nursing were admitted to training. The report commented:
  "The best available evidence suggests that 15–20% will not even complete the course, and of those that survive some 30% may fail the qualifying examination at their first attempt. Of those who do eventually qualify, many are disillusioned with the preparation they have received, enjoy only a minimal engagement in clinical practice, change jobs with disconcerting regularity, find themselves caught in a machine".
  That was the assessment of the position prior to the Government's introduction of Project 2000 in 1990, which led to an improvement in nurse training. In those days, 30 to 35 per cent. of those who commenced nursing training did not continue in nursing practice. Today, the fall-out rate is 20 per cent. Since 1990, the Government
  826
  have cut the fall-out rate by almost half as a result of the improved training and employment terms available to nurses. In a debate such as this, the hon. Lady might have mentioned this fact. The national health service is investing in its most precious asset: the professional staff who deliver the health care for which the Government are responsible.
  Mr. Gunnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the number of people who undertake nursing training has decreased dramatically? For example, between 1992 and 1995, it decreased from 21,000 to 13,000.
  Mr. Dorrell: The figure for next year's commissions is 17,000. The Government have improved nurse training, resulting in a decrease in the fall-out rate of 35 per cent. to 20 per cent. We may therefore need to take in fewer nurses at the beginning of the training. That was the purpose of the improvement, as recommended in the Judge report. The Government accepted that recommendation in the context of Project 2000, to ensure that the professional staff of the NHS receive the high-quality training needed if we are to deliver high-quality health care.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a hostile reporter from a local newspaper contacted senior nurses at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield? A senior nurse said that, because of the health care reforms, for the first time she is able fully to use the valuable training that she has received. She said that this is because money is following the patient, because of general practitioner fundholding and because of greater integration between GPs and the hospital. She is now able to be a real nurse, whereas she said that, in the 1970s, all she could do was think where to send the next day's sheets to be laundered.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has put his finger precisely on the point: nurses receive a better quality of training as a result of the changes that the Government have introduced in the health service. The Government have invested an extra £60 million to improve the quality of nurse training. Professional development for nurses allows a more rewarding practice and a better use of those higher-quality skills that we pay to provide through the training programme. The national health service is investing in the training of its nurses.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not question the improvements in the training and qualifications of nurses. However, there are still severe shortages of staff, and senior nurses report that they regularly cannot recruit or retain staff. Recently, a senior nurse at Guy's told me that Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS trust is down by 40 intensive care nurses. What do the Government propose to meet the severe current shortfall in qualified nurses, which is not being met from agency and overseas sources?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of points. What has happened with respect to intensive care nurses employed in the national health service during the last five years? In 1989, there were 32,500 intensive care nurses, whereas this year there are 40,500—an increase of 24 per cent. The Government will continue to ensure that we have a nursing work force that is able to meet the intensive care needs of the health service.

  827
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the shortage of nurses in the health service. In the past week, independent advice has been published on this issue. The review body examined precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. Its report stated:
  "We have carefully weighed all the evidence presented to us and we are not persuaded that there is a general nationwide shortage of nursing staff at the moment."
  There are clearly local difficulties and problems with particular specialties, and we believe that local pay may be part of the solution to these problems."
  So the review body examined the hon. Gentleman's point and recognised, as the Government have by accepting the report, that there are some local shortages. Furthermore, the review body recommended a way of dealing with them which the Government have accepted. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I know what the review body recommended, but the Secretary of State must accept the consequences. If the Government have stipulated that there should be a 2 per cent. national increase, and that additional increases should be funded by local hospital trusts, depending on the circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is enough money in the kitty for the trust to be able to pay for the increases that it will need to adopt in order to recruit all the nurses it needs?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has asked another question that the review body has already examined: whether there are enough resources to provide for a decent deal for nurses. Once again, I quote the review body's report:
  "The allocation of resources to the NHS for 1996–97 means that most providers should be able to reward staff for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness while delivering increased volume and quality of care to patients. This `win-win' outcome can, however, be achieved only if purchasers and providers work constructively together."
  I agree. I want local staff groups and local managers to address the issues of each health provider locally—precisely to meet the concerns that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has expressed.
  Pay is clearly at the heart of much of the issue that the hon. Member for Peckham raised this afternoon. The key thing about pay—nurses understand it, but the hon. Lady did not refer to it at all—is the fact that average earnings of nurses have increased by £125 a week in today's values compared with the figures that we inherited in 1979.
  Nurses should look at what the Government have done for them over the past 16 years, and in the shorter period since 1990—since when they have enjoyed a 10 per cent. real-terms increase. As for the future, nurses must also bear in mind the improved living standards with which the Government have provided them; and they should recognise that no nurse in the NHS has yet received a pay offer for next year. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the review body. Furthermore, the Government are working within the terms of the agreement that we signed with the nursing unions four months ago. Both arrangements provide for local pay in a national context.
  828
  This is not, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, a low-pay agenda. The proposition that local pay equals low pay was examined by the review body and explicitly rejected:
  "The experience of other industries, and our reading of the limited evidence so far available about Trust contracts, suggest that local terms and conditions as a whole are unlikely to be less favourable than those embodied in national agreements, and may in some respects be more favourable. Local pay can be expected to lead to new pay structures and working arrangements but we do not see it as a low pay' agenda".
  That is also the position of the Government.
  The hon. Member for Peckham said that she was hostile to local pay and local flexibility. She is going to have real difficulty squaring that with the first proposition in her five-point plan for the Government—the idea that we should listen to health professionals and allow them a say. It defeats me how we can allow them a say at local level and insist at the same time on national structures—contrary to our agreements with the nursing unions and with the review body. I will happily give way to the hon. Lady if she can enlighten me.
  Ms Harman: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that chief executives should get twice the pay increase of nurses?
  Mr. Dorrell: I gave way to the hon. Lady to allow her to reconcile the two propositions—that we should listen to local staff groups, and that we should have national pay determination. How can she reconcile that with her five-point plan—or with the words of the leader of her party? Speaking about the British political system only last week, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
  "In part … the disaffection is because people feel no ownership, no stake"—;
  that wonderful word—
  "in much of the political process. The citizen feels remote from power, because he or she is remote from power. Britain is THE most centralised government of any large state in the western world."
  This afternoon, the hon. Member for Peckham has come here to argue for further centralisation: a national formula for dealing with nurses' pay that would prevent health service employers from listening to local staff groups and bring more power to the centre. In short, this would prevent local solutions being found for local problems. It is impossible for the hon. Lady to reconcile her support for centralising national bargaining with her speech today or with the words of her leader in his much-trumpeted constitutional lecture of last week.
  As for managers' pay, the answer is straightforward. As the hon. Lady well knows, I have imposed an 8 per cent. real-terms cut on the budget out of which chief executives' and administrators' pay in the health service comes. I have provided growth money, on the other hand, for the payment of doctors and nurses. As the review body found, that will provide for a proper balance of growing demand and growing service provision, as well as fair terms for nurses and all other clinical staff in the health service.
  Ms Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one simple question? Does he think it fair that chief executives last year had double the percentage pay increases the nurses had?
  Mr. Dorrell: First, they did not; secondly, I have clearly set out the arrangements under which the budgets

  829
  for these different parts of the health service will work in the next 12 months. The budget out of which administrators are paid is being cut, the budget from which nurses and doctors are paid is growing.
  Nurses are not the only people to benefit from this dramatic improvement in the investment in human resources available to the health service. Exactly the same is true of the doctors. It will be within the memory of everyone in this House that, until a very short time ago, the NHS used to rely on absurdly long hours being worked by junior medical staff. That is why the Government, at the beginning of the decade, introduced a new deal for junior doctors. It is worth reminding the House of the progress that we have made in improving the terms of junior doctors in the NHS.
  There used to be 13,000 posts in the NHS in which doctors were on call for an average of more than 83 hours a week. Now there are no such posts. There used to be 14,000 hard-pressed posts in which doctors were on call for more than 72 hours a week. Now there are virtually none—295, to be precise. By the end of this year, we are on course to have eliminated every junior doctor post with an on-call requirement of more than an average 72 hours a week. [Interruption.]
  Opposition Members may find this funny, but no junior doctor does. Neither does any junior doctor find it remotely funny to have had £65 million in extra resources provided to ensure that the work load placed on junior doctors in training is kept within reasonable bounds. Nor do they think that it is funny that we have created an extra 2,500 medical posts—consultants and juniors—to ensure that the workload is more fairly spread around the medical work force of the health service. Nor do they think that it is funny that the number of consultants has grown over the past five years—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: Not at the moment, because the hon. Member for Peckham seems to think that it is funny that we have cut the excessive workload of junior doctors throughout the health service. The hon. Lady says that we have not. She will not find many doctors who do not agree with the proposition that we have cut the unreasonable, excessive workload for junior doctors, and, furthermore, that we have increased the consultant work force in the NHS by 14 per cent. over the past five years.
  The Government are committed not just to good training for nurses, which I have described, but to high-quality training for doctors, to a reasonable workload for doctors and to investment in the continuing education to ensure that doctors, nurses—all the professional staff of the health service—keep their skills up to date to ensure that medical and other professional practice continues to develop within the NHS. That is the most important single investment that the NHS can make.
  More important than all the buildings and expensive kit, we must ensure that the health service has the best quality human skills that we can muster to deliver health care to our patients. The professional staff of the health
  830
  service will have noted that Opposition Front-Benchers, who bring the subject of NHS morale to the House, find it a subject for private entertainment.
  Mr. Campbell: What would the Secretary of State say to a gynaecologist who wrote to me in these terms:
  "Having observed the midwives on the ward on several occasions, I am struck by the fact on many occasions they are tired, exhausted, confused, scurrying around trying to maintain basic standards."?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman quotes from a letter that I have not seen. I have made it absolutely clear that I regard the training of doctors, nurses and all the professional staff in the health service a high priority. That is why I provided extra money in last year's pay settlement to ensure that the health service invests in its people, and then, having trained them, that it is a good employer and gives them fair terms.
  Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend been able to find out from Opposition Members, who consider that things are so bad—indeed, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) obviously feels that if more money were spent, all of the tiredness would go—how much more money per annum the Labour party would put in to avoid these situations?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. As she knows, it is a rhetorical question. The answer is no. They have made no commitment. They have not even matched the commitment that the Government give: that year by year there will be real-terms growth in the extra resources for the health service. Opposition Members are remaining very mum now. They have not been to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to get that cleared, have they?
  I shall give way to the hon. Member for Peckham if she will tell the health service how much extra money a Labour Government would promise.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I doubt whether he is in a position to speak with authority on this subject.
  I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady if she is prepared to tell the House and the nation how much extra money a Labour Government would promise.
  Her silence speaks volumes. She is not even prepared—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Workington may have ambitions, but I am afraid that I have to remove the delusion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: The Secretary of State is not giving way. The House must settle down.
  Mr. Dorrell: I have talked about training and investment in the human skills of the health service. We

  831
  have done something else for the professionals who work in the health service: we have given every professional working in the health service the opportunity and the support that is necessary to deliver an improving quality of care.
  Last week, we debated fundholding. That has given GPs throughout the country the opportunity to improve the care that is available to their patients. It has strengthened the voice of primary health care in the health service and has provided a broader range of provision to patients in the surgeries.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, we spent a long time on fundholding last week.
  We announced yesterday the best results seen on waiting times in the health service within living memory. We announced that just under 21,000 patients had been on a waiting list for more than a year. Throughout the 1980s—this is not a political point, as the figure was inherited from the 1970s as well—the number of people who were on a waiting list for more than a year was plus or minus 200,000 for more than a decade. That figure is now down to 21,000. That figure was referred to as sleight of hand. It is no such thing. We have cut the waiting time for patients on in-patient waiting lists, so that nobody waits for more than 18 months. A few years ago, 80,000 people had been waiting for more than two years. Now, nobody waits for more than 18 months. The number of patients waiting for more than 12 months is down to 21,000. The average waiting time on an NHS waiting list has been cut from nine months to four months. That is real progress, and patients who are on waiting lists, or feel that they may be on one for elective surgery in the health service, understand that very well. It represents a dramatic improvement in the quality of the elective surgery service that is provided by the NHS.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on waiting lists, because I hope that he will tell us which one he is referring to. Is it the waiting list to get on the waiting list, or is it the proper waiting list? As far as patients are concerned, when they have been to see their GP, they are on a waiting list, but the Government, through their people in the health authorities, have created two waiting lists: first, they put the patient on a waiting list for an appointment to see a consultant—a list that they could be on for 12 months before they are even seen—and secondly, when they get to him, they are put on a waiting list for 18 months. That makes two and a half years, not 18 months.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Opposition Members claim to be supporters of the NHS, but when there is a clear improvement in the quality of service available to NHS patients, one might have hoped that Opposition Members would welcome it. It is simply untrue to say that patients on waiting lists do not wait a shorter time than a few years ago. In-patients are waiting a shorter time for admission, and [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will contain himself in silence for a moment, I shall tell him
  832
  the answer. He referred to outpatient waiting times for patients who are waiting, after referral by their GP, to be seen by a consultant in an outpatient appointment. The health service has never monitored that before. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true." I was a Health Minister between 1990–92. I regularly asked: how long do people wait between referral and their first outpatient appointment? I was told, "We do not know, because the information is not collected." It was the Conservative Government who recognised that that needed to be controlled and limited. It was the Conservative Government who introduced the patients charter standard that said that 90 per cent. of patients should be seen at their first outpatient appointment after referral within 13 weeks, and all of them within 26 weeks. The Government are delivering the progress that the hon. Gentleman asks for and does not recognise when he sees it.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the success in waiting lists about which we should be proud but the fact that since 1991 more than 1 million people have been treated in the NHS—that is an extra 3,500 a day—and that it is not just the money that is invested in bricks and mortar that is important but the money that is invested in patient care? It is the patients whom we want to see served.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. Waiting times are an important measure, but there are many others. My hon. Friend quoted one. Let me quote some others. We delivered the first breast screening programme in the European Union for the health service. I thought that the Opposition would have celebrated that. In Harefield hospital, just outside London, we have the world's largest centre for heart and lung transplants. Such transplants were unheard of 30 years ago. The world's first heart transplant took place in 1969. We all know that it is now routine business in hospitals throughout the health service. More transplants take place at Harefield hospital than at any other hospital on earth.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: They are carried out by NHS staff.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is excited. I have been arguing throughout that it is the professional staff of the health service who deliver health care. Like the hon. Gentleman, I count myself a supporter of the NHS. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, I celebrate its successes.
  Surely the NHS is something of which every citizen should be proud. Similarly, we should be proud that Harefield hospital is a great success story within the NHS. We should be proud also that the NHS is delivering improved patient care for people with strokes, asthma and diabetes, for example. Surely we should be proud that the NHS is improving the care that is available for cancer patients. We should take pride in the fact that it is now a routine operation in the health service to have joint replacement, to have keyhole surgery or to have modern lithotripsy.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right when he asserts that it is not politicians or managers who deliver these services. The answer lies in the development of modern medicine. The hon. Gentleman

  833
  might serve his cause rather better, however, if he recognised that, throughout the health service, we are seeing the developments to which I have referred.
  Patients are being given care that was undreamed of 20 years ago. Health care is improving. That is why the answer to the first oral question this afternoon was to the effect that the people of the United Kingdom are living longer. That is because we have the best NHS we have ever had. Of course it is not perfect. An organisation that employs 1 million people will, of course, occasionally make a mistake. The central fact, however, is that NHS patients living in this country receive care that is better than it has ever been, and it is improving year by year.
  The attempts by the Opposition to paint the NHS as a system—[Interruption.] The British people believe me. It seems that it is only some Opposition Members who do not. When NHS patients are questioned, 90 per cent. of them recognise that we are delivering through the NHS a good health service. Hon. Members—[Horn. MEMBERS: "They don't believe you."] Opposition Members are precisely wrong when they say that. National health service patients know very well that service is improving year by year. They do not believe the Opposition's claims that, if they were in government, they would somehow do better. They are right not to believe those claims. They know that they should not believe them.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I shall not give way again. I have nearly finished.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister seems to be avoiding me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Dorrell: The NHS is a service with ambitions. The staff want to see it develop. They want to see the Government continue to support it. It is clear—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is wrong—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State made it clear—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way. The hon. Member should remain in his place.
  Mr. Dorrell: The people who work in the health service have learnt that the Labour party shows only a dilettanti interest in the NHS. They have seen through the hon. Member for Peckham. That is why the debate will
  834
  fail in its central purpose, which is to motivate Labour Back-Bench Members. The hon. Lady has failed to do that. The only result of the debate is to lay bare once again—I welcome the chance to do it on a weekly basis, and we shall be doing it week after week, because we are looking forward to each debate—before the House and the country the emptiness or the vacuum that is at the heart of the modern Labour party.
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has promised us a debate every week on the national health service. Should the right hon. Gentleman declare an interest? I understand that he does not use the NHS, and has private medical insurance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Secretary of State talked about there being a debate on the health service week after week. This is the third occasion in the past couple of weeks when the gist of the debate has been that Opposition Members say that the public are not happy with the way in which the Government are managing the health service, but the Secretary of State, at some length, and supported by his right hon. and hon. Friends, says that the public are happy with the Government's management.
  The Secretary of State is in the fortunate position of being able to resolve the problem, so that we do not have to continue to debate the subject week after week. He can suggest to the Prime Minister that, as soon as possible, we should have a general election so that the public can decide whether they are confident about the Government's running of the NHS.
  I suspect that one of the many reasons why the Government would like a debate on the NHS week after week is that, as long as such debates take place, we do not have to throw the matter open for the public to decide. The Government know what the public will decide on what for the Government will be the grim day when they face the electorate. They know that many of the Conservative Members who have spoken this afternoon and in previous debates on the NHS will not be with us much longer.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Did my hon. Friend note the small print that appeared last week in The Daily Telegraph opinion poll, which revealed that the Tories appear to have come within 30 percentage points of the Labour party? On reading the small print, it was apparent that as many as three out of four people were terrified of another Tory Government because of what another Tory Administration might do to the national health service.
  Mr. Grocott: I do not normally turn to The Daily Telegraph for evidence to produce in arguments, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement.
  The Government have an ideal opportunity to test public opinion—they can quickly move the writ for a by-election in the constituency of South-East Staffordshire. Perhaps the Secretary of State could persuade the Prime Minister to do that.

  835
  I shall be brief and refer only to a specific constituency issue that involves morale in the national health service. I am to meet the Secretary of State's ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Baroness Cumberlege, with the members of a delegation from my constituency and the surrounding area. I am grateful for the opportunity.
  We are to meet the Minister tomorrow afternoon, following a vote of no confidence—49 general practitioners and 26 consultants in and around my constituency were involved—in the management of the health service by the Shropshire health authority. I think that Ministers will acknowledge that that is a serious matter. I shall spend three or four minutes explaining how the situation arose and a couple of minutes suggesting how the issue might be resolved.
  The background to the vote of no confidence was the way in which the health authority has been making decisions. That decision-making process was highlighted during the consultative period last year when the health authority published a document entitled "Shaping Shropshire's Health". The background is straightforward: the growth of Telford new town, which I have the honour to represent. It can be acknowledged that the appearance of a new town will produce changes in an area's population structure.
  The population of my constituency is growing rapidly. A hospital was built to serve the new town. Unfortunately, the balance of hospital services between the county town of Shrewsbury and the new town of Telford is out of kilter, given the way in which the population has changed. It is the resolution of that problem that goes to the heart of the vote of no confidence.
  The focus of the debate is on a consultant maternity service. We in the Wrekin and surrounding areas believe strongly—this view is not confined to my constituency—that the case for our having our own consultant maternity unit is overwhelming. Last year, the health authority partly recognised that fact by publishing the "Maternity Care in Shropshire" document, which suggested three possible solutions. One was to retain the consultant maternity unit in Shrewsbury. The second was to close the Shrewsbury unit and open one at the Princess Royal hospital in Telford in my constituency.
  The third, which I strongly favour, was to recognise the changing population balance and to split the consultant maternity unit between the two hospitals, both of which cover populations large enough to justify a unit of their own. Overwhelming arguments exist for doing that and they involve medical issues, which is one of the reasons why general practitioners and consultants signed the motion.
  In brief, those arguments are that women in the east of the county, including my constituency, are more likely to be admitted for consultant hospital care than are women in the west. The east has a younger population, which means, obviously, that more babies will be born there—all the population trends show that. More than twice as many babies of low birth weight are born to Wrekin mothers as to mothers in any other part of the country. Strong medical support exists, therefore, for a two-unit consultancy service.
  There is overwhelming public opinion in favour of two units. Last year, there were petitions signed by 27,000 people who wanted the health authority to provide them with a consultant maternity unit. Significantly, we were
  836
  supported by the community health council which, as all hon. Members know, has responsibility for considering health service provision across the region.
  The community health council's comments about the need for our own consultant unit included this evidence:
  "Women booked to deliver at the Consultant unit"—
  in Shrewsbury—
  "have graphically described the problems they experience travelling there in labour, particularly if they have to rely on others for transport. They have referred to the physical discomfort, the stress and fear of being out of contact with a hospital and the acceleration or cessation of labour en route."
  The council added:
  "There was a strong desire for continuity of care and carer during pregnancy and childbirth and it was felt this was only likely to be achieved if Telford had its own unit."
  The population argument is easy to describe, and it is compelling. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, would refer to it. It has been said repeatedly that 2,500 births a year are more than enough to justify a consultant maternity unit. It is projected that, in the county of Shropshire, by 2011, there will be more than 5,000 births. In fact, the projected figure is 5,358—heaven knows how anyone can be as precise as that. The number is, however, more than enough to justify two consultant units.
  On grounds of clinical matters, public opinion and population, there is an overwhelming case for our own consultant maternity unit, but—this is where the immediate problem arose—in its meeting on 16 November, the health authority basically said no to all those representations. Over the years, I have been involved in numerous campaigns. I have never known a campaign with as much public support as this one. I have been involved in many campaigns where people are opposed to something. We all know that is easier to mount a campaign in opposition to something than in support of something, but the campaign to have our own consultant maternity unit has had a level of public support like nothing I have seen.
  When the health authority said no, and that there should be no change and no recognition of the changing population in the county, it was little surprise to me that doctors decided to publish, in the Shropshire Star on 2 January, the following resolution, again with all-party support—it was signed by leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties and by 49 GPs and 26 consultants.
  "We the undersigned are seriously concerned by recent decisions regarding the strategy for hospital services in Shropshire and no longer have confidence in the ability of the Shropshire Health Authority to plan future health care for the people of East Shropshire."
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise that that is a serious state of affairs. When we meet the Under-Secretary of State tomorrow, I hope that she will respond to our modest request that, following the clinical evidence and public opinion in the region, she will ask the health authority to reconsider.
  When the hospital was built in Telford, again as a result of all-party support and a campaign over many years, to meet the growing needs of a new town, it was never planned to be a static hospital. It is on a good site and there is room for expansion. It was always assumed that, as the population grew, services would grow to meet population need.

  837
  The consultant maternity unit issue has focused public opinion in a way that hardly any other service could have done. I simply appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise that, in Shropshire, there is a morale problem, which is clearly spelt out in the resolution, and to take seriously the overwhelming representations that have been made to him.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It will not have escaped hon. Members' attention that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) could not put any figure on the amount of money that a future Labour Government might spend on the health service. I had had hopes that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who, I believe, is parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, might have been able to shed a bit more light on that subject, but those hopes were quickly dashed.
  Perhaps I should not be too harsh on the Labour party. It makes a pleasant change for an Opposition-initiated debate about health matters not to be dominated by talk about money, as the health service is about much more than just that. It is indeed about a high level of morale. Before the hon. Member for Peckham leaves, I thank her for what she has done to boost morale among Conservative Members recently. The right decision that she took for her son was not the right decision for morale on the Labour Benches.
  Most of the motion that we are being invited to endorse is simply fatuous nonsense, but we can agree on one thing: the high importance that we all attach to nursing staff in the national health service. We all agree that it is important that the House should affirm that
  "the NHS staff are its most precious resource".
  That unites all hon. Members.
  We also agree—if I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health correctly, he agrees, too—that the views of staff in the NHS should be heard clearly. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I sometimes find that a tricky exercise. Different branches of NHS staff do not always agree about the priorities for health delivery locally. Hospitals, doctors, general practitioners, nurses and ancillary workers often disagree about the priorities that should be attached to various issues in the local health service. They all make an invaluable contribution, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be expected to speak with one voice. Naturally, they have their own priorities.
  The question that the motion begs is what makes for high morale in the NHS. Obviously pay is a factor—it would be wrong to deny that—but a host of other intangible and tangible issues affect morale. They include job satisfaction, good working conditions—by which I mean a hospital's physical environment—a sense of direction and purpose in the health service as a whole and in the trust for which staff work, and patients' manifest gratitude to staff for their help in making them fit and well again and able to go about their daily lives.
  If there is one thing that destroys morale in the health service, it is the Labour party's constant denigration of what is being achieved. If there is one thing that I find especially shabby about the way in which the Opposition
  838
  behave on this issue, it is their malicious attempt to weaken morale in the health service for narrow party advantage.
  It is important to state clearly that the health service's achievements in recent years under this Government have been built firmly on extra money and on ensuring that that money is spent well. It must be repeated time and again that spending on the NHS in England is up sharply: by 70 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Moreover, health service spending represents a larger share of national income. When we took office in 1979, the Labour party was spending just 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on health; now, we are spending some 6 per cent. That is a sharply increased share of an increased national income.
  It is obviously important to discuss pay, as it has a significant impact on morale. No active constituency Member of Parliament could fail to be aware of the public concern about nurses' pay; probably no group in society is more admired than nurses, and rightly so. That is precisely why their pay has risen by so much—by some 70 per cent. over and above inflation under the present Government. I am told that an experienced ward sister now earns about £22,000 per year.
  I do not take kindly to lectures from the Labour party about nurses' pay. It was Labour that cut their pay, in real terms, when it last had any responsibility for health. It was the Conservatives' respect for nurses that led us to establish the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body in, I believe, 1983. It is essential for that body's findings always to be respected. Sometimes they will please the nurses and alarm the Treasury; on other occasions, they may please the Treasury and upset the nurses. That is the nature of independent bodies.
  I issue not a warning but a judgment when I say that I do not think that nurses can seriously expect to retain an independent body to review their pay if they are prepared to accept the outcome only when it suits them. I hope that the Government will continue to accept the pay review body's recommendations in full, as they have in the past. We should also remember that—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out—no nurse has yet received a pay award. Personally, I hope that the awards will be well above the 2 per cent. minimum established by the pay review body: I want nurses' pay to continue to grow in real terms. We should also remember that many individual nurses will in any event receive considerably more than 2 per cent., plus the locally agreed settlement, because many receive annual salary increments.
  I should say, in fairness—I try to be a fair man—that there are signs of a few recruitment difficulties in certain specialties in my constituency, but I suspect that pay is not the root cause. I suspect that the problems are also caused by something of which my right hon. Friend has considerable personal experience—continuing concern about delay in the building of our new district general hospital.
  The independence of the pay review body shines through every page of its report. It is important for people outside to understand that: the Government have accepted independent advice. The report states:
  "Pay increases for nursing staff in 1995–96 have compared favourably with awards in the public sector and been broadly in line with those in the private sector, despite problems associated with the introduction of a measure of local pay determination … We further recommend that individual Trusts should engage in

  839
  negotiation with their staff representatives for local pay increases in 1996–97. We note that the Government is providing 3.9 per cent. additional resources to the HCHS"—
  the hospital and community health services—
  "in England in 1996–97. We have no reason to think that Scotland and Wales will be worse off. We believe that these resources should enable all Trusts to offer reasonable local pay increases to their staff, in addition to our recommended increase in national salary scales."
  The body is at pains to point out some of the problems as well:
  "The Review Body is not a negotiating partner and we have not sought to determine conditions of employment. However we would be remiss if we did not point out that in our view local pay arrangements can only contribute to increasing efficiency and job satisfaction if all aspects of work organisation are considered."
  I hope that trusts will consider that recommendation carefully.
  The review body says a great deal about its own independence. It says, for example:
  "The Review Body has in our view always to work within the broad framework for the NHS established by Government policies: this would apply to any Government and any policy framework. This does not affect the Review Body's independence, which means that we come to our own judgement on the issues we are required to consider. We accepted in our last report that local pay determination was an inherent part of the Government's NHS reforms. In particular we felt that Trusts and staff representatives should be able to use local pay bargaining to achieve greater flexibility and efficiency in delivering health services, for example, by responding to the local labour market, or by improving the quality and quantity of patient care."
  That is what drives the review body, and I think that it is absolutely right. What the body says gives the lie to the line peddled by the hon. Member for Peckham, that a national health service is all about national pay scales. It manifestly is not: a national health service is not a national employment service. Addressing local issues means achieving equality of care. That is the real need of the health service. The pay review body's report makes it clear that achieving that equality can be assisted by an element of local pay bargaining. For me, that is what a national health service is all about.
  I said that morale in the health service was not just a question of pay. Working in a successful organisation matters to everyone, whatever field they are in. It is certainly true that the NHS has been a spectacular success: the Labour party tries to conceal that, but, I hope, consistently fails to do so.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: No, I do not think I will. I observed the way in which the hon. Gentleman treated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I have no particular desire to give him any currency.
  This year, hospitals will carry out 3 million more treatments than in 1979 and 1 million more than in 1991, when reforms were introduced. That is reflected in shorter waiting times. Over the past five years—my right hon. Friend made this point, but it bears repetition—the number of patients waiting for more than a year has fallen from more than 200,000 to about 31,600, the lowest figure since 1948. Over the past six years, the average wait for treatment has halved.
  In Worcester, the success has been particularly spectacular, as my right hon. Friend saw for himself on Christmas eve when we toured Worcester Royal infirmary
  840
  together. I hope that he agrees that what we saw suggested that nurse-patient relations at the infirmary were of the highest order, as they have always been. I also hope that he agrees that, during our walk around the wards, there was an atmosphere of professional dedication and high-quality patient care. That suggests to me that morale in my hospital trust is reasonably high. Perhaps in areas that we did not see it is not quite so high, but certainly it is generally good, as it has every reason to be.
  Worcester Royal infirmary treated 2,851 more patients in 1994–95, and is on course to treat a surprisingly precise 3,444 in the current financial year. That represents increases in activity of 7.9 per cent. and 7 per cent. in two successive years. Further increases are planned for the coming year. Maximum waiting times have fallen sharply in my constituency. In 1993–94, the trust reduced them from two years to one; in 1994–95, they were reduced from 12 months to nine; this year, the trust is on target for a reduction from nine months to six. That is a phenomenal achievement by any standards, but it does not stop there. Worcester Royal infirmary is one of the 12 significantly improved hospitals in the national league tables. It was awarded a charter mark for its out-patient work, and it was the first hospital in England to win World Health Organisation status as a health-promoting hospital.
  I know from what I see in my surgery, read in my post bag and hear from friends who have received treatment at the hospital, how grateful patients are for the quality of care that they are given there. I know that almost every patient receives an extremely favourable impression. There is a "but", however. My right hon. Friend probably knows what is coming.
  Morale is also about good facilities. I am glad to say that facilities have been provided at a spectacular rate throughout the country: I believe that there has been a multi-million-pound project every week throughout the lifetime of the present Government. That is a real shot in the arm for the morale of those working with the new facilities. The massive increase in funds that the Government have made available to the NHS has made that possible.
  Worcester's new hospital, however, is overdue. I am delighted to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that approval for the outline business case has now been won from the region, and the trust's ambition is to get contracts signed this year. Three private finance initiative syndicates have already pre-qualified, and the invitation to tender will go out early in the spring, with bids due in the summer. I look to my right hon. Friend to ensure that no obstacles or elephant traps are placed in the way of the new hospital by, for example, his friends in the Treasury.
  I know what keeping to the predicted schedules for building that new hospital will do for the morale of the Worcester Royal infirmary trust staff. The new hospital, which will have a fine range of core services, will be one of which to be proud. I know that other hospitals in the region are facing severe difficulties because plans for them are inappropriate, but I am confident that the trust, the health authority, the region and the Department will not make those mistakes again.
  I am delighted that the hospital is likely to be built using money from the private finance initiative. I am sure that that will produce some innovative solutions to the health needs of Worcester. Freeing up the supply of

  841
  capital should enable more such hospitals to be built in other parts of the country sooner than might otherwise have been possible.
  Morale also relates to working in a well-managed organisation. Working in a badly managed organisation is incredibly poor for morale. Although I hope that nothing that the hon. Member for Peckham said suggested that management is intrinsically bad, that was the impression that I formed from her remarks. It is generally accepted that the NHS has been appallingly under-managed. Bureaucracy must be resisted and I welcome the 8 per cent. real-terms cut in administration costs across the health service that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeatedly reminds us has been made this year.
  I welcome the reduction in the number of executive directors in my trust. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's plans to fight bureaucracy are impressive. The abolition of a whole tier of the health service, opposed by the Labour party, is welcome. The merging of three health authorities into one in my county is also welcome. What does that do for bureaucracy? It does a great deal; it helpfully releases resources for patient care.
  Reducing bureaucracy locally is not always as uncontroversial as it might appear. The merger of two community health trusts in my county has been opposed—sadly—by one vote on my local community health council. Interestingly, the debate and the voting was swung by the intervention of my former Labour opponent at the last election. He persuaded the community health council to oppose a further reduction in local health service bureaucracy—so much for Labour's opposition to bureaucracy at a local level. Give Labour a chance and it supports unnecessary management costs and less money for patient care. It is yet another case of do as we say, not as we do.
  I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said a year ago:
  "I do not think it's really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past."
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Peckham, who now speaks on such matters from the Opposition Front Bench, needs to be reminded of that. The £34 billion or so that we spend each year on the health service must be properly managed—the House has a right to expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure accountability and effectiveness in delivering a high level of patient care.
  I do not think that many hon. Members know that I worked in the NHS for a few months in 1973, as a hospital porter. The huge scope to manage resources more effectively rapidly became clear to me. The Socialist Health Association gave some very wise advice to the Labour party last January, when it was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
  "the NHS was traditionally under-managed and the Party"
  the Labour party—
  "should avoid 'bureaucrat-bashing' … It is clear that in an organisation such as the NHS, good management is a prerequisite for good patient care".
  I had hoped to hear something in this debate about the Labour party's plans for the health service. As far as I could tell, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with much of Labour's five-point plan and is already putting it in place himself.
  842
  The Labour party needs to bear in mind three things. First, it is still not promising any new money, yet constantly suggests that we are not spending enough. The silence when my right hon. Friend confronted the hon. Member for Peckham with that point spoke volumes. In fact, I noticed that she even avoided catching his eye while he put the point to her because she was so embarrassed by it.
  Secondly, Labour's plans for the NHS, if it were ever to form a Government, involve substantial extra costs with no increased patient care. A national minimum wage would directly and indirectly increase costs through reclaimed differentials, and its plans to end competitive tendering would build costs back into the system and reduce funds for patient care.
  Thirdly, even though the Labour party cannot quite work out what it does not like about our health service reforms, it plans more upheaval—even of reforms that are working well and that the medical profession has said it likes, such as GP fundholding. Those are three direct routes to lower morale. The system has experienced major change and the Labour party seems to want to impose more on it. That change is delivering the goods and should be allowed to settle down.
  The fundamental test of the health service, which those who work in it should apply, is not the number of beds, the waiting list, or the management levels, but the results that it is delivering in improved health care. I have cited some of those results, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Two facts that really matter about the health service that should encourage the highest possible morale among all those who work in it are: a child born today has a two-year longer life expectancy than he or she would have had in 1979—that is a result of the Government's policies—and, since 1979, the proportion of babies dying in the first year of their life has halved. Such results give the lie to the Labour party's arguments.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate, although, like last week's, it has not added greatly so far to the sum of human knowledge. Although the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was right to identify the lack of morale, I join others who have identified her huge flaw in not mentioning what the Labour party would do about the biggest issue connected with morale: pay. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) says that he will answer that in his winding-up speech, so I shall look—
  Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: He said that from a sedentary position a few moments ago. He will either deal with the issue and we will have an answer, or he will not do so and we will go without an answer. I was not expecting an answer—I do not think that the Labour party has one. I hope that all those who are interested will read the account of the debate and realise that, although it is very easy to say what is wrong with the health service, it is much more difficult to come up with the recipe to put it right.
  The hon. Member for Peckham described five points. First, she said that health professionals should be given a say, with which the Minister and every hon. Member

  843
  agrees. Secondly, she said that there should be an end to employees being gagged. I did not hear the Secretary of State agree with that, but my hon. Friends and I certainly do. Thirdly, she said that there should be improved safety at work, which is a general proposition that others and I would support. Fourthly, she said that there should be fair pay, which is easy to enunciate without any elaboration. The fifth point got lost in the general exchange on what fair pay might be. We clearly have to wait for another day to find out what the Labour party will do in practical terms about the pay of NHS staff.
  I expressly join the Secretary of State in congratulating and thanking the people who work for the health service—the largest employer in the country—for all they do and for their dedication. That is where we ought to start. I am all too willing to support many phrases in the Government amendment. There has been considerable improvement in many parts of the health service, such as nurse training, and many of the developments have produced better qualified people.
  There is, however, some difficulty. I confirm that there is low morale in many parts of the health service, which the Secretary of State has not yet addressed. I hope that the Minister will address it. It is no secret to aficionados of health service debates that across the country Liberal Democrats are surveying morale, among many other issues. [Interruption.] I shall add factual evidence that confirms that morale is low. [Interruption.] Since hon. Members are always rightly sceptical of the veracity of such evidence, I shall even cite the number of forms sent out and the number of responses returned.
  The leader of the Liberal Democrat party in the west midlands, John Hemming, and the deputy leader, Paul Keech, who are respectively our prospective candidates in Birmingham and in Hereford, carried out a survey among the majority of practices—that is a real test—in Birmingham and Hereford, in which 354 forms were returned. In answer to the question, "Are you seriously considering leaving medicine by early retirement?",41 per cent. of GPs said that they were.
  That survey was conducted at the end of last year. When Chris Fox, a colleague who is our prospective candidate in Windsor—the seat of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party—asked GPs in that constituency the same question, more than 50 per cent. said that they were considering early retirement. To ensure that the statistics are on the record, I should like to point out that 30 per cent. of GPs in that constituency replied, representing 70 per cent. of the practices. I shall give the House two further statistics, only to demonstrate that my proposition has many resources to back it up.
  Steve Jarvis, our prospective parliamentary candidate for Hertfordshire, North-East, had a reply rate of 42 per cent. to his survey, and more than half the GPs in that constituency are seriously considering giving up medicine. The results of those surveys will be compiled in future—so that people do not have to wait for their exciting conclusion.
  My colleague, Mark Oaten, who is our prospective candidate in Winchester—
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Outrageous.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is not outrageous at all; it is fact.
  844
  Mark Oaten received replies from more than 80 per cent. of the practices in that constituency, and 47 per cent. of the GPs there were seriously considering leaving the profession by taking early retirement.
  Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I discover I share one thing in common—I, too, was once a hospital porter.
  Mr. Luff: I wonder whether any of those surveys will be about anyone other than prospective Liberal parliamentary candidates. I ask just for my own amusement and information.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to join my colleagues in conducting the surveys, I should be entirely happy for that to happen and would equally attribute the results to them.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I should like to clarify a point, because the hon. Gentleman has mentioned my constituency. Is this the same survey that came from the Liberal Democrats' style book of campaigning tactics, which asked, in a general sense, what Nora Batty's view was of the local health service? I must know what we are talking about. That survey predicated its approach with the view that, of course, a vast majority of people would be demoralised. If it is the same one, I should certainly like to know.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether Nora Batty features in it. However, as it is the Minister's constituency, I shall happily send him a copy of the surveys. We could then debate the health service in Winchester, as my colleague in Winchester would be happy to do.
  It seems me that there is abundant evidence for my proposition. The surveys were obviously a partisan collection, but they had responses from independent professionals. The surveys are borne out by all the other evidence. It ill behoves the Secretary of State—I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake—to fail to acknowledge that there is a common dissatisfaction among professionals. One has only to ask the representative professional bodies to confirm that; whether one asks the BMA or the Royal College of Nursing, the evidence is the same. All the briefings that Members of Parliament receive from those bodies confirm those facts.
  I shall not cite the evidence which we received in anticipation of today's debate, although I shall cite two other recent pieces of evidence. The first is a report, from last June, of the Department of Health's medical work force standing advisory committee. It contained clear evidence that there is a shortage of doctors in the hospital sector, as set out on page 18, and in general practice. A significant number of posts remained unfilled and without applicants. In response to the pay review body's recommendations and the Government's response to them, Michael Lowe, the BMA deputy secretary, said in a letter:
  "The underlying failure of the Review Body to acknowledge an act upon the excessive and unsustainable workload facing doctors is further exacerbated by the Government's gratuitous insult of phasing the award."

  845
  That is the most telling point; doctors have complained that the award, once recommended, will be phased in.
  Nurses are entirely unhappy. The general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing has said on the radio and, during the weekend, in the newspapers that nurses find a fundamental award of 2 per cent., with a prospective local top-up, entirely unsatisfactory, and that they will campaign for a 6 per cent. basic award everywhere. Of course pay is not the only influence on morale. Other things impinge on morale, such as stress and work load; the number of people working in the ward, practice or hospital; how staff are treated by management; and how often they must go for locums or to an agency. Our job is to seek to alleviate those factors; that is our collective responsibility.
  I should say one other thing to elaborate the point that I made in my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech. There are acute crises in various parts of the health service. The Secretary of State was right in saying that the review body did not say that the crises were occurring everywhere. However, that does not mean that the crises are not acute where they exist. One directorate at my local hospital, in the Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS trust, lost 13 staff nurses between November last year and January this year. That loss of people from one department cannot be sustained without a huge impact.
  Whenever I have gone around to my local hospital, I have been able to testify to the truth of most patients' view—to which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) alluded—that the staff there do an excellent job. However, the patients often also recognise how much stress and overwork the staff experience, and how that makes it difficult for staff to do the job that they would like to do.
  I should like to give a few propositions on how we might proceed. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I stated our position on pay in an amendment on the Order Paper, which was in contradistinction to the Labour party's position. We believe that there should be a pay review. We ask the Government to re-think the pay increase that has been awarded to nurses and for the national pay increase to keep pace, at least, with inflation. It is extremely unfair that nurses—uniquely, out of all the people to have had a pay increase recommended—have had recommended a below-inflation pay increase. Of course I appreciate that the increase may be topped up by local awards, but the fundamental 2 per cent. award is clearly below inflation.
  What shall we do? It is right to say that the elimination of short-term contracts would help considerably, because they undermine morale. One of the problems of the NHS structure, in which trusts themselves have short-term contracts, is that trusts employ people only on short-term contracts. That is a fundamental flaw in the system. There must also be increased flexibility in the types of contract that are offered. I am not saying that they should not be long-term, but people need to have sabbaticals, to share jobs and to have part-time contracts, particularly to encourage returners—the people who have left a profession, especially nursing, and want to return to it.
  There must be—sadly, we heard not a word about it from the Secretary of State—effective forward planning. One of the dangers of a divided NHS, as it is under
  846
  the current structure, is that there is no clear planning to meet the staff demand. When professional colleagues who advised our party in 1992 examined what would be the likely result of current policy, it was found that there would be a shortage of nurses, doctors, consultants and senior registrars in many places. Indeed, we are short of those people. We are not adequately planning ahead. We cannot leave such matters to the market. We have a national health service, and it must have people to meet patients' demands. I am grateful that the Minister agrees with that, and I hope that he will tell us how the Government propose to deal with that problem, so that we can plan for adequate staff and prevent shortages.
  A small point—it does not apply everywhere in the country—is that there should be adequate staff accommodation, which is a factor in recruiting younger new staff in particular. There is now less staff accommodation, and trusts should sometimes subsidise it to enable staff to work in hospitals.
  We believe that there should be one NHS pay review body, to deal with the disparity between management and other pay grades. The pay of everyone, from chief executives to cleaners, would be reviewed by the same body. That would prevent the situation in which the pay levels of some grades and professions are decided without taking into account the pay levels of others. The current position absolutely gets the goat of people who work in the mainstream of the health service.
  I shall take the example of my local health service. If a nurse there is on £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 and the chief executive is on £115,000 or thereabouts, nothing will persuade that nurse that the pay levels are equitable, however big a responsibility the chief executive has.
  We believe that the pay review body's recommendations should be altered or varied only with the assent of the House of Commons. If the Government decide not to follow the recommendations, as they have done this year by delaying implementation, that should require parliamentary approval. That would give parliamentary protection against the actions of any Government who wanted to change what the independent body recommended.
  We believe that there should be national criteria for local flexibility. There is a need for local flexibility, but there should be national criteria to govern how that is applied. For example, there should be flexibility to reorganise the staff structure in a trust, to deal with a local recruitment problem or to reward exemplary performances. However, local flexibility should be used within a pattern established for the country as a whole.
  I shall mention two more issues. First, compulsory competitive tendering should be optional, and not compulsory. Secondly, the medical hierarchy should be reformed. I could elaborate on that, but I will not. However, the present structure is not compatible in many ways with the best use of resources. If we took less time to train our specialists, if we had specialists accredited earlier by the professional colleges and if we increased the number of consultant posts by bringing people into consultant grades earlier, we would start to fill the gaps in the system.
  There are ways of dealing with morale in the health service. We have a duty to health service employees and, more important, to the patients to improve morale. The implication of today's debate is that all three parties,

  847
  and especially the Labour party, need to come clean with the employees in the health service on what they would do in practical terms to improve morale. Words on the Order Paper are not enough.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 39 minutes available before the winding-up speeches. Four hon. Members hope to catch my eye and, with co-operation, they should all be successful.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I had hoped to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I have nothing against the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I sat on a Select Committee with the hon. Member for The Wrekin and he raised several important and interesting points about his constituency today. I felt that he did credit to the House by raising non-party political points, especially as he is the parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition.
  I also give considerable credit to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. At least his party has the courage and honesty to table an amendment that gives its view about the nurses' pay review body. The hon. Gentleman did not say how he intended to fund any recommendations, if his party were ever in office, perhaps because he believes that his party will never be in office.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We have agreed to fund the commitment made in the amendment. I have cleared it with my Treasury colleagues and I can speak to and underwrite that commitment.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman's party is clearly prepared to put its cheque book where its mouth is. That is more than can be said for the Labour party.
  I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—I notice that she is not gracing us with her presence—and she did not say whether she supported the independent pay review body. Although she made several comments about the funding of nurses' pay, she made no commitment whatever—even when challenged by the Secretary of State—on how the funding might be achieved. It will be noted that she was not prepared to make any spending commitment on behalf of her party.
  In the constant whinge from the hon. Member for Peckham, she came up with no new ideas for patient care. The Labour party appears to be bereft of new ideas, and all it wants to do is to destroy the one policy that has increased morale in the medical profession—the formation of GP fundholders.
  I made the point, in an intervention in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that it is not by chance that every GP in Lichfield will be a fundholder by April. I have spoken to many of them—for example, Barry Jones of the Minster practice. Unlike the hon. Member for Peckham, I am not frightened to mention the names of general practitioners who speak to me. Barry Jones has told me that he has become a fundholder because it helps him to be a better doctor and to give better care
  That is what the national health service is all about. We
  848
  have heard nothing from the Labour party except that it would destroy the system. We have not heard what new systems it might create.
  We should never forget—I do not believe the point has been mentioned in the debate so far—that the national health service is the biggest employer by far in the United Kingdom. It is bigger than the armed forces. Surely the Labour party does not want to go back to the system that existed in 1948. That was a huge and unworkable bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) shakes his head, but the Labour party has spent most of its time today criticising bureaucracy. Whether one runs the national health service or a large corporation, one has to decentralise control and that is exactly what we are doing.
  Different criteria affect morale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned. One of those criteria is the facilities that are available. In Lichfield, we are blessed with modern facilities. The facilities in the constituencies of Mid-Staffordshire and of South-East Staffordshire mean that patients can be treated in modern hospitals. Stafford hospital was built no more than five years ago. The hospital in Cannock—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) is not present, perhaps because he would be the first person to recognise the truth of my point—is brand new. Massive improvements are being made at the Victoria hospital in my patch of Lichfield, where I live.
  Recent improvements at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield include a recent increase in out-patient capital spending by £200,000, and an increase in spending on day surgery by £400,000. The number of staff serving out-patients has increased and there has been a huge increase in activity. The number of out-patients has increased from around 11,000 in 1994 to 15,000 in 1995 and the number of day surgery cases from 231 to 670 over the same period. Those are examples of the changes that took place in the national health service partly under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who used to be a Minister of State in the Department of Health.
  There has been a fundamental change and money now follows the patients, not the other way around. That is not just a slogan. Lichfield patients who previously had to go to Sutton Coldfield, Stafford or Burton are now treated in modern facilities in Lichfield. Consultants from Wolverhampton, Sutton Coldfield and Burton now send patients to Lichfield to be treated.
  I smile wryly when I hear that morale in the British Medical Association is low. I suspect that it was no lower in 1948 when the Labour Government brought in the national health service. I hesitate to say it, but the BMA is rarely enthusiastic about any form of change. The consultants were not at all enthusiastic about moving from Wolverhampton and treating patients in Lichfield. They would, of course, much rather have patients shipped over to Wolverhampton, as that is convenient for them.
  I had a sneaking sense of agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey when he said that we should reconsider the tiers and structures that exist in the national health service, particularly the way in which people become junior doctors, housemen and junior and senior consultants. It almost reminds me of the way that one became a pilot in British Airways in the old days: it was not due to ability, but was a matter of moving into dead mens'

  849
  shoes. We certainly do not want that system in today's health service, and the practice is changing because of the current reforms.
  It is important to say that there are now new services at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield due not only to the national changes that have taken place because of Department of Health initiatives but to the Premier Health national health service trust. I pay tribute to Margaret Whalley, the chairman of Premier Health, and Mike Marchment, who lives in Lichfield and who is the chief executive of Premier Health. It is thanks to them and to the facilities that have been made available by the Government that new services have been installed at the Victoria hospital over the past 18 months.
  Those services include rehabilitation medicine, direct access surgery, an evening radiology service, an evening physiotherapy service and additional orthopaedic, dermatology and gynaecology out-patient services. Day case income is currently £50,000 above target. There has been a massive rebuild of in-patient facilities.
  Given the huge number of advertisements that we heard from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, perhaps I might be allowed to say that I was recently invited to open a new wing at the Victoria hospital for out-patient care and minor surgery. There is an additional 20-place day unit, and the rehabilitation facilities have been extended. There are also more day surgery facilities.
  In an intervention, I mentioned the statement made by a ward sister at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield when she was asked about changes that continue to take place in the Lichfield area. When she was asked whether she was demoralised, she said that she was not because she could now use her training for the first time, whereas previously she had been more concerned with the narrow area of nursing care, which had meant that she was unable to provide the service that she wanted to give to her patients.
  The liaison that now exists between general practitioners—all of whom will be fundholders come this April—and the local hospital is almost returning to the sort of Tannochbrae system that used to exist before the formation of the NHS. There is a true community spirit and good patient care in Lichfield without the invidious systems that existed in the days of Tannochbrae, when people had to pay for patient care. That should never be forgotten.
  One constantly hears from the Labour party about two-tier systems that cannot be substantiated. There is no two-tier system—there certainly could not be in Lichfield, as all the GPs are fundholders. Patient care in Lichfield is free at the point of service. For the first time, some consultants are having to get off their bottoms and come to Lichfield to treat patients, rather than the poor patients having to visit the consultants. That is one of the most important aspects of the changes that have taken place. We have heard absolutely nothing from the Labour party, merely criticisms and talk about dismantling the GP fundholding service. We have heard no answer to the question, how would the Labour party pay for some of the changes about which it talks?
  There will never be enough money paid to nurses, but let us not forget that it was this Government who introduced an independent pay review body. This Government are keeping to their commitment of paying what the independent pay review body recommends. We should notforget that the average earnings of a nurse in 1979 were £67.80. We should not
  850
  forget—perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in the House at the time—that before 1979, under a Labour Government, nurses suffered a pay cut. It was not merely a cut in real terms, but an actual pay cut. Such a cut was unheard of.
  The ward sister in Lichfield told me that not only did she suffer a pay cut when she was a nurse, but she had to worry about where she would get the sheets laundered. She said that the health service was in such a dreadful state under the so-called Labour Government that not even the most basic things could be organised. The Labour Government always claimed that they cared—perhaps they cared, but they could not deliver.
  In 1979, the average earnings of a nurse were £67.80; they are now £310.90. If a nurse's average earnings had kept pace with the retail prices index—with inflation—since we inherited the 1979 wage level, nurses would now be earning only £186. A nurse now earns £310—£125 more than inflation, while the Labour party dares to teach us about how we should steward the health service.
  It ill behoves the Labour party to preach lessons to us. The hon. Member for Peckham sits on the Opposition Front Bench saying nothing and avoiding the eye of the Secretary of State for Health when he asks her how she would pay for Labour's policies and what sort of funding commitment she is prepared to make on behalf of her party. Anything that now follows can only be empty rhetoric.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: After the rant from the Secretary of State, it is obvious that the Government did not want today's debate on health. We all know that there is no good time for the Government to have a health debate, but after a week when they announced a mere 2 per cent. increase for nurses and when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and refused to condemn the massive golden handshake given to Cedric Brown of British Gas, we can certainly see why the Government do not want health issues on the agenda.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), in his closing remarks, mentioned an average nurse receiving £310 per week. I suspect that, at his advice surgery this weekend, there will be a queue of average nurses wanting to know where their share is. I do not believe that an average nurse receives £310. The hon. Gentleman may be able to ratchet the figure up by lumping together the money of consultants and chief executives, but he will not be able to arrive at that figure on the basis of the figures for nursing staff.
  Mr. Fabricant: The figures come from the earnings-related database and the standard payroll system. The information applies to nurses—it does not include any other bodies.
  Mr. Hughes: I certainly cannot accept that the average nurse receives £310 per week, and I do not think that the average nurse would agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  The Royal College of Nursing described the nurses' pay award as
  "derisory and out of touch",
  and it will not tackle the increasingly evident shortages and low morale in the service.

  851
  I pay tribute to the work of national health service staff in Doncaster and throughout the country who, despite the Government's policies, manage to provide an excellent service and much comfort and advice to patients. I am sure that, in initiating the debate, my Front-Bench colleagues wanted to recognise that service and to take the Government to task for what they have done to the morale of those dedicated staff over the years.
  The Government surely cannot fail to perceive that morale in the NHS is low and falling, that increased work loads are causing stress and that low pay awards and the strain of increased bureaucracy are producing outrage. The Government must realise that doctors are leaving the NHS due to poor working conditions and that, worryingly, nursing shortages are increasing.
  That is happening against the background of encroaching privatisation of the national health service. Beds are being shut and we hear daily honor stories of patients being shunted around the country in search of a bed. The latest, published in today's Standard, is entitled:
  "Meningitis scare boy faced 100-mile trip for hospital bed".
  His parents took him to the Frimley Park hospital in Camberley, but were told to take him to Poole in Dorset. That is what the national health service has been reduced to under the present Government. Patients are being shunted from hospital to hospital and from county to county.
  Artificial waiting lists are being created. Accident and emergency admissions have increased by 16 per cent. in the past five years. Do the Government not realise that doctors and nurses feel let down by a Government whose policies have made them unable to get on with the work to which NHS staff are dedicated—that of caring for patients?
  There is much anecdotal evidence about staff morale in the NHS. People are very anxious about the lack of resources and about short-term thinking. There are reports from the RCN that, in my constituency, the Doncaster Royal infirmary has a shortage of theatre nurses and there are not enough specialist nurses to cover the operating theatre; yet 32 senior nursing posts have been threatened in the Trent region alone as part of the Government's proposals for management cuts. Those are nursing cuts, not management cuts.
  Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear about the position in a hospital in my area.
  Faced with the task of making a 5 per cent. cut in a £4 million management budget—£200,000—the management found that they had to invest an extra £200,000 to finance the internal market. They had to meet the costs of corresponding with general practitioners in connection with meeting contractual standards and enhancing their record keeping to meet the continued data requirements of the regional office. They had to spend £70,000 on correspondence, £80,000 on medical reports and £50,000 to meet the data requirements of regional office.
  Does it therefore surprise my hon. Friend to know that, when it came to the crunch, most of the cuts were in nursing staff and pharmaceutical staff and not in management?
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that position. No, I am not surprised. His words reinforce my arguments.
  852
  Today, we hear of six nursing sisters working in accident and emergency at Leicester Royal infirmary facing redundancy while at the same hospital parts of the accident and emergency department have recently had to be closed on occasions due to staff shortages. There are worrying reports that the use of bank and agency staff is increasing, which obviously denies patients all-important continuity of care.
  Nurse managers complain that non-clinical duties take up too much time and that they are not on the wards as much as they would like. They are consumed by paperwork. Those issues, in my constituency and others, reflect the position locally and nationally, which gives cause for concern.
  Unison officials in the Trent area have reported that nursing shortages are becoming worse and that increasing numbers of staff do double shifts to keep the service running. Between 1989 and 1994, the number of nurses in the Trent region was cut by 9 per cent. while the number of managers escalated by 470 per cent. A survey undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies for the Royal College of Nursing shows that nearly 40 per cent. of nurses in the Trent region said that they would leave nursing if they could.
  The national statistics speak for themselves: 90 per cent. of nurses felt that
  "local pay will result in unfair deals"
  for some nurses, and 87 per cent. felt that local pay would increase uncertainty about future pay. Moreover, an increasing proportion of nurses regarded nursing as an insecure job. As nurses leave the profession, student places have nevertheless decreased dramatically—by two thirds since 1983.
  More and more hard evidence is emerging of increasing stress and low morale among doctors. As recently as yesterday, we heard of a survey carried out by Middlesex university among London GPs. It was a small survey, but the results were revealing: 98 per cent. of the doctors questioned complained that their paperwork had increased, and nine out of 10 said that they did not have enough time to keep up with medical developments. Two thirds of the GPs said that they had less time to spend with each patient since the NHS changes.
  The British Medical Association recognises that many doctors are leaving the medical profession. The reasons that it cites for that haemorrhage of staff are increasing work load, inflexible training, the internal market and the long hours worked by junior doctors. In a study of 229 doctors, it was found that half had thought of leaving the profession. A recruitment survey by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts noted a significant fall in the number of trainee doctors wanting to become GPs. It attributes that fall to the low morale and increased work loads in general practice.
  We may also consider more specific cases. Christopher Adams resigned as head consultant in February 1995 from the department of neurosurgery at Radcliffe infirmary, Oxford, after being asked to create waiting lists artificially. In an article in the British Medical Journal, Mr. Adams said that his department, which has the lowest average cost per case in England, at one point became
  "unsafe … hyperefficient …. with exhausted and demoralised staff"—
  his words, not mine.

  853
  The Government must answer some serious questions, not only for Opposition Members, but for nurses, doctors and patients. The Secretary of State must admit that NHS staff morale is at an all-time low, and he must admit the reasons for that and tell us what action he plans to take. Will the Secretary of State tackle the NHS staffing crisis and ensure that there are not shortages of senior nurses, especially in operating theatres and accident and emergency departments? Shortages of nurses and lack of planning for nursing needs are placing patient care at risk and contribute to low morale among nurses in the NHS. Exhausted and demoralised staff are putting patient care at risk. Medical experts express those anxieties. The Government must listen to the opinions of those professionals—the doctors and nurses who are struggling to keep the national health service running as well as it does.
  The Government do not seem to realise what they are doing. They cannot continue with low pay awards for nurses and longer working hours in the name of efficiency. They cannot continually cut nursing student places in the light of increasing shortages and they cannot continue to run down the morale of NHS staff still further. The Government tell us that the NHS is safe in their hands, but the doctors and nurses do not believe it; Opposition Members certainly do not believe it—and we know that the public do not believe it either.
  6.19 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) also wishes to speak in the 10 minutes before the Front-Bench winding up speeches begin. I could employ the old Scottish trick of speaking extremely quickly and putting all of my comments on the record. However, I shall try to condense my points, which I want to make quite forcefully.
  The debate is about the morale of national health service staff. No hon. Member from any political party can be unaware of the fact that the morale of NHS staff at all levels has been severely affected over a considerable period—not just by one change, but by a series of changes which have created uncertainty. The British Medical Association produced documentation in November 1995 which pointed to a decline in morale among general practitioners, a steady decrease in the number of doctors entering training for general practice and so on.
  The Royal College of Nursing has produced its own statistics. It referred me, as a member of the parliamentary panel, to an independent survey on the recruiting, retraining and rewarding of nurses undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies in 1995. It drew attention to the fact that 60 per cent. of nurses said that they could earn more for less effort if they left the profession and almost 40 per cent. of nurses said that they would leave nursing if they could. Those findings are indicative of the many references that have been provided to those hon. Members who are interested in the subject.
  I shall give the House just one example. A consultant in Glasgow picked up a copy of the British Medical Journal and found his post advertised in that publication. He had not been consulted and he did not know of any plan to replace him: he simply saw his job advertised in the British Medical Journal. Incidents of that kind do a great deal to undermine morale in the NHS.
  854
  All hon. Members are aware of the individual and joint views of those who work in our health service locally, including those of the Royal College of Nursing, Unison and the various local representatives of the General Medical Council. I am proud of the national health service developments that have taken place in Moray—I refer particularly to developments at Dr. Gray's hospital. However, we are far from complacent about the delivery of services as some areas continue to cause concern, and with the best will in the world, many of the issues that we have to address in Moray are related to funding.
  The argument about local versus national pay bargaining can be viewed in that context. Last year the Government cunningly—if I may put it like that—announced that nurses would receive a 3 per cent. pay increase. However, the Government said that they would fund only 1 per cent. and that the other 2 per cent. must be found at trust level. It was the first time that such an arrangement had been attempted. The Government argued that the trusts would be able to find the money and that there would be no differentials in pay, irrespective of where in the United Kingdom a nurse worked. Many trusts were expected to bring forward efficiency savings to fund the 2 per cent. pay increase.
  I was lucky, as my trust area managed to provide a staff pay increase of 3 per cent. across the board with no strings attached. However, that trust can make no further efficiency savings that will not impact directly on patient care. It is important to argue consistently against the idea that there should be competitiveness of that sort within the health service, but that is what is occurring with local pay bargaining.
  In the present round of pay bargaining, there appears to be a deliberate attitude of divide and rule within the medical profession. The philosophy of the NHS is to ensure that there is a direct relationship between the patient and whoever delivers the service—be it consultants, GPs, nurses or ancillary workers who often play a fundamental role in patient care. In the current pay round, we are witnessing the fracturing of that relationship—which is critical to the well-being of the national health service--and a rupturing of the partnership concept.
  I shall now address those problems, as I believe that every politician has a responsibility to offer constructive suggestions. We must look at the system and define what is good and what is bad; we must determine what can be retained and what must be changed. For example, do we need to spend so much money on media training for health boards? Must six people be involved in making referrals—rather than one, as was previously the case—as a result of the workings of the internal market? Should £30 million of taxpayers' money be squandered on Health Care International in Clydebank? HCI had the temerity to advertise in last Saturday's edition of The Scotsman and last Sunday's edition of the Scotland on Sunday inviting women to attend the medical centre for breast cancer screening. That undermines the idea of a national breast screening campaign, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member, for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who has been at the forefront of the campaign in Scotland.
  Most importantly, all political parties have a responsibility to put their money where their mouth is. This morning, I met representatives of the British Medical Association and I put before them the Scottish National party's budget proposals, which are open to public

  855
  scrutiny. We have said where we would spend money in the national health service. I believe that all political parties have the same responsibility, and I hope that they will follow our lead.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for abbreviating her remarks to accommodate me. I was attending a Committee of the House from a quarter to four until I entered the Chamber, which is why I was unable to hear the earlier speeches in the debate.
  I wish to participate in the debate because of my long-standing interest in health issues, which is due to many factors—not least the fact that my family and I have had no private medical insurance since the time that I entered this place, and I therefore rely to a considerable extent on the national health service.
  I obviously cannot comment on the earlier speeches in the debate, although I noted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the absence of beef in Labour contributions. He questioned what the Labour party would do to improve the alleged low morale among staff in the national health service. The question of NHS staff morale is a very important one, but I do not recognise the motion's claim about growing demoralisation. No one would pretend that every detail of the NHS is perfect, but many staff are proud to work in the service: they are optimistic about its future and they relish the opportunities that the changes of the past few years offer.
  I shall make two points in the short time available. The first is a historic one. I recall the state of morale in the national health service in early 1979. In January of that year, my father was in hospital and nearing the end of his life. As he was nearly 90, that was no great surprise and not particularly tragic, as it was the end of a happy and successful life—much of it spent working in the national health service. When it was clear that the NHS hospital where he was being treated could do no more for him, my mother and I decided that he should be moved to a nursing home closer to her house to spend the last three or four days of his life.
  However, my father's last illness coincided with a period of industrial disruption in the national health service. I do not think that a strike is evidence of very high morale among NHS staff, but that is what occurred in the last few months of the last Labour Government. That strike may have had the consent—possibly even the active encouragement—of the trade unions which later merged to form Unison, whose support Labour Members are happy to accept.
  As a consequence of that industrial action, I had to smuggle my father out of the hospital just three days before his death and transport him in a privately hired ambulance across a picket line in the middle of the night. Many of the excellent staff who had treated him were embarrassed, distressed and ashamed at what was happening. Labour party policy on the national health service had reduced their morale to a level as low as could possibly be imagined. That was the state of play in 1979.
  My second point relates to this year's pay deal for NHS staff—particularly nurses. I shall not retread the ground that has been well covered by my hon. Friends, who dealt
  856
  with how badly nurses' pay suffered under Labour. I do not know how much nurses will get this year, although it is clear that they have every reason to be optimistic and confident about the outcome. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out at Question Time this afternoon, nurses have done extraordinarily well and much better under the Conservative Government.
  The system of local pay and negotiation is a key advantage. Anyone who has been involved in the management of any organisation, particularly one that operates at a large number of different locations, will know that staff are happiest and their morale is highest when decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and the decision making process is devolved as far down the line as possible. Nothing is worse for staff morale than the sense that their interests are being neglected at the sharp end, that they have no input in the decision making process and that key policies are being set centrally.
  The most important and influential policy decisions that affect morale inevitably concern pay, so local pay negotiations can make a huge contribution to achieving and maintaining high morale in the national health service. Those who oppose or criticise the system of local pay negotiation are actively undermining the morale of NHS staff. I particularly regret the fact that some people, both within and outside the House, have tried to distort the position by claiming that nurses have received a 2 per cent. pay offer. That is not the case. I am sure that, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, he will confirm that last year's local pay decisions did more than protect nurses' interests—they produced a satisfactory outcome. This year, many local employers will add significantly to the 2 per cent. national pay increase.
  As local pay negotiations become the norm over the next few years, nurses will identify even more with the national health service in their communities and employers will recognise local conditions. As someone who is extremely concerned about the morale of national health service staff, I strongly commend the system of local pay and commend the Government amendment to the Opposition motion.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to reply to the debate. Let me begin with a point on which the whole House will unite. National health service staff do an excellent job year in, year out and over Christmas—a particularly difficult time—they did more than their pay levels would suggest. That reinforces the concern that has been expressed about the recent pay review, particularly by nurses. We should also praise the work of the London hospitals on Friday evening after the terrible outrage in the east end. Members will agree that the staff represent one of the most precious assets of the NHS.
  As usual, we have had an interesting debate. According to Conservative Members, there are no problems. They seem to say, "Read my lips: there are no problems with the national health service."
  Mr. Malone: No.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister says, "No." He will have a chance to tell us about those problems when he replies to the debate. The Government intend to make no concessions to patients, the public or the Opposition.
  Mr. Malone: As far as I can recollect, the hon. Gentleman was listening to the speech by my right

  857
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who specifically acknowledged that there were problems in the NHS and spelled them out in detail. It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he did not, and I am sure that he would like to put that right.
  Mr. McLeish: I listened to Secretary of State, and I did not hear him enumerate the problems, but I await with interest the Minister's reply to the debate.
  The Secretary of State was highly selective about pay review quotes. The essence of the debate is morale and motivation in the national health service, hut the Secretary of State forgot to mention that, tucked away in the review body report published last week, was the following paragraph:
  "As we commented last year, changes in the wider business and labour market environment have affected the morale of employees in a number of sectors. However, the pace of change in the NHS: heavy workloads; significant and sustained pressure on resources; fears about job security; and, we suspect, the course of this year's pay dispute, will all have exacerbated staff anxieties."
  The Secretary of State joins us at a time when the pay review body has conceded that there are major problems of morale and motivation. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge them, but, by logical definition, he will do nothing about them.
  It is important that we put firmly on record what has happened to our national health service. It is indisputable that there are major problems that are recognised by all parties, but not by the Government. Why have we lost 60,000 beds and 50,000 nurses in five years? Ministers may quibble, but those are the Government's own figures.
  Ministers should not attack their own Department of Health and their own civil servants. We have 19,000 fewer nurses in training. The Government like to talk about customers, and there are now 20,000 more managers in the national health service. It is ridiculous for the Secretary of State to champion the nurses against the bureaucrats. In the past five years, we have seen front-line care disappear, and a management explosion in the national health service.
  This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) produced an excellent report highlighting the fact that an additional £1.1 billion has been spent on bureaucracy in the past five years. That represents £6 for every second in the past five years. It is hard to find the right word to describe that, but "scandal" is the first word that comes to my lips. All those factors make it easy to deduce why morale and motivation are major problems in the national health service.
  We no longer talk about bed availability; we shall soon be tabling questions about trolley availability. We shall talk not about ward closures, but about corridor closures, and, as I have said, Ministers no longer talk about patients; on a number of occasions, they have described them as "customers". Does that not underline what we have been saying over the past few years—that the Government see the national health service as a business and an internal market, but at the end of the day they do not wish to talk about the patients?
  Mr. Ian McCartney: An example of that occurred in my constituency recently, when a gentlemen
  858
  who had undergone an operation woke up in an ambulance, having been driven more than 30 miles to another hospital because his bed had been reallocated while he was in the operating theatre. Neither he nor his family had been informed before the operation.
  Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend strengthens our attack on the Government. We are living in the real world, and the NHS is populated by real patients, with real anxieties and concerns. Why do they never seem to interface with Ministers or Conservative Back Benchers, although they recount their recent visits to hospitals? They do not want to acknowledge that, despite relentlessly pursuing five years of internal reforms, they simply have not got it right. Now, they are squandering the most precious resource of the NHS—the staff, their commitment and their skills.
  The debate is about morale, so we have to ask why it is at such a low ebb. The Government believe that everything in the garden is rosy, so why should we have a debate on morale in the national health service?
  Mr. Malone: It is habit-forming.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister says from a sedentary position that it is habit-forming. We would love to have a debate on the health service every week in Government time. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister passes that note to the Leader of the House and to the Conservative Chief Whip.
  Finally, I shall spell out our case against the Government. The first point that affects morale is that the Secretary of State is keen to tell interviewers that he believes that he should have private health care as a safety net. What does that do for the morale of doctors and nurses? It is not good enough. In recent interviews, he said, "We should try to make it as good as possible, but I still have private health care insurance." His predecessor, now the Secretary of State for National Heritage, may not have many qualities, but she does not have private health care. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is cheap."] It may be cheap, but it is accurate.
  In the Observer on 11 February, an advertisement for Norwich Union Health Care Ltd. took advantage of the hypocrisy of the Secretary of State and others, using a quote from the Minister of State and two quotes from the British Medical Journal, all about delays. But of course, the advertisement states:
  "The hospital says you can have a bed straight away."
  It adds:
  "When it comes to healthcare, we talk sense."
  One disgraceful aspect of Government policy is that it is driving people into the private sector.
  Mr. Malone rose—
  Mr. McLeish: I have little enough time left, and I have given way before to the Minister.
  The Secretary of State's lead on the private health care issue is only adding to the problem.
  As to the pay award, press comments read: "Anger over 2 per cent.", "Outrage at mean awards", "Nurses accuse Tories of contempt for the NHS", "Nurses to fight for rise of 5.6 per cent.", "Fury over NHS pay insult". One would have thought that the Government, faced with a battery

  859
  of problems, would have shown some contrition—just a bit of humility and recognition that nurses do a good job and should be rewarded. Not a bit of it. The award and the Government's response was not only insulting but provocative. Perhaps the Government want to provoke, rather than to ease the burden.
  The third issue on which our case is based is the health service's future direction. The Government will try to convince everyone that their agenda is not one of privatisation or commercialisation. No one believes them. There are in place the building blocks of further fragmentation, commercialisation and contractualisation over the next year. Ultimately, through the private finance initiative, market testing and other methods, there will be privatisation. That is the challenge for the Government. That is why the public do not believe that the health service is safe in Conservative hands.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State continues to interrupt, and I am happy that he should—but he must answer a question that he ignored earlier. What is the reason for the money-go-round of the internal market, with its bureaucrats in place? The Government lecture us on waste and fiscal prudence. It is time that official organisations within the House started to examine what the internal market is doing and its consequences.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) rightly highlighted the problem of recruiting nurses and doctors. The Government simply walk away. For them, the problem does not exist. If a Government are to take the NHS seriously, recruitment is the only strategy to deploy when faced with the criticisms that we are making.
  Health service morale is being destroyed by the daily diet of regional and national newspaper reports of tragic incidents of hospitals posting "Full up" signs and patients having to travel across the Pennines. That issue should unite the House, as it threatens to undermine the fabric of a one-nation health service. The Government know the problems, but do not wish to do anything about them.
  The Government's first line of defence is, "It has nothing to do with us. We do not collect the information. That information is not centrally held." Only after a recent parliamentary question by one of my hon. Friends are we building up the picture in respect of paediatric intensive care beds. The Government did not have relevant information. The Secretary of State said, "That is nothing to do with me. We only pass the budgets. It is over to the NHS." Thankfully but belatedly, the Government now accept that they have a role to play. The Government's defence is, "Don't ask us"—a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, attitude.
  The Government's second line of defence is, "Blame it on the trusts. Blame it on the managers." God forbid, there are a lot of managers around. Can the Government really pass the buck? They cannot. They set the policy. They have relentlessly pursued internal reforms for five years. The trusts are only implementing Government policy, so it seems astonishing that the Government are still blaming trusts. Their answer to every issue raised in the House and elsewhere is, "It must be due to inefficient management." Sixty thousand beds have been lost, but, according to the Government, that is still a management problem.
  The Government's third defence is, "We spend more on the NHS year on year." If we accept that claim at face value and put aside inflation, technology and increasing
  860
  costs, are we to believe that more money is being spent? If it is, the logical question is, "Where is it being spent?" There has been extra spending on bureaucracy of £1.1 billion over the past five years, and £500 million is being spent on non-NHS provision. Under the PFI, deals are done secretly. What is the risk? What is the return? How much of the taxpayers' money is feather-bedding deals? The Government will not publish details, so Ministers should not argue and laugh.
  I want to clear up any confusion that lurks in the mind of the Secretary of State on these occasions. I think that something lurks there. The Government are wedded to three words—private finance initiative. As with many other issues, the Government see no alternative way forward other than their setpieces, and no reason for dialogue.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman ought to be better informed about what his hon. Friends are up to, because, according to The Times today, the shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)
  "is currently meeting City lawyers and seems to be whispering reassuring words"
  about the private finance initiative. The conclusion drawn by the people in receipt of those whispers is:
  "There may be a certain amount of rebadging, but the essentials would remain the same."
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State raises an important issue, and must deal with it. He ought to deal with the Stonehaven issue. The right hon. Gentleman goes about England saying, "No clinical services: read my lips." In Scotland, the Secretary of State has sold off virtually everything in that state hospital to the private sector. Will policy in England be contrary to that in Scotland, or is Scotland being tested in respect of the NHS as it was with the poll tax?
  The Government do not like our attack on waste. There are also £100 million of GP fundholder surpluses lying unused. A recent article in the Observer suggested that NHS suppliers may be taking £400 million from the health service. It is vital that the Public Accounts Committee takes on board the workings of the internal market in the NHS. There is no accountability or no cost-benefit analysis by the Department of Health. The cost to the taxpayer and benefits to patients must be high up on such an appraisal.
  I urge the Minister for Health, when he winds up, to embrace and endorse that idea, to get to the bottom of whether the internal market is working, and—more importantly—in whose interest it is working. We need to know what is happening and where the money is going. It is a Government issue of massive waste in the NHS. The Government lecture us about where cash will be found for this or that. If one considers the £1.1 billion spent on bureaucracy, one sees that there is a significant difference between ourselves and Government Members. We believe in front-line care and in doctors and nurses. We do not believe in adding further to bureaucracy.
  When the Minister winds up, I would like him to answer this simple question: are the Government happy for £1.1 billion cash to be used merely to police the internal market?
  Mr. Dorrell: One question, after 17 minutes.
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State says that, but the fact remains that we provided time for the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who had not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, but who informed the Chair of his wish to speak.
  The Government do not like to be confronted with the waste argument. The Government's case is flimsy. Their arguments, "It is nothing to do with us" or "Blame it on the trusts", will not stand up. They are spending more and more money, but creating more and more waste.
  The Government pretend that bed closures are all about care in the community and continuing care. The Government simply cannot match bed closures with what is happening in care in the community. That defence will not wash with the public.
  The Labour party would like the Secretary of State to face the real issues. Today, he said nothing about the crisis affecting morale in the national health service. There is a crisis at the heart of the Government's policies, which reveals the unacceptable face of their policies for the NHS. We would like to see a reprioritisation of what is happening, and a refocusing on the important issues. The public, patients, taxpayers, doctors, all the staff of the national health service and the Opposition parties cannot be wrong. The Government must listen, because if they do not, we will.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I will not exactly follow the stream of consciousness of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) with respect to the health service, but I will deal with a number of the foundation stones with which the Opposition thought they would underpin their argument today—and there were precious few of those.
  I do not know why the Opposition called this debate. If it was to underpin morale on their Back Benches, they clearly have not succeeded, because no one bothered to turn up to listen.
  We have heard another debate predicated on a false assertion supported by an exaggeration that the health service is in a state of collapse. The Government admit that the health service is under tension, that it is delivering more health care than ever before, that its staff are working extremely hard, and that problems must be addressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quite clearly said in his speech that the problems need to be addressed. However, we do not accept the grotesque image of the national health service, of those who work in it and of the way they feel about it that has been painted by Labour Members.
  Labour Members relied on a number of arguments, which I shall deal with individually. They referred to recruitment. They said that the NHS was now denuded of front-line staff, and that there simply are not enough people to provide a service. I shall cite some figures for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that might change her mind, although she is not interested in evidence; she prefers assertion. I shall refer to some medical manpower numbers.
  Between 1984 and 1994, the number of general medical practitioners increased from 23,640 to 26,567—a 12.38 per cent. increase. The hon. Lady would no doubt
  862
  argue, on the basis of assertion, that they have a far harder task. Those figures are accompanied by a decrease in the average list size from 2,089 to 1,900.
  When the Opposition refer to nursing figures, they always ignore—this is perhaps one of the most unforgivable ways in which they try to bend the figures—all the changes and transfers between nursing staff, the context in which they used to work and how they work now. One reason why fewer nurses work in hospitals is that 60 per cent. of the activity is to be found in day case surgery, where fewer of them are needed. There has been a great transfer across the service and the way in which nurses work. I refer to the number of GP practice staff.
  Ms Harman: From the private sector.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady says, "From the private sector." I do not want to talk about the private sector; I want to talk about the NHS.
  In 1984, there were 25,994 GP practice staff, and now there are 51,833—an increase of 99.4 per cent. The number of nurses included in GP practice staff has increased from 1,924 to 9,099—an increase of 372.92 per cent.
  These staff increases have occurred in a service that the Labour party says is being denuded of people at the front line. Where is there more of a front line than in primary care? Whose policies have ensured that these talents are now being devoted to primary care, which was not the case in the past? Since 1979, the number of nurses has increased by some 55,000. Labour Members choose to ignore—
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Malone: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I do not have much time in which to speak, because he squeezed me out. I shall anticipate what the hon. Gentleman was going to say.
  Usually, Labour Members selectively quote figures and ignore what has happened in agency nursing and bank contracts. I was delighted that today, for the first time, they acknowledged the existence of such agency and bank nurses. Their failure to take those figures into account has resulted in the lower figures to which they have referred.
  The Labour party has also said that there are not enough nurses in training. This year, there are 14,920 in training, and next year there will be 17,080—they are all decided by training commissions across the country—an increase of 14.4 per cent.
  Mr. McLeish: In 1989, there were 62,100 training nurses in the health service, and in 1994, including the learners and Project 2000, there were 32,000—a decrease of 19,000. Will the Minister accept those figures as correct?
  Mr. Malone: My right hon. Friend explained why that was so: the wastage rate has decreased by 50 per cent. Of course there will be fewer people in training if more are staying in the service. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that retention rates were up, and that more people were finishing their training and working in the NHS rather than leaving it.

  863
  The other point of strength that Labour Members always think they have is what is happening to senior house officers, and we heard that argument again in the debate today. I advise hon. Members that SHO strength is extremely good. My right hon. Friend and I were both concerned about what happened in accident and emergency departments on 1 February last year, and we undertook to monitor the situation.
  I am pleased to tell the House—although the Labour party will not welcome it—that SHO strength in the regions monitored to date now totals 945, and there are now 59 vacancies—only 6.3 per cent. Most trusts, when consulted, find that because of an agreement the Government have reached with the profession they are able to fill those posts with staff grade doctors. That has destroyed yet another myth that the Labour party has peddled.
  Labour Members claimed that there is low morale in the NHS. I am astonished that they ignored—in fact, they considered it a matter of ridicule—what we have done about junior doctors' hours. I remember when that was the test of whether the Government would be successful in raising the morale of those who work in the hospital sector. The targets that the Government have reached are remarkable, as is acknowledged by junior doctors.
  There is 99 per cent. compliance with the target to eliminate hard-pressed, on-call posts contracted for more than 72 hours a week. I inform hon. Members that 93 per cent. of the 27,994 junior doctors complied with the end of 1996 targets. That is a tremendous achievement, for which we have fought hard and in which we have invested a tremendous amount of money. It goes hand in hand with the creation of the specialist registrar grade which came into effect on 1 January, enabling junior doctors, when they get to the more senior posts, to spend more time in training than in providing service commitment.
  Labour Members' solution was a five-point plan. Conservative Members agreed with four of the points—they were all apple pie and motherhood. [Interruption.] We agree with the concept of fair pay. We established the independent review body that delivers fair pay on an annual basis, unlike the Labour party, which chose to cut it. Unfortunately, the fifth point appears to have been lost—doubtless we will learn about that in due course.
  The hon. Member for Peckham would not be drawn on the most important question. If she were serious about introducing a policy to improve the NHS if she were ever in government, she would say how much money would be provided. I ask her that question again—perhaps, during the debate, she has been able to have a word with the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to find out the position of the Labour party in this regard.
  Will she now give the House a commitment that she would at least imitate what this Government has done since 1979 with respect to increasing expenditure on the health service? Well, as the whole House can see, the hon. Lady sits firmly in her place—unable, as the health spokesman of her party, to give such a commitment. And this is a debate in which she has claimed that morale in the health service is at an all-time low.
  The Opposition have been found out; the arguments they have put to the House this afternoon about the health service have amounted to no more than the usual innuendo and denigration of a service that provides
  864
  excellent care for the whole population. The hon. Lady's argument has been demolished. The country will recognise that, and the House will recognise it, too.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 302.

  Division No. 52]

  [18.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anger, Nick

  Darling, Alistair

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Denham, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, John

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, N (N'ette upon Tyne E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hain, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Church, Judith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monldands W)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Hutton, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Illsley, Eric

  865

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Janner, Greville

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rendel, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

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

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Salmond, Alex

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAllion, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  McCartney, Ian

  Simpson, Alan

  McCartney, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Trickett, Jon

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardeil, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wlliams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Pearson, Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

  866

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dover, Den

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunn, Bob

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldly, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forth, Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'bylre)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  867

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Norris, Steve

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ottaway, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Page, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Paice, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Knapman, Roger

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knox, Sir David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Leigh, Edward

  Richards, Rod

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lidington, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lord, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Luff, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sackville, Tom

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Malone, Gerald

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mans, Keith

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Marlow, Tony

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Merchant, Piers

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Spring, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sproat, Iain

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stern, Michael

  868

  Streeter, Gary

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sumberg, David

  Waller, Gary

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ward, John

  Sykes, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House pays tribute to the dedication and commitment of the NHS's staff; welcomes the investment in professional development for all NHS staff made by the Government since 1979, in particular the investment in high quality nurse training represented by Project 2000, the development of new nursing specialities, for example, in general practice and paediatric intensive care nursing, the increase in the number of doctors, nurses, midwives and consultants, the reduction in on-call hours for junior hospital doctors, the establishment of an independent Pay Review Body for nurses, the increase of nearly 70 per cent. in nurses' earnings, the establishment of the principle of local pay for nurses which has delivered fair and flexible settlements and the development of high quality NHS general management; commends the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Health of an 8 per cent. real terms cut in administration budgets for health authorities and trusts next year, together with an efficiency scrutiny which will identify and eradicate unnecessary paperwork; and looks forward to the further development of the National Health Service.

  Private Security Industry
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to move the motion on the private security industry, I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House requires Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee contained in its First Report of Session 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 17) on the private security industry.
  More people now work in the private security industry than in the police. The phenomenal growth in the industry is a direct result of one world record that the Government could fairly claim: the doubling of recorded crime in England and Wales since 1979.
  As crime and the fear of crime have increased, so there has been a huge expansion in the number of firms and employees in the private security sector and, more critically, a major change in the character of the work that the industry undertakes. Once, the industry was principally concerned with the relatively passive guarding of property, where in practice there was little contact with law-abiding members of the public. Today, the work of the industry brings it into far greater and more active contact with the public. In shopping centres, housing estates and parks, the public are more likely to see a private security guard than they are to see a police officer on the beat. Increasingly, private security guards are used where police officers would previously have been deployed. Today, security guards are used in sensitive public order situations, for example, to help to police protests against the building of major road schemes. Indeed, such is the extension in the role of the industry that in Her Majesty's criminal courts private security guards are now replacing police officers.
  In consequence, as the Home Affairs Committee indicated in its report, the dividing line between the activities undertaken by the private security industry and by the police is shifting and becoming "increasingly blurred".
  While the police are subject to the most detailed statutory regulation and accountability, the private security industry is subject to none. When a police officer is dishonest, uses unreasonable force or is just uncivil, he or she will run the gauntlet of a tough disciplinary process. But if a security guard is employed by a firm that is not a member of one of the national associations, he or she may be dishonest, violent and uncivil, but there need be no sanction whatever against the employing firm, and only the sanction of the criminal law against the individual. We are left with the extraordinary irony that an industry that exists to enforce certain minimum standards of behaviour of the public has no enforceable standards set for itself, that an industry that is there to catch thieves employs thieves, that an industry that is there to prevent drug dealing, employs drug dealers, and that an industry that is there to reduce the threat of violence to the public may use such violence in an unlawful way.
  870
  In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers said that it believed that the case for the continued self-regulation of the industry is untenable, and called for the regulation of the industry by statute.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of people employed in the security industry are respectable, law-abiding, upstanding members of the community? Will he accept that perhaps his words on drug abusers and criminals in the security industry might be taken as an insult by the vast majority who are honourable members of society?
  Mr. Straw: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is those responsible, decent people in the industry, and their decent. respectable firms, who are the first to call for effective external statutory regulation of the industry.
  The evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers about the current unregulated state of the industry was damning. The association presented nine case studies. As the Select Committee commented, the studies need only to be recited
  "to indicate how serious the issue is."
  I shall take only three of ACPO's studies. The first is headed "Escapee Murder". It reads:
  "A manned guarding system was subject to a routine police enquiry. During the course of this enquiry it became apparent that one of the employees used a false name. When his correct identity became known, it transpired that not only was the man an escapee from HM Prison, but that the offence for which he had been sentenced to his term of imprisonment was one of murder."
  Case study 8 is headed "Application for Shotgun Certificate". It reads:
  "An employee of a security company recently applied for a shotgun certificate. This application was endorsed by his managing director, who said of the applicant: 'I have known X for one year … He has worked for X (private security company) this length of time. X has a sociable nature and a good even temperament. I recommend him as an honest and a very reliable person who can be trusted.' The police enquiries into X revealed"—
  this was to the contrary—
  "that he had at least fifteen previous convictions for dishonesty and violence. One of these was for a burglary of a non-dwelling involving the use of explosives, even more disturbingly, the employee had a conviction for the manslaughter of his wife."
  I move on to case study 9, which is headed "Prevalence of Criminality". ACPO reported:
  "During a police investigation conducted into a theft believed to involve an employee of a security company, a full check of every employee was conducted. This company is involved in the manned guarding of sites and buildings. Of the 26 employees in the company, eleven had previous convictions. The…offences committed by the employees and their scope…include a total of 74 offences ranging from convictions for rape, threats to kill and firearms offences, to burglary … assault, vehicle theft and damage. The directors of the firm are not aware of their employees' previous convictions."
  ACPO's evidence was the most powerful of that calling for proper statutory regulation. The association was joined, however, by almost every group or individual that or who gave evidence, including all the trade associations.
  As I said in response to an intervention, there are many firms and individuals in the private security sector that set good standards for themselves and seek to meet them.

  871
  They have been in the forefront of calls for effective regulation because they are the first to recognise that in an unregulated market the strongest forces are those that pull operators down to the level of the lowest common denominator—in other words, to the cheapest, to those firms that are most ready to cut corners.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the three examples that he quoted involved employees who had previous convictions? Does he accept that the way to deal with that problem is not necessarily regulation but to give employers a much easier right to obtain details about the possible criminal history of would-be employees?
  Mr. Straw: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee examined that issue carefully. There is a need for employers to have more access indirectly to the criminal records of employees. The Committee reported powerfully, however, that if only that is done there will be a perversely dangerous situation, because there will be no check on employers. In other words, there is no check on crooked employers who are pretending that their employees are honest. It is then implied by partial regulation that private security firms have been regulated and have proper probity when in fact they have not and do not.
  The Select Committee commented that support for regulation grew as its inquiry progressed, including support from the British Retail Consortium, which changed its position following a survey of its members. By the end of its evidence taking, the Committee reported that backing
  "for the introduction of compulsory regulation of the manned guarding sector…was almost universal. The trade associations…individual companies (large and small), customer and user groups all called for statutory regulation".
  The Select Committee spent six months studying the industry and considering whether it needed external regulation. I believe that its report is one of the best examples of a Select Committee report—it is short, well argued and unanimous. Moreover, members of the Committee were obviously at pains to put aside partisan issues on which they were unlikely to agree, and concentrate instead on making recommendations where they believed that there was a clear consensus for doing so.
  The Committee's conclusions were categorical. It stated that the growth of the industry, and the expansion of its work into areas previously the domain of the police, gave rise to increasing concerns about the industry's relationship with the public, and about standards within the industry. It stated also that external intervention in the industry would be justified in the public interest if it could be demonstrated that other mechanisms were unable to deliver an acceptable level of performance. It concluded that
  "current standards … in much of the…industry are unsatisfactory and below the level the public need and have a right to expect."
  The Committee agreed its report last May and published it in early June. The Chairman, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), complained during an Adjournment debate that he initiated that
  "normally, we could have expected the Government to reply in about two months. Four months later, they have not yet replied, and I am not over-optimistic that we will have a response today."—[Official Report, 1 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 215.]
  872
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's pessimism was not misplaced. Three months later, there is still no proper, considered response. We have had only a two-page letter from the Home Secretary, which was forced from him last night in anticipation of the debate. It takes the issue scarcely an inch further forward, save in respect of only one of the Committee's 24 recommendations, concerning guidance on best practice on the employment of "door supervisors", who are better known as bouncers.
  On the key recommendation of the Select Committee, however, the Home Secretary's letter is vintage Whitehall waffle. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to savour an especially bizarre passage. The letter reads:
  "I know that the industry and police see a need for additional regulatory measures, but I can speak less confidently about the general public, who in my experience rarely buy or complain about guarding services."
  First, because the sector is unregulated, no one knows or can know about the level of public complaint. I can tell the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues, however, that in my constituency I have received many complaints about a private security firm, Pendle Clamping, that operates what it describes as a wheel-clamping service. Some of my constituents think that it is more akin to an extortion racket. There is nowhere, however, that I can send my constituents' complaints with any chance of action.
  The Secretary of State wrote that in his experience members of the public "rarely buy…guarding services." I do not think that any member of the general public has had any experience of buying in guarding services. The idea is risible. The public may be directly affected by the service provided but they have no say over the terms on which it is provided, which blows apart the claim that standards can be set and maintained in the public interest by market forces alone.
  By definition the private sector industry operates within a market where firms compete for business on the basis of price, quality and suitability. Therefore, the inclusion of the industry within a market is not in issue. What is at issue is whether market forces, left to their own devices, can ensure that the public's interest in the good operation of the industry is safeguarded. The evidence gathered by the Select Committee points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that market forces alone cannot do the job.
  It is often asserted that the fundamental divide is between self-regulation and statutory regulation. In my view, it is not. The key divide is surely between self-regulation and external regulation. The question whether external regulation should be statutory or non-statutory is important but subsidiary.
  There are examples of where market forces external to a particular industry may provide sufficient regulation. The Select Committee report identifies some of those. For example, the systems installation sector, which puts in burglar alarms and the like, is the subject of external regulation imposed by insurance companies, which have an obvious interest in ensuring efficiency and the maintenance of proper standards, and which appear for the moment to have market clout to achieve that.
  The Committee came to a provisional conclusion that the regulation of "door supervisors" might be achieved by external but non-statutory means. I hope that its optimism about that is justified. It was plain to the Committee that the external market forces that operate in the manned guarding sector are wholly inadequate to secure effective, non-statutory regulation of the sector.

  873
  Voluntary self-regulation has palpably not worked because, as the Committee made clear,
  "companies operating at low standards have chosen not to join the system."
  Moreover, those companies then drag down others with them. The absence of any enforceable standards across the industry means that companies that provide no training and bother least about the personal capabilities, not to say the criminal records, of their employees can offer the lowest price. Wage rates in the industry are notoriously low, with one third of firms paying between £2.31 and £2.60 per hour. Those depressed wage levels lead to inordinate working hours and, in some cases, as the Committee heard, to systematic fraud of the Department of Social Security, in which employers take the lead.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: The other day, I received a letter from a security guard who said he had been
  "turned down for a security job, during the interview."
  The manager told him that it was not because he was not suited to the job, but because he
  "would not be able to live on the wage he was paying."
  The manager told him that if he had had a family, he would be able to claim family credit and would therefore be worth employing.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. That is a perfect example of where the state and public are subsidising the worst firms with the lowest standards and lowest wages.
  For all those reasons, the Select Committee recommended that there should be a statutory regulation system for both companies and their employees in the contract guarding sector. It accepted, as do we, that there would have to be transitional arrangements, with a phasing-in of the regulatory requirements. The Committee made it clear—I know that this was disappointing to some hon. Members—that, initially, the statutory scheme should be limited to the contract guarding sector alone, but that the statutory framework should be sufficiently adaptable to allow other sectors of the industry to be included at a later date should that become desirable.
  Anyone who reads the Select Committee's report will be struck by the fact that its recommendations are sensible, based on the evidence and proportionate to the problem. So the question before the House is why, given the agreement on all sides to the recommendations, the Government continue to drag their feet and to stand back while unregulated cowboy firms run by criminals, employing criminals and using unacceptable methods, put the public at risk. Why are Ministers acting as those villains' friends?
  We received our answer this morning. There are six Home Office Ministers. I am glad to see four of them on the Front Bench. None of them is exactly shy and retiring when it comes to seeking publicity—I say that as a compliment—but, astonishingly, no Home Office Minister was put up by the Government this morning to answer the case for the regulation of the private security industry. Instead, and most revealingly, it was left to a former Minister and failed Member of Parliament, Mr. Francis Maude, now special adviser on deregulation
  874
  to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr. Maude confirmed what we have long suspected—that policy in this sector is led no longer by Home Office Ministers on the basis of public safety, but by that man, who is obsessed with deregulation to the point where he is ready to put the public's safety at risk, and I say that advisedly.
  When Mr. Maude was Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs before the 1992 general election, he resisted for as long as he could all calls for effective regulation against unsafe inflammable foam mattresses. I do not know how many people were burnt to death or badly injured while he resisted what was plain common sense. I do know that it was only after a number of fatal fires and mounting adverse publicity that Mr. Maude was forced to perform a complete U-turn and to introduce better regulation.
  This morning—Conservative Select Committee members may wish to bear this in mind—on the radio Mr. Maude derided all the people who sought proper regulation of the private security industry as having a "knee jerk" reaction to the issue. He implied that the only part of the industry that was a problem involved door supervisors, when manifestly it is not. He suggested that much of the anxiety about the industry would be solved if there were better access to individuals' criminal records. when, as the Committee makes clear, doing that could create as many problems as it would solve.
  There are hundreds of decent firms and thousands of decent employees in the private security industry. They want it to be regulated by statute, as do the police, the British Retail Consortium, local authorities and every Select Committee member. Against that weight of opinion and weight of evidence, the Government's failure to act to regulate the industry and their willingness to allow some villainous firms to continue their criminal ways is nothing short of irresponsible.
  The Government talk tough on law and order, but act soft on crime. They say one thing and do another and are putting their dogma about deregulation above the safety of the public. The Select Committee report is sensible and comprehensive. If the Government will not act promptly on it, the House should require them to do so.
  7.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `recognises the valuable work done by the Home Affairs Committee in its First Report, Session 1994–95, on the private security industry (House of Commons Paper No. 17), welcomes the Government's plans to introduce the White Paper which will allow greater access to criminal records; and congratulates the Government on its firm and positive commitment to ensuring that standards throughout the industry are raised to the level of the best.'.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that he was addressing a major conference today.
  I had hoped that, in the hon. Gentleman's speech, we would receive an answer to the question that has been intriguing colleagues, especially Labour Members, since last Thursday: why on earth has he selected this subject for debate? We know that Oppositions value their Opposition days and that they normally use them to discuss the burning issues of the day. Law and order is of

  875
  course a key issue but, when I checked with the Library, I discovered that, of more than 50 subjects tabled for debate by the Opposition in the past two years, never once have they asked to debate law and order issues. This is the first Opposition day debate on law and order that they have requested and what have they selected—the private security industry. No wonder Opposition Members have been asking me: what on earth is going on and what is our Front-Bench team up to?
  I have been defending the hon. Gentleman and have asked his colleagues to appreciate his predicament. [Interruption.] I would not dream of naming friends of mine in the Glasgow Labour party. I know that he really wanted to debate the issues that are at the forefront of our constituents' minds, but picture the scene with the hon. Gentleman and his advisers. They tell him that he must go on the attack against the Tories to recover his position. "Good idea," he says. "We will attack them on the police." "Oh, better keep off that," they say. "The Tories will remind people that, when Labour left office, we were 7,500 police short. With record funding for the police, that is not a strong issue."
  Mr. Straw: The Minister is not discussing the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Maclean: I shall come to that.
  "Right," says the hon. Gentleman, "what about drugs? That is better surely." "Oh, keep off drugs too," say the advisers. [Interruption.] I have much to say, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman had little to say in the time he took. This subject is obviously the most important to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the law and order arena. By selecting it, they show their sense of priorities. The hon. Gentleman has not taken the chance to debate the subjects that are of concern to our constituents.
  What about crime? The Opposition have not picked crime as the subject of the debate. We know why: crime has fallen by a record amount in the past two years—the biggest drop for 40 years. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is to make a big splash tomorrow about sentencing, and that he hopes to debate the subject with me on Radio Cumbria. I am intrigued by the publicity avenues that he chooses. Of course, Opposition Members do not want to discuss such topics on the Floor of the House because they are aware that they voted against all our major law and order measures.
  The hon. Gentleman is clearly becoming desperate for a subject on which to attack the Government. His advisers point out that the Home Office is still thinking about the Select Committee report on the private security industry—"so you can talk tough on that one." I suspect that that is the reason for today's debate. As the Daily Mail put it so sadly last week,
  "few spectacles are more inherently improbable than that of the Shadow Home Secretary periodically pumping himself up to talk tough on crime".
  It said that the hon. Gentleman's words were
  "ludicrously out of sync with both his own political nature and the instincts of his party."
  The editorial went on to list all the measures against which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had voted, and the crucial issues on which they had refused to give an opinion. It ended by saying that, "without impugning his motives", the newspaper "remained unconvinced that" the hon. Gentleman
  876
  "or new Labour really believes that prison works and that more of the vicious criminals who plague society should spend longer behind bars. This Home Secretary is implementing the toughest anti-crime agenda in modern times. And his Shadow is—well, just shadow-boxing."
  That is what we have seen today.
  We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee for its report. The Committee wanted more access to criminal records, and an exception from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 for a widely defined private security industry. It was particularly concerned about certain parts of the industry, and proposed a number of solutions. We replied yesterday to many of the report's points, and a copy of that reply is in the Library.
  Today, the hon. Gentleman called for more regulation, more controls and more bureaucracy—I suspect that we shall hear a good deal more about that in the next two hours—but we have yet to hear a detailed and workable blueprint that identifies the benefits that would flow, at what cost and to whom. I do not want some vast bureaucracy to stifle a burgeoning industry, driving the smaller companies out of the market, and I question the need for it; but that is not to say that the Government have ruled out additional measures to tackle the alleged problems in the contract manned guarding sector.
  We have heard proposals from the Select Committee, as well as ideas from the police and the British Security Industry Association. Only this morning, the right hon. Francis Maude mentioned a solution that he favours. I happen to disagree with his suggestion, however, and I would point out that Francis Maude does not make Government policy. The deregulation unit makes suggestions and advises, but it is for the Government to make decisions on policy.
  As far as I know, no one in my office was asked by the media to speak this morning. I was ready to speak on Radio 4, along with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), about the Security Service Bill, which we shall discuss tomorrow. I should have been delighted to speak on the subject if the media had contacted my office. The hon. Member for Blackburn himself complained that Home Office Ministers were always speaking on the wireless.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have been asked to speak to the media about almost every other subject that has been raised this week. The private security industry is the one issue on which I have not been asked to represent the view of the Government or anyone else.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. I have run a check, and to my knowledge—I shall apologise to the House if I am wrong—no media outlet asked a Home Office Minister to talk about the security industry on the wireless this morning. I should have been delighted to do so, but no bid was received by any Home Office Minister.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he not think it improper for a special adviser in the position of a temporary civil servant to put himself in the position of a Minister and speak for the Government, as Mr. Francis Maude did this morning?
  Mr. Maclean: Not the way I heard it. The deregulation unit has a point of view; so has the Select Committee;

  877
  so has the BSIA; so have the police. In that sense, they are all legitimate pressure groups with a legitimate point of view. There is no question of Francis Maude's having pretended that he spoke for the Government. The Government will make their views clear in due course. [Interruption.] Of course Mr. Maude does not speak for the Government.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Who does he speak for, then?
  Mr. Maclean: He speaks for the deregulation unit, and for his point of view. We shall listen to his suggestions, as we shall listen to all other suggestions.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister has come out with a very bizarre comment. He said that Mr. Maude spoke for the deregulation unit. Is the deregulation unit part of the Government?
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we continue, let me point out that this is a relatively short debate. It would be interesting for the Chair if hon. Members debated the subject in hand.
  Mr. Maclean: I have made it clear that various organisations have views about what should be done about the private security industry, or the manned guarding sector. I have also made it clear that the Government will reveal their view in due course. Let me explain what we propose to do.
  The private security industry is a large, diverse industry encompassing a wide range of activities. In most of it, there is not the slightest suggestion of a problem. For example, the alarms sector, accounting for a large part of the market turnover and employing some 33,000 people, has no problems. The big sectors comprising locksmiths, safe manufacturers and cash in transit have no problems either, and the in-house sector—estimated to outnumber the contract sector by more than two to one—is sound. We are left with the contract manned guarding sector, comprising some 24 per cent. of the industry's employees, as the only part of the industry that may merit special attention. None of those employees has the powers that a police constable has, and none can carry out what we have identified as core policing functions.
  Calling for a bit of regulation and a bit of control, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, is very easy, but we must consider the machinery that is required for regulation. The Select Committee identified problems of standards, training and criminality within the contract manned guarding sector which it considered to require Government intervention. It proposed an agency to run new arrangements both for licensing individuals and for ensuring that companies fulfilled certain minimum criteria.
  Licensing would involve the checking of criminal record information, and the exercise—presumably by an independent body—of an element of discretion to ensure that there was no unfairness. For companies, common minimum standards would have to be laid down,
  878
  minimum levels of training specified and arrangements made for its provision. There would then have to be regular inspections to check compliance, and recourse to the criminal justice system in the event of non-compliance. All that could have a considerable impact on smaller companies. As paragraph 86 of the report acknowledged,
  "the pattern of the impact within the industry must also be considered if regulation is successfully to target weak companies rather than small companies."
  What is the justification for all that change? First, it is claimed that standards are low; but low in comparison to what? Is there some objective standard? The majority of buyers of private security guarding services are other companies, and it is for them as customers to weigh the relative cost and quality of services offered.
  Secondly, the commonest argument in favour of regulation is that many of those employed have criminal records. Figures submitted to the Committee following a study by the Association of Chief Police Officers seemed to indicate a high rate of offending among security guards. Further examination of those figures showed that 57 per cent. of the offenders were bouncers, accounting for 68 per cent. of the offences. Night club bouncers are a distinct category, and it is a distortion to include them in the manned guarding sector.
  We recognised some time ago that certain parts of the country had experienced problems with bouncers, and discussed with the police and other interested parties how we could work together to combat the problems. Local schemes set up by the police and local authorities were monitored and found to be successful in reducing the number of incidents; we have therefore drawn up and issued best practice guidelines to assist others in setting up schemes. As recommended in the report, we shall—with the help of the police—monitor the effectiveness of existing and new schemes.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I was a member of the Home Office working party that investigated the industry. I thank the Minister for allowing Opposition Members to be part of that body, which sat for almost four years. Does he realise that the Select Committee report was issued before the working party had considered it? At its final drafting meeting, the working party concluded that the report's recommendations were inadequate to meet the needs of the industry. The private security industry, its associations, chief constables and representatives of the licensing trade and the brewing industry unanimously agreed that the Government's proposals were inadequate. As a result, the working party was not reconstituted. The report has been published without the working party's authority.
  Mr. Maclean: The point is that the guidelines are working, they have been welcomed throughout the country and they are dealing with problems associated with night club bouncers. There is little evidence of criminality across the board.
  Mr. Roger Stott: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the great interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and I take in the matter. Since the town of Wigan, which is in both our constituencies, has more local authority-licensed night clubs than Blackpool, we have had personal experience of

  879
  the bouncer industry over the past 15 years. I regret that the Minister thinks that the matter is frivolous, since our constituents have been subjected to gratuitous violence by bouncers. The only way to stop such violence is to adopt a scheme such as that introduced by my local authority, under which it is mandatory for bouncers to be registered and licensed. That does not present any problem to decent firms that provide door supervision. The cowboys are the problem. If they are not licensed, they move to St. Helens where such a scheme has not been introduced. That is why we are keen to get the regulation on the statute book.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the system is working perfectly because of a voluntary scheme in his area. Rather than wanting to duplicate that scheme around the country, he wants compulsory regulation to force it on others. We have developed guidelines to deal with bouncers, and they are working very well. There is no reason why such schemes cannot be spread through the country voluntarily, with the help of police, magistrates and local councillors. If the hon. Gentleman's scheme is so good—I have heard that it is good—it should be a model for others to follow voluntarily. We have issued guidelines and I understand that they are working.
  If bouncers are excluded from the manned guarding sector—bearing in mind that we have issued guidelines to deal with them—the number of ex-offenders employed in the industry is considerably lower than is claimed. Nevertheless, the industry is growing and private security guards are increasingly present in areas where they have frequent and close contact with the public. It is vital that public confidence in them should not be misplaced. It is therefore important to ensure that the bad reputations of a few unsuitable individuals or poor companies should not tarnish the reputation of the industry as a whole.
  Those calling for action to root out criminals have in mind the removal from the industry of those with past convictions for all or certain offences. To do that, they are seeking access to information about criminal records. Employers and customers in many occupations might envisage benefits for themselves and the public arising from greater access to criminal records. Such checks are, however, not the only way in which to establish the suitability of applicants for jobs. Security companies, like all employers filling positions of trust, should ensure that they check carefully applicants' employment records and references.
  At the moment, there is no legitimate method of obtaining information from criminal records other than by putting pressure on individuals to exercise their rights under the Data Protection Act 1988 for access to the information on convictions that is held on police computer systems. The problem is that that circumvents the safeguards available to individuals under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which aims to strike a balance between giving offenders a chance to re-integrate themselves into society and the need to protect society from those who might offend again. It allows convictions which have become spent through the passage of time and the individual's subsequent good behaviour to remain unknown to prospective employers.
  880
  Some groups are exceptions to the Act, but they do not include any part of the private security industry. I know that parts of the industry would like that to be changed. That was also one of the Select Committee report's recommendations.
  In deciding whether it is right to accept that recommendation, we need to consider very carefully the safeguards that the Act provides to individuals who, by subsequent good behaviour, have lived down their past errors, against the need of employers to ensure that their employees are fit and proper persons. Designation of jobs in part or all of the industry as exceptions to the Act would mean that those who apply for such jobs could be asked to reveal convictions that were spent under the Act.
  A conviction becomes spent only when the rehabilitation period laid down in the Act has passed. That means, for example, that a conviction of more than six months would remain unspent for 10 years, and convictions incurring prison sentences of more than 30 months would never become spent. Few if any serious offenders are therefore likely to slip through the net even without an exception to the Act. The Government believe that a case cannot be made for accepting the recommendation for the vast majority of the industry, and in any event it needs to be put in the context of the more general matter of pre-employment vetting.
  The whole subject of pre-employment checks of criminal records has concerned the Government for some time. At present, criminal record checks are carried out by the police only for certain groups of employees. Most checks take place to protect vulnerable people such as children, while others are necessary for the purposes of national security or for probity in the administration of the law. The number of checks has grown over the years. Now, more than 1 million checks take place each year and significantly more than 600,000 are made on people seeking to work with children under the age of 18. That work places a considerable demand on the police, diverting resources from other tasks.
  The Government have therefore been reviewing very carefully the current arrangements for vetting. Towards the end of 1993, we issued a Green Paper "The Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes", which posed 12 questions that had arisen from the Home Affairs Committee's deliberations on vetting. For example, what should be the broad criteria for authorising criminal record checks and what level of checks would be appropriate in each case? Who should handle the checks? Is there a role for a central agency and, if so, what should its functions be? What are the implications of the checks for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
  More than 180 responses were received. They confirmed that there was a wide demand for checks not only from the private security industry but from financial organisations and those who work with vulnerable people other than children, such as elderly and disabled adults. The Government have therefore been considering a new approach to vetting. In doing so, we have taken into account the Home Affairs Committee's report on the private security industry.
  We intend to publish a White Paper on the subject very shortly and I cannot go into detail about its contents now. However, I can say that a more accessible and open system of pre-employment checks of criminal records, which will meet the needs of employers and other

  881
  organisations who need to employ people in positions of trust, is needed. We will discuss ways in which to enable a much wider range of employers to obtain relevant information about criminal records. The system should therefore meet the Home Affairs Committee's main recommendations for greater access to national criminal record checks.
  As I said when giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in December last year, one way in which to implement such a system would be to introduce an easily obtainable criminal conviction certificate. Such developments will largely be possible because of improvements in technology, particularly the development of a comprehensive criminal record database on the police national computer, which will provide access to a much wider range of information than was once available.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister used the phrase "employees who are in a position of trust" as if that were a good guide. Surely most employees are placed by their employers in a position of trust. Would it not be better to rely on his earlier expression, when he said that the provisions related to people who were vulnerable, such as children? Many of the public are vulnerable when the security industry, where power, and to some extent coercion, is exercised, where trust is placed in a uniformed official and where security staff have access to premises on such a basis that the lives and safety of people could easily be threatened by criminal intent.
  Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's point. Whatever definition he uses, he will find that organisations will claim that they meet that definition and therefore want access to criminal records. There is no clearly logical place to draw a line between those who we think should have access and those who we think should not, but I shall reflect carefully on what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  I believe that our proposals on vetting will go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns of the police, the private security industry and others. I listened carefully to the case studies produced by the hon. Member for Blackburn in his opening remarks, and I think that, in every case that he quoted, those firms would be caught by our plans on vetting. However, it is also fair to point out that criminal record checks on their own will not be enough. They are not, in themselves, a substitute for employers taking other steps, such as taking up references to ensure the exclusion of people whose previous conduct would make them unsuitable for employment.
  I should like to endorse the Select Committee's recommendation that each case should be considered on its merits, and that there should not be a blanket ban on employing people with criminal convictions irrespective of how long ago and irrelevant the convictions may have been. Not everyone with a criminal record is necessarily unsuited to all jobs, and not all of those who are unsuitable for employment in the private security industry will necessarily have a criminal record.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Since 1 November, the Minister has had plenty of time to answer the question: what about the criminal employers?
  Mr. Maclean: I shall address that point in my concluding remarks.
  882
  We have heard many calls for regulation, but, as I said earlier, the proponents of regulation have been rather less keen to produce detailed plans for how it should be done. Now that our plans to give the security industry greater access to criminal records will do so much, we are considering whether anything else must be done.
  Mr. Mullin: I hope that the Minister will at least make the point that we are not dealing only with criminal records. There are other factors to consider, such as minimum standards of training, the quality of service offered to the public by the companies, and—although I know that Minister will not be very keen on it—the way in which companies treat their employees.
  Mr. Maclean: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He has revealed that, while the hon. Member for Blackburn is, in some ways, calling for less regulation, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is willing to get into training regimes. I know that he is keen on a minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman would like to see the largest, most bureaucratic, all-singing, all-dancing regulatory regime possible. While one certainly does not want to go down the route proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—
  Mr. Mullin: Why not?
  Mr. Maclean: Because, in the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was obsessed with trying to get a minimum wage for security operatives. I read all of his questions and all of the evidence to the Committee.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later. I have given way to him once already, and I want to push on. He has already stated that he is a believer in the minimum wage and, if he is consistent, he would want it for the security industry as well.
  Security industry regulation is a complex area, and we want to get it right. We have to weigh the views, problems and usefulness of various possible arrangements as accurately as we can to arrive at the simplest and most effective solution. That is why we are giving such detailed consideration to the central issue. The security industry has expanded enormously in the past 25 years. It has had 25 years of success and achievement, which has been brought about because Governments did not interfere with it.
  The Select Committee report is receiving careful attention and, while I hope to make a decision fairly soon on its proposals for regulation, I reject the accusation that we should have rushed a decision—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Rushed?"] Yes. In the 25-year history of the private security industry, we would have been rushing a decision if we came to conclusions in the past few months. If we want another 25 years of success, a few months more to get the right answers is entirely justified.
  The Home Affairs Committee recommended that we should issue guidance on door supervisors. We have done that. It recommended that we should provide access to criminal records, and we shall publish soon a White Paper

  883
  that sets out our proposals on that subject. Collectively, all of our actions will ensure that the minority of crooks and con men who currently inveigle their way into the security industry will not be able to do so in future.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak. I ask, therefore, that hon. Members who are called make their speeches as concise as possible.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Madam Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be brief and to the point. I was surprised at the complacency which the Minister expressed in his contribution. I developed an interest in this subject when I spoke for the Opposition on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill, before the 1992 election. We spent a great deal of time considering these very matters, and we consistently argued with the private security industry, many chief constables and other people who knew about the dangers that were presented by the burgeoning private security industry. We argued about regulation with the Government—a Government who had had many years to consider the matter, not just the few months since the production of this most recent Home Affairs Select Committee report.
  The debate on the private security industry goes back a long way, and it has figured significantly for more than 10 years. I know that some of my hon. Friends and some Liberal Members have had a great interest in the topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in particular, took his devotion to the subject so far that he joined a private security firm to prove how easy it was to do so. He regaled us in Committee with that experience, which gave us food for thought and much amusement when he described it in graphic detail.
  The debates in the previous Session were characterised on all sides by clarion calls for proper and effective regulation of the private security industry. That was considered to be in the interest of the public, the police and the responsible companies which understood the damage that was being done—in the words of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—by cowboys, villains and rip-off merchants. More sanguinely, I would say that disreputable elements were doing harm to the industry's reputation.
  Today, the tremendous growth of the industry means that private security firms and their personnel touch the lives of most of our citizens during most days. In my book, that is enough justification for the important debate which the Opposition has initiated. Every hon. Member has had complaints about private security firms. To take one recent glaring example, a security guard, who had an Alsatian dog, not only arrested but handcuffed to the railings an innocent citizen who happened to be pounced on at the local bus depot. What kind of society allows small companies, without controls, to do that to the individual citizen?
  A cursory examination of any Yellow Pages will illustrate the extent and influence of the private security industry in a myriad of spheres. We are not speaking
  884
  merely of bouncers, of a tiny part of the industry or of the vetting question, and the Minister does this debate no good by refusing to examine the issue in its entirety. The private security industry advertises the following wares in the Yellow Pages: property protection, store detection, insurance investigation, surveillance services, alarm systems, bodyguarding, security marking, bomb threat advice, escorting cash and valuables, key holding, dog handling, spy catching, anti-vandal patrols—the list of its activities is almost endless.
  The industry has grown like wildfire. It is regularly estimated to be at least the size of the entire police force of this country, and many experts and chief constables believe that it is twice the size the regular police force. That gives Labour Members some cause for concern. Eight thousand private security companies are operating in the United Kingdom, and only 280 are represented by the British Security Industry Association. There are other members of professional associations, but a minimum of 1,000 belong to no regulatory, or even voluntary, regime. The codes that the industry has introduced are sometimes used as an excuse by the Government for not introducing a regulatory regime.
  I pay tribute to the work that has been done by professional organisations, and congratulate them on their attempt to ensure high standards among their members. Even so, much still needs to be done in terms of vetting, training, managing and controlling staff. As in so many spheres, voluntary codes are no substitute for a proper regulatory framework from which reputable and responsible companies have nothing to fear and which provides the public with the protection from rogues in the industry which they deserve.
  Regulation is not about inhibiting just a few rogues; it is about securing peace of mind for the individual. Sadly, I am sure that many hon. Members will have had the same experience as my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and I of the way in which some small—and some large—companies act irresponsibly.
  Calls for a proper regulatory regime do not necessarily have to lead to a vast bureaucracy. That is simply one of the excuses that the Government give. They say that there is not enough evidence of criminals in the industry, but, at the same time, they say that regulation would be a restraint on the industry and would create bureaucracy.
  I have spoken to many people in the industry and they do not believe that there needs to be a massive bureaucracy. They believe that regulation can be imposed with a light touch and a small administration. Indeed, if the newspapers are to be believed, the Home Secretary himself believed that that was the way ahead, until he came into contact with the President of the Board of Trade and lost the argument. In his innermost thoughts, the Home Secretary understands the need for a regulatory framework but cannot get past the more ideological members of the deregulation group within the Cabinet. They are the reasons the Government have failed to act.
  Often, the Government's pat response is that there is little evidence of criminality in the industry. We have already heard good examples this evening of the extent of criminality in the industry, but that could be a red herring. The Government prefer to ignore the evidence and the informed opinion of the industry in favour of their own narrow, ideological preoccupation with the free market.

  885
  For them, registration always equals regulation, and regulation is bad because it damages business—never mind the fact that regulation is the obvious way to improve standards in the industry and eliminate the numerous abuses of the system which, at the end of the day, harm the industry itself.
  Intelligent voices within this burgeoning industry will tell the Minister that if regulation is not introduced soon, the industry will get a bad name. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)— a former Prime Minister—said in the House last week, the Government have an unhealthy obsession with privatisation. Surely it is impossible to ignore those voices which the Minister knows exist, especially in view of the Government's experience of sections of the private security industry which fail to uphold the standards of conduct that we expect from organisations that are increasingly taking on the peculiarly sensitive roles that were once the preserve of our police forces.
  Another matter of great concern to me and many other Opposition Members is the nature of the society that we are creating, a society in which people no longer feel secure in their own homes, on their neighbourhood streets or in their own communities but feel obliged to resort to private security firms for peace of mind and protection. Is it not a fact that the private security industry has grown so fast under this Government because law and order have not been upheld? The two are equal and apposite. I am afraid that it is symptomatic of the state of our nation that, after 17 years of Conservative rule, crime and the fear of crime preoccupy millions of our citizens and small businesses.
  The Minister did nothing but attempt to score points and present statistics in a ridiculous way. I heard him repeat yet again the nonsense that this country has just experienced the biggest fall in crime for 40 years. How many experts do we have to hear denounce that statistic as nonsense? The Minister knows that it is nonsense—it must have been minted at Conservative central office. If they really want to reduce the levels of crime that plague our towns, cities and villages, the Government must act on the root causes of the problem, causes which have been identified countless times and which lie in poverty, deprivation and unemployment.
  There may be a role for the private security industry, but there are serious questions to be answered about the worrying growth of private police forces. The Government have singularly failed to deal with the fundamental concerns about the legitimacy of commercial companies and policies that affect private citizens and impinge on them to an ever greater extent. They are impinging on the traditional rights of English people and their liberties. That is the real worry about the tenor of the Government's remarks.
  The Government always look to the short term; they are always picking up the superficial. The fact is that we have not had a debate about the real concerns expressed by Opposition, and some Conservative, Members about private police forces which are now, according to some estimates, twice the size of the regular police force. They can increasingly control and affect the lives of individuals without any input from the state or the approval of the House.
  886
  Those of us who are interested in the subject have been disappointed by the Minister's remarks this evening. Our concerns have been brushed aside. Indeed, they have been swept under the carpet, because the market rather than any higher concern is always the first priority of this sad Administration.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. Between 1990 and 1993, I was a director of the security firm, Group 4. I am no longer a director of that firm. However, as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will recall, my interest in the subject of this debate goes back much further.
  In July 1973, I introduced the Security Industry Licensing Bill—a ten-minute Bill—which, although not opposed, did not reach the statute book. When introducing the Bill, I cited the case of
  "a company run by a man who admitted that he had twice been convicted of grievous bodily harm and who employed four or five staff with criminal records".—[Official Report, 4 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 538.]
  It would be comforting to believe that, in the intervening 22 years, action had been taken to prevent anything of that kind from happening again. It would be comforting but, sadly, inaccurate, because men with criminal records are still employed by some security companies.
  I mention 1973 for two reasons. In spite of the slightly self-righteous speech made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), it has to be pointed out that the problem of private security firms is not a new one that has emerged suddenly. The same problem existed in the 1970s, and the Labour party certainly had the opportunity to legislate to deal with it between 1974 and 1979. I am bound to say that I was underwhelmed by what the Opposition spokesman had to say, including on wage control, a matter that has nothing to do with security licensing but on which the House should concentrate.
  Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend did not mention it.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening; if he consults Hansard, he will find that the hon. Member for Blackburn did mention it.
  Why has action not been taken? What are the reasons for what I shall, with the greatest respect, call the slow bicycle race between hon. Members on the two Front Benches? I suggest that both parties have tended to approach the issue of licensing the security industry from preconceived positions. The Labour party has traditionally been opposed to the private security industry and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has given a flavour of that underlying opposition. The Labour party has opposed new roles for the security industry and it has feared in the past that licensing would give an unjustified degree of respectability to the security industry.
  The Conservative party's reluctance to act is a reluctance to impose new regulation. I understand that and I understand also—although I do not agree with it—the party's faith in self-regulation. As it happens, I believe that both parties' arguments are wrong.
  Mr. Michael: For the sake of accuracy and although I understand the right hon. Gentleman's description

  887
  of ancient history, I should like to say that the Labour party has found that companies in the private security industry understand our position and support our plea for regulation. Firms in the private security industry want regulation as much as we do.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I hear that point, but my description of the hon. Gentleman's party was entirely right, as hon. Members who know the subject better than he does will confirm. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's attacks on the private security industry over the past two or three years, so he should not make too much of an issue of my point.
  The aim of public policy should be not simply to curb the private security industry—as the hon. Member for Huddersfield implied—but to recognise that the industry has a legitimate role in the public interest. The aim should be to ensure high standards and, above all, to protect the public. Public policy should recognise that the private security industry is here for good and the only sensible question is how it can be best regulated. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) wishes to endorse those words in his winding-up speech, I shall be very glad to hear him.
  The police must work to priorities when they face the challenge of crime and, of course, they have done so for as long as I can remember. The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Blackburn tried to pretend that the problem of crime had suddenly emerged in the past five or 10 years, but that is simply crass. If that were the case, we would not have had similar debates 25 years ago. My point is that crimes of violence, such as armed robbery, will inevitably come higher in the list of priorities than, say, burglary. However, that is not to say that burglary is unimportant, because obviously it is extremely important to the individual.
  The implication for the public is that there will never be, under any Government in any circumstances, enough regular police to investigate every burglary and house break-in that takes place in our great cities, such as London or Birmingham. That has not happened in the past and there is no reason to believe that it will happen in the future. We may regret that, but we should learn a lesson from it. The public, business and industry must take the best possible care of their property. We must all learn to take crime prevention seriously; if we do that, good private security firms have a vital part to play. We should recognise that part, and good firms—there are some very good firms employing dedicated people—should be encouraged.
  I was encouraged to note what the Police Federation said in evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Significantly, the Police Federation's view has changed drastically over the years, and it said:
  "It needs to be said that the vast majority of established firms conform to excellent standards of commercial probity and make an important contribution to the prevention of crime."
  Regulation should deal with the cowboy firms, not the firms that the Police Federation mentioned.
  Too often in the past 20 years, policy makers have not recognised what the private security industry can and should do in a modern society. It can help the citizen and the company to prevent crime by guarding premises, by supplying alarms and by handling cash in transit. But the private security industry's role goes beyond that and it is
  888
  equally sensible to consider the duties carried out by the police and prison officers and ask whether those roles can be performed by the private security industry. We do not necessarily have to conclude that the duties should be transferred, but we should ask the question. For example, the Government were right to extend the work of the private security industry to escort duties and taking prisoners from prison to court. If the police are taken away from that job, they can concentrate on the more important crime fighting for which they are trained. It is also sensible to have an alternative provider to the Prison Service, because we can then discover other ways in which prisons can be organised.
  I speak as a great supporter of the extension of the private security industry's work, but if that is to happen, the public should be protected by some guarantee that the firms meet certain standards and, especially, that the people who work for them do not have criminal records. That is the case that other hon. Members and I have been making over the years.
  I see the attraction of self-regulation, but I am more persuaded by the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in the Select Committee's consideration of self-regulation. I have some personal experience of self-regulation because I am chairman of the National House Building Council. That organisation grew out of concern about jerry-building in the 1930s. It has been working for 60 years and the problem has been tackled and largely eradicated.
  Self-regulation in the building industry is one thing, but self-regulation in the security industry is quite another. Different issues are involved. The access to criminal records involved puts the security industry in a class alone. Other issues which dominate relations between the police and the public include the inevitable conflicts that can arise between the demands of security and the demands of personal freedom. It is difficult to see how those issues can be dealt with entirely by a system of self-regulation.
  The Home Affairs Select Committee's proposals were helpful. I do not think that the security industry and others, who have been advocating some kind of licensing system for years, have been doing it to drive small security firms out of business or to prevent them from coming into the business. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I think that it is more accurate to say that those people are dedicated to the security industry and want the highest possible standards to be maintained.
  The private security industry is not the police, but it helps the police by helping the citizen to guard his property. However, some of the issues that the security industry faces are the same. No one needs to be persuaded how difficult it is to reconcile the issues of police and public relations.
  I hope that the end of this long debate—I mean not today's debate but the debate that has been going on for the past 20 years—is not caused by a scandal somewhere in the industry, with the result that legislation is rapidly produced as an emergency measure. Dare I say that we have seen one or two examples of that practice under Governments of both parties.
  I therefore hope that the White Paper that we are promised is the prelude to effective and well-thought-out action that will encourage, promote and ensure high

  889
  standards in the security industry. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary sets out that White Paper, I hope that he will take the widest possible advice from colleagues on both sides of the House of Commons.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a persuasive speech. He demonstrated that this is an important issue and that successive Governments have had plenty of time to think about it, as the right hon. Gentleman brought the matter before the House before I was even elected to it—albeit only a matter of months before I was elected, but nevertheless 23 years ago. So the issue has been with us for a considerable time.
  One has only to consider relatively recent times to find that in 1990 the Select Committee on Defence examined the service that the Ministry of Defence was receiving from commercial security firms and recommended that no new sites be guarded by private security firms
  "until such time as there is legislation regulating commercial security firms and laying down minimum standards—which we would welcome."
  The report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs set out the issues well and clearly. The Liberal Democrats party conference passed a resolution in favour of a system of licensing in September 1994. There was a further debate in November that year. So there has been plenty of time to reach some conclusions on the subject.
  Part of the background to the concern involves the growing prevalence of the private security industry in all its forms. People are much more aware of it as we have had to become more security conscious. Uniformed security officers are to be seen in various places, from the test match to the social security office, and there is a concern that in some areas such firms may be taking over responsibilities and duties which should be left to the police.
  The job of maintaining law and order should be a job for accountable, trained and disciplined police officers. There have been instances when communities have felt compelled to use private security, not for its proper role, but to provide services that they believe that the police cannot currently supply due to problems with resources. I do not want us to pursue such practices. There is plenty of work for the security industry to do without becoming involved in areas which require the accountability, discipline and skills that characterise the police service.
  The industry has a large role to play and a wide range of work to do, and it involves many responsible firms and people. The leaders of the industry, most of its major firms and many of the smaller firms want a regulatory system. It is too easy for criminals to be employed—or, indeed, to be employers—in the industry. It is absurd that there is nothing to stop someone walking out of gaol, hiring or even stealing a van, buying a dog and setting up a private security firm. We cannot persist with a system which makes that possible. It poses a threat to the reputation and credibility of responsible firms in the industry. The evidence that the Home Affairs Select Committee gathered—much of it was quoted in the body of the report—showed how damaging that can be.
  890
  The report of the Association of Chief Police Officers, in which the chief constable of Northumbria took the lead, cited many incidents of criminal infiltration. Thousands of crimes are committed by employees of security firms, and many employees and proprietors of such firms have criminal offences on their records.
  In addition, parts of the industry have appallingly low rates of pay. This is not an argument about the merits or otherwise of a national minimum wage, but an illustration of a problem. Rates of pay are so appallingly low in some parts of the industry that they cannot be associated with high standards of recruitment or with a responsible attitude of employer to employee. In an unregulated industry in such a sphere, the cowboys undercut the reputable operators. In parts of the industry there is too little training and many people in the industry have no training at all.
  The public are being deluded into thinking that because someone is in a smart uniform, he is therefore part of a trained, disciplined and accountable service, but that is not necessarily the case. The industry has worked hard to build up its various systems of self-regulation, but in the guarding sector of the industry it has been repeatedly proved that self-regulation does not extend far enough and does not give reputable firms the protection to which they are entitled.
  I remain concerned that the Home Office itself employs companies which do not belong to a self-regulating system. I am not satisfied with the excuse that it would be unreasonable to impose such a condition because it would require membership of a trade organisation. Given that there is more than one such body, the Home Office can surely require that any security firm that it employs should subscribe to one of the recognised self-regulating organisations until something better is produced.
  There was recently an outcry at the misuse and sale of closed circuit television tapes. Much of the monitoring of CCTV is carried out by private security firms, some of them at the doubtful end of the industry. CCTV is a valuable tool in fighting crime, but there is no control over what happens to video tapes produced by it. The video that was produced for sale before Christmas was one example of the way in which CCTV can be abused. I participated in a radio debate with the man who was hoping to make a lot of money out of sales of footage over Christmas, and I am glad to say that the video was ultimately withdrawn, but the incident provided a vivid illustration of what can happen.
  New schemes supported by the Home Office for CCTV have to be subject to guidelines—to a code of practice—but that limitation does not cover existing schemes that the Home Office supports, let alone those which, although they exist in public places, are not funded by the Home Office. There is no adequate system of sanctions. I would expect any system for the regulation of security companies to cover their conduct in that sphere. It is also necessary to have specific limitations on the misuse of CCTV tapes. If that is not done, sooner or later people will start switching off the systems because they are being abused and public co-operation will be undermined. CCTV is a valuable tool to fight crime, but if it is used as a source of intrusive, salacious or violent videos, the exercise in crime prevention will be fatally damaged. We should not allow that to happen.

  891
  On the wider issue of the regulation of the industry, particularly the manned guarding sector, the Government's response has been inadequate. It is not satisfactory that we should have to wait even longer for a full Government response to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Government should get on with it. Issues remain to be resolved, but we need an agency to carry out the licensing system. There must be provision for access to criminal records, there must be some provision for exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and there must be action to monitor CCTV.
  The private security industry needs regulation to carry out its job properly, and the public need the assurance that when they see a uniformed security guard they are seeing someone who has been subjected to a proper system of regulation and control. It was therefore right for the motion to be cast in terms that require the Government to get on and do the job. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the motion and I invite other right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.
  8.37 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: This is a short debate and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not repeat the speech that I made on 1 November last year when I introduced to the House the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the private security industry. I intend today to speak as briefly as possible of the Government's reactions so far.
  The Government have been a little slow in coming forward. The Select Committee reported in May 1995, we had our press conference in June—the Government usually reply to Select Committees within two months, although in this case we were approaching the long vacation—but I have only just received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, dated yesterday, with responses which are not yet the full and final Government reaction, although it is now nine months since the Select Committee reported.
  I should be reluctant to blame the Government because the question of whether—and, if so, how—we regulate the private security industry, is complicated and involved. Although we tried to narrow its scope considerably by excluding many areas that we thought might eventually have to be addressed, we were unable to give the Government any help with the draft Bill or very much detail. I believe that we all appreciated that, and we did not expect the Government to make a speedy and detailed response to the report. But I do not completely excuse the Government for the delay because I suspect that part, if not much, of the reason was a conflict within the Government as to whether to regulate, which may not have been resolved. Perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), will be able to throw some light on that.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the many good firms in the industry which behave reputably and go out of their way to try to ensure that everything is carried out properly in their part of the industry. Nevertheless, despite all the good voluntary regulation carried out by responsible and reputable companies and institutions recently, there is an urgent need for statutory regulation.
  We conducted our inquiry precisely because evidence was growing that there were too many cowboy companies in what was a fast-growing industry. Too many firms were
  892
  outside the scope of voluntary controls. Too many disreputable people worked in the industry. Too many offered a low standard of service. Too many were a danger to the public, and to themselves, as working conditions, quality of training and pay were unacceptably low.
  Some people consider that the industry should therefore be regulated, but a conflict exists because others say, "We are a deregulating Government; we are trying to get the Government off the backs of industry and business. Our deregulation drive not only distinguishes us from paternalistic Governments in other countries, but has been a principal reason for the success of British industry as we emerge foremost among our competitors from the last world economic recession".
  I agree with that, but I believe that that conflict within the Government machine has slowed down the decision-making process and that there may be a danger of its stopping altogether. That would be too bad for those suffering from the inadequacies of the 80 per cent. of the industry which does not subject itself to voluntary regulation and controls. A great many people in Britain are at the mercy of cowboys, crooks, incompetence and low standards.
  I, too, listened to Francis Maude—a former distinguished and able parliamentary colleague—who chairs the Government's deregulation task force, stating his reasons why statutory regulation was not necessary in a discussion on "Today" this morning in which I had not been invited to participate. Impressed as I usually am by my former right hon. Friend's wisdom and judgment, I was not overly impressed this morning, although I certainly do not share the personal strictures that were passed on him by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Francis Maude said, if I heard him aright, that only "one bit" of the private security industry needed attention—the manned guarding sector, as the Select Committee recommended. That "bit"—on the assumption that the private security industry would soon be, if it was not yet, double the size of the police force in this country, at 300,000—must be approaching the size of the entire police force. Some bit!
  According to Francis Maude, most of the trouble comes from bouncers, but I do not believe that that is the case. There must be more security guards guarding businesses, industries, factories, stores, private estates and building sites and patrolling the streets than there are bouncers in the entire country.
  I believe that Francis Maude said that it was unnecessary to make it a criminal offence for an unregulated company to offer guarding services without a licence or for companies to employ people who did not have a licence; all that was needed was for the individual to be prevented from offering himself for employment if he had certain convictions. That will not stop the cowboys or the crooks; still less will it stop those who employ cowboys and crooks in the knowledge that they are employing cowboys and crooks. That is why the police so strongly support statutory regulation.
  Francis Maude said that our proposals would mean more bureaucracy and more pressure on small business and would give false comfort to the public. He said that the police always want licensing systems and that they do not care about spending more of the public's money.

  893
  Frankly, I believe that Francis Maude has elevated deregulation to an exaggerated level. I am as deregulating a Conservative as anyone can be, but there is regulation and regulation: some regulation is necessary and some is not.
  In the opinion of the all-party Select Committee, this type of regulation is necessary. Some regulation is not wanted by industry and some regulation is—and this regulation is wanted by the private security industry. Some regulation is unnecessarily costly to the Government and to the people, and some regulation is not. The proposed regulation would be paid for by the industry: that alone makes it different. The industry is not complaining about regulation, licensing or statutory controls: it wants all those things so much that it is actually prepared to pay for them.
  I make the following plea to the Government. Let them consider more realistically the fact that the private security industry is growing fast and is reaching into areas which have hitherto been the province of police forces in Britain—the prisons, private escort services and street patrols. Let them consider the fact that public anxiety is growing, which is why the police are anxious for a more regulated—not less regulated—industry. Let them consider the fact that, uncharacteristically, the industry wants statutory regulation because it cannot cope itself.
  This morning, the Select Committee received a letter from the British Security Industry Association—one of the most responsible organisations in the industry. It says:
  "The issue has gained momentum in recent months"—since our report—
  "with the growth in companies offering residential street patrol services and the imminent review of police core activities, which is likely to have a major impact on the industry".
  The association concludes, as a representation to us:
  "BSIA will continue to work to persuade Government to introduce statutory regulation of the manned guarding industry".
  I ask the Government to consider that something positive must be done to stop crooks, or even people with previous relevant convictions who might be placed in positions of temptation and become crooks again, from taking up those positions. I ask them to consider, please, the deplorable level of training, of pay, of social security abuse, which exist in the industry and which cannot improve without statutory regulation. I ask them to consider that we are one of the few countries in western Europe in which the private security industry is not regulated, and to consider the commercial disadvantage to which our industry might be subjected if we do not statutorily regulate.
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider how greatly public confidence in the Government's approach to law and order and crime reduction would be increased if we controlled what is wrong in the industry in a clearly regulated way.
  Having said all that, if there is a Division today I shall not go into the Lobby with the Labour party, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, the debate was made party political by the hon. Member for Blackburn, with strictures against the Government far wider than the single issue that we are debating requires. The tabling of the motion in prime time is itself a party political matter.
  894
  I was not elected to vote against the Government on law and order, of all issues, and my constituents would rightly be astonished and unhappy if I did.
  I deplore the political nature of what is, fortunately, only part of the debate, because I believe that more would have been achieved if we had not been party political.
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman note that we stood back and allowed the opportunity for a non-partisan debate as long ago as 1 November 1995, when the hon. and learned Gentleman first drew attention to the issue, and that it might have been a non-partisan debate if Ministers had chosen to make it so?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is not how it worked out today, when the hon. Member for Blackburn and his team made it a party political debate. The debate on 1 November was very good, but unfortunately it was too short and I am pleased that we are taking the matter up again today. However, I deplore the fact that, for a number of reasons, it has acquired a party political aspect—even though an all-party Committee released the report that we are discussing.
  If the Government were ignoring our report, I should be constrained—even in the face of my constituents' expectations—to vote with the Opposition in their Lobby. However, from my close association with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), I know that they are treating the subject very seriously and I believe that the door supervisor guidelines are a very sensible and strong indication of that fact.
  We have raised complicated matters and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we cannot expect the Bill to contain detailed provisions about the licensing authority, its size, functions, powers and scope, about licensing individuals, rights of appeal, disclosure of criminal records, the relevance of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and much else—even after a few months.
  My right hon. Friend has convincingly addressed the problems of vetting, which the Government are examining, and the work being done to produce a White Paper on such matters. I accept that the Government intend to ensure that the White Paper meets our concerns about the employment of dishonest and violent people in the private security industry.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary says in his letter, it is extremely important to get the solutions right. As I see it, the Government are endorsing the principal recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee in important areas. I accept also that our report is receiving careful consideration. I regret that the letter does not go as far as I would like, but I believe that it is constructive—as were the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State today. So long as the Government are not diverted by those who believe that statutory regulation is out of place in this area—where the public are increasingly closely, and sometimes frighteningly, affected—I shall certainly give the Government the benefit of any doubts that I may have about their determination to adopt the Committee's recommendations.

  895
  Interestingly, the Home Affairs Select Committee report concludes:
  "We have…been impressed by the fact that the Government—once resolutely opposed to regulation in this sector, and even now going through a process of comprehensive deregulation—has an open mind about regulation in this field".
  That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told us when he gave evidence before the Select Committee. I hope that we can rely utterly upon that statement and that my colleagues on the Home Affairs Select Committee were not too easily or wrongly impressed by my right hon. Friend's reassurance.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: The private security industry cannot and should not be the subject of partisan debate. People's safety and security should be more important than the Minister conveyed to the House this evening. His barnstorming speech failed to convince the Liberal party; the Opposition; the former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler); and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is a recidivist right winger. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield received the Adam Smith award for services to economics and politics.
  Apart from the Home Office and, dare I suggest, some of the criminal classes, no one—including the right and the centre moderate wings of the Conservative party, almost all of the security industry, the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers—is unanimously in favour of the Government's response. I have also been approached by those in the criminal classes whose houses were burgled while they were supposedly being guarded by security firms, so not even all the crooks favour the Government's response.
  The Minister said that those who argue the case for regulation have not put forward alternative detailed proposals. I have introduced five Bills in the House of Commons and the last of them—which I introduced only a year ago—ran to 29 clauses. With that challenge in mind, I shall shortly introduce my next Bill which will make the Scott report look like a pamphlet. It will contain enormous detail about what I believe regulation should involve. My latest Bill was supported by six Conservative Members, all of whom were members of the Defence Select Committee. That clearly shows that the subject cuts across party political boundaries.
  I fear that the Minister's speech was misconceived. He criticised the Opposition for daring to raise an issue that was not "one of the burning issues of the day". I shall ask him afterwards why those remarks were, unwittingly, probably the sickest that have been uttered for some time. If the Minister watches the 9 o'clock news this evening, he will see the funeral of a young lady who it is alleged was burned as a result of a security guard's actions. The matter is yet to be decided by the courts.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the whole of the case is sub judice.
  Mr. George: I will not pursue the matter further and I said that it is yet to be proved in the courts. I know of three cases—I know that there are many more—involving pyromaniac security guards who set fire to the factories that they were employed to guard and caused enormous damage. I have details of those cases and, if pressed, I shall present them to the House.
  896
  I very much welcome the debate, which, unfortunately, is about 15 years too late. My interest in the industry dates back only to 1977—that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield goes back almost a quarter of a century. No one who has taken an interest in the industry is remotely satisfied with the way in which it has been conducted. When I talk to senior figures in the private security industry abroad, they are bemused to learn that there is no regulatory system of the industry in Britain. Some 42 states of the United States, Hong Kong and Singapore—those bastions of socialism—are regulated. All the states of Australia, the provinces of Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, Turkey, Israel, Argentina, Chile, South Africa and even Trinidad and Tobago have regulated security industries.
  Is there something about our approach to industry that reflects a British genius that allows us to do things without regulation which less competent mortals and political systems must do with regulation? The club of countries with no regulation is diminishing as a number are working to produce regulatory regimes, and we shall soon be isolated. The Confederation of European Security Services—an employers' organisation—compiled a league table of European security industries based upon average working hours, wage levels, the number of hours' training that a guard received, industrial relations and the regulatory system. The United Kingdom came joint 13th with Ireland in the table for Europe alone. There is little of which to be proud. The Government's response to regulation has been total indifference. They are wedded to the philosophy of deregulation and letting the free market reign. Apparently, they oppose setting up a quango, although they have contributed significantly to the increase in the number of quangos.
  In 1991, a Home Office report on the security industry stated:
  "Inevitably, users of the industry get what they pay for. The Government considers that issues such as training and wages are fundamentally matters for the industry and its customers.
  It is ultimately for users to ensure that the company they choose is competent and reliable and to include strict requirement for employee vetting, training, supervision and performance in their contracts.".
  The private security industry must not be perceived in the same way as the purchase of a washing machine or a visit to the hairdresser. It is far too important to be left to market forces, which drive down wages and performance in the industry. The Government must do what almost every other Government does—they must not take over the security industry, but merely set the parameters within which it operates.
  Most purchasers of security, including the Government, buy the cheapest. One gentleman who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee said that he would not put in a bid for a contract from the Ministry of Defence because the MOD would not like his prices. He could not run a competent security operation on the money that the Government were prepared to pay. I have here details of a job in security offered by the security department of the British Library paying a basic salary of less than £9,000, rising to about £11,000. Can we protect the nation's heritage for some £10,000 a year?
  Many purchasers of security—regrettably, even the Government—fail to set minimum standards. In Newbury, 700 security guards were chasing their tails pursuing people who were infinitely more competent than

  897
  themselves. They received minimal or no training. There were 700 guards, yet they could not provide the service for which their employers were paying.
  Poor security can have serious implications. The Deputy Prime Minister, the arch-deregulator, helped to create an amusing piece of history, although it is a serious matter. It concerned one of the first people to be gaoled after the ceasefire with the IRA. It was reported that
  "the younger of the pair, had worked as a security guard in London, his postings taking him to both Capital Radio and the Independent Television Commission where one of his tasks had been to escort Michael Heseltine, the Trade and Industry Secretary around the premises.".
  Should the right hon. Gentleman read that, perhaps he would review his opinion on regulation and licensing.
  The industry has appallingly low standards, low pay and long hours. One job that was advertised offered no pay but free access to a mobile phone. A survey by the Low Pay Unit in the west midlands identified salaries of £2.69 per hour for a 67-hour week. There are poor wages and low levels of training. The Government amendment wishes the House to congratulate the Government on raising standards. The Blue Ribbon security company offered only two days of formal training. What industry requires only two days' training? Some 555 guards in England and Wales and only 15 in Scotland have passed the NVQ level 2 in security guarding. Only about one in 10 guards has passed the professional guard part 1 qualification, which does not require the brains of a rocket scientist. Quality in the guarding industry is low and the Government are prepared to tolerate it.
  There is evidence of poor standards of performance throughout the guarding industry. There is a notable lack of accountability and self-regulation has been a dismal failure. Companies that do not wish to participate in the self-regulatory system do not put forward their names, so only a fraction of the companies in the private security industry are subject to what is often weak self-regulation. I could provide more details. The regulators themselves are not independent. The British Security Industry Association has a regulatory regime, but it is a trade association and it remains rather too closely connected with the inspectorate that it set up.
  In conclusion, the Government took nine months to reply to a report. The Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, would not accept a reply more than three months after the publication of the report. That demonstrates the Government's confusion. What the Minister said was appalling. It is a travesty that employers are denied access to criminal records. Many right hon. and hon. Members travel by air. How many of them are aware that the employers of UK airport security personnel do not have access to criminal records? That should be a salutary reminder to those of us who fly. Employers are refused the benefit of such access because the Government have not seen fit to bestow it upon them. Wide-ranging regulations should cover the industry progressively over time, and they should include background checks and beyond. There should also be minimum training standards and insurance, and the industry's regulation should be independent.
  I want the security industry to be respected. At the moment, it is seen as a bad joke. In a recent television programme, one character asked another, who was a policeman, "Does he have form?" The reply was,
  898
  "Of course he does—he is a security guard." How long can that situation be tolerated? I want a private security industry that is healthy and profitable, provides excellent services, and is efficient, accountable and honest. I want the people who work in the industry to be proud of doing so. Regulation is not a panacea—it must be the proper type of regulation.
  When the House has passed regulation of that sort—and clearly that will not be done by the present Government—the security industry can develop. It has not done so other than in numbers because the Government have not been prepared to lay down minimum standards. Self-regulation has exhausted itself. Even security firms that operate in a self-regulatory environment are pleading for statutory control. Regrettably, the present Government will not deliver that control, but perhaps another Government will.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: The interesting contributions to this debate and to that of last November, which I had the pleasure of attending, do not in any sense convey an impression of unanimity, because different views and shades of opinion exist in the House. The fine balance of arguments is illustrated by the excellent Select Committee report.
  The House has often rightly been condemned for rushing too quickly into legislation without proper thought—and if we acted on the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), we would be doing that. Although the hon. Gentleman hid behind the Select Committee report, he failed to make a convincing argument for regulation. He rightly referred to statistics indicating problems in the industry, which are not denied. Nor do I deny the need to address those problems. However, the hon. Member for Blackburn failed to make a strong case for tackling them solely by regulation. He was extremely thin on detail, failing to address any of the anomalies among the possibilities for regulation.
  There are two distinct parts to the argument for dealing with the problems that exist in the private security industry. One part relies on non-statutory methods to improve standards; the other relies on some degree of statutory or state regulation. I have no difficulty with the former. There is a way of considerably improving standards, by enhancing the ability of employers to consult national criminal records. It is entirely right that the law should be amended so that employers in the security industry can check on employees and prospective employees, to vet them far more thoroughly and ensure that persons with unsatisfactory criminal records are not employed.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister hint that there may be some hope of extending the law in this regard after the White Paper is published. The Government closely studied this issue following the Green Paper, and it would fit in very nicely with some of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. All the examples that the hon. Member for Blackburn quoted referred to employees who have criminal records, and that issue could be dealt with via this mechanism. It would also deal with the majority of examples in the Select Committee's report.
  If employers are given access to Phoenix when it is fully on stream and to national records it would, to a large extent, deal with the problem of people with criminal

  899
  records being employed. I should like to find a way to deal with employers who have criminal records—an issue that the hon. Member for Blackburn was correct to raise.
  I wonder whether a mechanism could be found to allow those who sign contracts with manned guard companies either to examine the records of the employer or directors of the company or to find an alternative means to assure themselves that not only those who represent the contract company but those who run it have clean records.
  I support the extension of the exemptions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to this area of employment. The correct extension of exemptions in other forms of sensitive employment would rightly rest with an extension to this area as well.
  Another area of non-statutory regulation is self-regulation. The hon. Member for Blackburn was far too ready to dismiss self-regulation as a useful tool. He made a distinction between self-regulation and external regulation, but there is a role for both, as both have good track records in many other industries. For example, I refer to the advertising industry and to the security alarm sector of the security industry. The National Approved Council for Security Systems, the trade organisation involved, has worked to regulate that sector.
  I encourage further steps to achieve higher training standards and other standards within the industry. However, it must be borne in mind that this industry is diverse. For example, the following activities are quite different: guarding gold bullion; guarding a shop—a small newsagent, for example—against shoplifting, normally via presence; and guarding materials on a small building site.
  It would be virtually impossible to define in statute standards that should apply in all those cases. The simple solution would be to allow the industry, in its various forms, to promote high standards and internal regulation. That can be an effective way of dealing with potential problems.
  I am not against statutory regulation as such—it has a role in many industries—but I am simply lukewarm about it for this industry. There are always arguments in favour of it—although those arguments can be applied to almost every industry. One could make a very good case for statutory regulation of window cleaners as they enter private premises and have unparalleled opportunities to commit crime if they so wish. Other issues have been used as an argument for regulation, such as low wages. However, that does not mean that as a matter of course regulation is a good thing.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Can my hon. Friend think of any other industry that wants more regulation and is prepared to pay for it?
  Mr. Merchant: The House should not make a decision purely on the basis of what an industry wants or argues for. Of course, it is not the whole industry that wants statutory regulation; for that matter, there is no consensus on where the borderline should be drawn. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, one of the major trade organisations—it is mentioned in the Select Committee report—has criticised the recommendation in the report and has said that licensing should be put into effect right across the manned guarding sector, not just the contract part of the industry. In other words, it should apply to direct employment as well. There is thus no clear consensus on the exact form that regulation should take.
  900
  It is possible to argue in favour of regulation in an industry, but the arguments do not end there. We have to decide exactly what we intend to regulate, how to regulate it and where to draw the line. There is no consensus on that, either. No clear argument to explain where the line should be drawn has been advanced.
  The fact is that this is a very large industry. To be sure, it should behave properly and it should have high standards, but I am not convinced that introducing statutory regulations would achieve them. Would regulation automatically improve the industry? Would it avoid the possibility of criminals subverting parts of the industry? Would it stop crime altogether? I think not.
  Unfortunately, regulation is no guarantee that an employee will not use his position to commit a crime. After all, the police are heavily regulated. They are part of the state system, yet there are, unfortunately, quite a number of policemen and women who commit crimes. Regulation is therefore by no means a panacea.
  I am not at all clear where the manned guarding contract sector begins and ends. Should we, for instance, include commissionaires? They are employed to guard and are often part of a contract arrangement. Quite often, however, their sole duty is to sit at the entrance of a building and issue people with permits to enter or leave. Should we include caretakers? A major part of the role of some caretakers is to guard buildings. When other staff leave, they are responsible for ensuring security. All these problems must be dealt with.
  It is no use people like the hon. Member for Blackburn saying that the problem can be easily solved by producing regulations and by stipulating who can be employed. We must also define exactly which activities we are talking about. I fear that new Labour sees regulation not as a way of dealing with abuse in an industry but as a way of controlling it. It sees regulation as a way of reintroducing the state to an industry. Once Labour had opened the door to regulation of this sector, it would wish to use the opportunity to push the door completely open and control every aspect of the industry. The industry is certainly not calling for that, yet a number of speeches today seemed to show that that is what the Opposition want.
  Of course we want high standards in the industry. The question is: how to achieve them? The Minister is quite right to be cautious. He should take some time before grasping some of the superficially attractive solutions that might in the end do little to alleviate the problem. Instead, he should look in depth at every aspect of the industry before reaching a final decision on whether regulation is appropriate—and, if it is, on what form of regulation to introduce.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: Only the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) has argued in favour of continued self-regulation of the private security industry. I am sure that he would want, in normal circumstances, to place proper emphasis on the views of the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers when forming his views, so I respectfully ask him to look once again at the evidence that the Select Committee took on self-regulation. The evidence against it is convincing.
  The Police Federation, for example, told the Committee that the whole system had broken down. There is little support across the industry for continued reliance on

  901
  self-regulation, which would not restore or maintain public confidence in the industry. Nor would it address some of the wider concerns that were argued before the Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman also made a rather unfortunate mistake in suggesting that the Committee's report was a Trojan horse that was engineered by Labour Members of Parliament, and that it was designed somehow to re-regulate whole sectors of the industry. I remind him that the Committee has a majority of Conservative Members and that its report was unanimous. The report was compelling because the arguments in favour of statutory regulation are overwhelming. Everyone who gave evidence supported the arguments in favour of regulation. To summarise for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, they included the police, the industry itself and all the main consumers of security services.
  When the Minister of State gave evidence to the Committee in December 1994, he told us that he was coming to the Committee with an open mind. He used that expression again tonight. I was rather disappointed with his speech tonight because I did not see any evidence of an open mind on statutory regulation—far from it; he tried to parody the arguments in the Committee's report and present them as some back-door red tape and bureaucracy that would stifle an important industry. All the members of the Committee were conscious of that argument. We do not want to adopt a system that would in any way act as a brake on the industry or bury it in red tape. We have had enough red tape from the Government in many other sectors—the health service and elsewhere—to know the problems. We do not want those problems to recur in the private security industry.
  That was not the model that we presented in our report, and the Minister did the Committee a disservice—and gave the game away to a large extent—by trying to pretend that it was. We are conscious of those arguments. We do not want to repeat the mistakes. We want an effective system of statutory regulation, as called for by the industry and the police, which will address some of the concerns that we heard about the operation of the industry.
  There are three specific arguments in favour of regulation of the industry. First, we want to deal with standards. Secondly, we want to deal with the chronic abuses in the industry: low pay, appalling working practices and conditions, and poor training. It is an abusive industry in many respects. Many of the small employers—the cowboy employers—abuse their staff and require them to work long hours. There is no holiday provision. It is a disgrace. That is not an argument for old-style regulation. The Committee examined the matter and felt that the evidence of abuse and of low standards was sufficiently compelling to warrant consideration by the agency that we propose to regulate the industry.
  Thirdly, we are extremely concerned about criminality in the industry. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others some pretty grim examples. I do not want to repeat the arguments—anyone who wants to see the catalogue of miserable events should simply read the evidence that we published at the same time as our report. It is important to deal with some of the arguments raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham, and by the Minister of State, who suggested that the issue of criminality in the
  902
  industry could be dealt with solely by improving access to criminal records. I do not believe that to be the case, and nor, I believe, do my colleagues on the Committee, because there are well-documented examples of one-person businesses being set up by people with serious convictions for offences that make them unsuitable to provide private security services. We would not deal with the issue by disclosing or requiring greater access to criminal records.
  The evidence of criminality that was presented to the Select Committee came in part from the Lancashire constabulary, which undertook some research of its own. It revealed that criminality in the private security industry was 21 times higher than we would expect in the police service. That is the important comparison that we should be making. It is false to compare levels of criminality in the private security industry with those in the general population. The private security industry is moving into territory that has hitherto been the sole responsibility of the police, which have their own legal, ethical and moral code, backed by statutory force.
  I know that there are some methodological difficulties with the research undertaken by the Lancashire constabulary, but the results give us a pretty good background against which we can measure the performance of the private security industry. There is plenty of evidence that should give rise to real concern. Unlike the hon. Member for Beckenham, I do not believe that we can rely on self-regulation to deal with the problems.
  Perhaps there is a wider issue of public confidence that we should consider. The Association of Chief Police Officers, for example. was extremely articulate in presenting evidence to the Select Committee. It drew attention to the fact that there has been a shift in some of the roles and relationships between the private industry and the police.
  One example is the prison escort service. We see the private industry involved in the prison service. Such responsibilities have always rested in the public sector, but no longer. In any main shopping centre anywhere in the country we see uniformed patrols of staff employed in the private security industry. They are on the streets, they are visible and all our constituents come into contact with them. The need philosophically and jurisprudentially for a proper statutory context in which the private industry can function is overwhelming and compelling.
  I am sad to say that the Library told me today that the average time taken by all Government Departments to deal with Select Committee reports is 3.4 months. The Home Office takes an average of seven months to reply to such reports. That is not good enough. I know that the issues raised in this instance are extremely complicated—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: And there are many of them.
  Mr. Hutton: My hon. and learned Friend says—well, I do not want to embarrass him. The distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), mentions that the Committee made many recommendations. In fact, that is not so. It is not the case either that our reports are so uniquely complex that the Home Office needs twice as long to respond to them as other Departments need to respond to other Select Committee reports. The problem

  903
  is that it is inefficient and involved in a battle with the Department of Trade and Industry, which is apparent to anyone who has been involved in the debate about the private security industry.
  The Home Office cannot make up its mind. It is torn between the need to do something to deal with a problem that it recognises and its ideological obsession to deregulate at every opportunity. It is increasingly the Government's trademark to pursue ideology at the expense of common sense. Before us is a classic example of the need for less ideology and more common sense, plus a commitment to do something sensible to tackle problems.
  If the Government continue to delay and to obfuscate the argument, they will damage the industry. Maintaining the status quo and tampering with or accepting, perhaps, some of the more marginal recommendations is not the best way in which to proceed. The Government should accept the main thrust of the Committee's recommendations. Only if they do that will they convince the House—that certainly applies to my right hon. and hon. Friends—that they have the best interests of the private security industry at heart.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: We have heard little so far about the victims—those who have been let down by an industry that has been infiltrated in certain key sectors by the criminal classes. I have in mind companies that have been set up as front organisations for organised crime. They sell their wares to unsuspecting licensees of public houses or the managers of hotel catering establishments. During the 1980s, such infiltration increased enormously, with the result that there was a huge increase in criminal activities. Such organisations realised from the outset that, if they controlled the door security industry, they would control access to clubs and leisure areas, the selling and distribution of drugs there, prostitution, and other key intimidation and protection rackets. As a consequence, they use violence against the companies who own the clubs and pubs and their customers.
  I could not believe it when the Minister of State made light of the issue and claimed that it was not one of law and order or of crime prevention, but of some obscure issue of regulation. In the past eight years, I have provided the Home Office with a dossier of violence, murder, grievous bodily harm and intimidation, leading to people having to give up their licence because of their refusal to allow these companies into their premises. There have been arson attacks, physical violence against people and their families and racketeering leading to companies' losing control of their premises.
  The dossier includes examples of constituents of mine who have been visited at home because they were witnesses in court cases against bouncer companies that had been violent. On two occasions, for example, they have been told that, if they proceeded as witnesses, their child would end up in a coffin with them. The dossier also includes examples of constituents who have been beaten up with baseball bats in mistaken revenge attacks against an enemy of a company and of rice flails being used against licensees who objected simply to the use of violence in their premises by the companies.
  904
  During the campaign, we have had the support of the security and leisure industries and the police. There is a strongly held view that, unless we register and regulate the industry, the expansion of criminal activities will continue.
  I say without exaggeration that the companies and criminals are ruthless. They will stop at nothing. They threaten the people who stand against them. For example, I gave evidence to the Home Office about personal threats to kill me and my family. My children were threatened and a wreath was nailed to my door by a company. My wife has received condolence cards about my death and I have received such cards about my wife's death. We have had telephone calls threatening that, if we continue the campaign in the local community, violence will be inflicted on me or any individual who associated with us in that campaign. Despite that, the Home Office has taken no action. It must do so not because of the threats against me—I am only one individual—but because thousands of people are experiencing daily attacks by these companies.
  I shall conclude soon because some of my hon. Friends want to speak. The Home Secretary has a full dossier of evidence about the extent of infiltration of this sector of the industry by organised crime. I raise one issue contained in the dossier that he has not yet revealed and refused to reveal in the debate. In Merseyside, a detailed report was supplied revealing widespread criminality, including drug dealing, organised violence and extortion, among door supervisors. A survey of 476 door supervisors found that three had convictions for murder and manslaughter, that another two were on bail charged with murder, that 25 had weapon convictions, that seven had firearm convictions, that 18 had drug convictions, that 101 had assault convictions and that 97 were claiming unemployment benefit while working as regular door supervisors. Those figures do not include the people who employ the door supervisors. A survey of the employers found that they had a similar record. The companies were just front organisations for organised crime.
  The Home Secretary should take action urgently. During Home Department questions, I asked the Minister of State if he would
  "bring forward proposals for statutory regulation of the security industry."
  He said that the Government had no plans to do so. In response, I said:
  "Was it not extraordinary that just before Christmas Conservative central office, through its security company, recruited one Bob King who had just served 15 years for armed robbery to work as a security guard at central office? Does that not prove that infiltration of the industry has gone right to the top, including the Government?"—[Official Report, 12 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 263–64.]
  Having listened to the Minister and the complacency of his speech today, I believe that that just about got it right.
  9.34 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: What has been most striking about the Government's utterances about the need to regulate the private security industry, and their inadequate and long-delayed response to the Select Committee's report—forced on them by this Opposition day debate—is the sheer complacency of Ministers. Despite statistics that occasionally suggest otherwise, the growth of fear of crime is now a disturbing social phenomenon. Since the Government came to office,

  905
  recorded crime has more than doubled. What the Government fail to recognise is that the expansion of private security is a direct reflection of that trend, and society's response to it.
  There is considerable public unease about the intrusion of the private security industry into areas that were previously the domain of the police. As a report in the Independent on Sunday in June last year pointed out,
  "Already, security firms have fingers in a staggering number of pies."
  Once it was exclusively the task of the police to keep the unruly at bay, marshal parades and check shop doors after dark. On rare occasions, special constables were sworn in to subdue riots. That is no longer true. Privateers escort prisoners to gaol, run prisons and guard installations; they repel anti-road protesters, and defend construction sites. They kept mourners in line at, for example, Ronnie Kray's gangster funeral. There are now at least as many people employed by private security firms as there are uniformed police. According to one estimate, the former—162,000—outnumber the latter by 4,000. According to another, there are as many as 250,000 privateers.
  Last year's Police Federation conference was warned by David French, chairman of the constables' central committee:
  "The growth in private security services means that those who can afford it are looking to hired hands to protect them. There is no plan behind it, no legislation. They're leaving it to market forces."
  The chief constable of Northumbria told police staff college recruits:
  "The private security industry has begun to enter areas of public life which, until recently, have been seen as the sole preserve of statutory regulated bodies such as the police and prison services."
  As the Independent on Sunday report also pointed out,
  "A glance in the Yellow Pages shows the extent to which unregulated private security firms have invaded aspects of our daily lives."
  The list of those aspects is almost endless. It ranges from property protection to surveillance services, from bodyguarding to dog handling, from investigations of theft, from fraud and product piracy to airport, bank and embassy security. Security firms' advertisements reveal men in police-like uniforms with German shepherd dogs, or on horseback, or at control desks. They wear shields and crests with lions rampant.
  Nearly 8,000 private security companies now operate in Britain, making the British industry the second largest in Europe, behind Germany's. It is a £3 billion industry, accountable to no one but itself. Counting the firms—never mind regulating them—is a problem. As BSIA spokesman Andrew Mackay has said,
  "There could be hundreds if not thousands of firms in London. Anyone can set up a security company using a mobile phone."
  In the face of all that evidence of the need to regulate the industry properly, the complacency of the Minister—who, as we know, has direct experience of the industry through Securicor—and, indeed, that of the Home Secretary is staggering. The Home Office has been presiding incompetently over an industry that is 30 years old. Every witness interviewed by the Select Committee called for statutory regulation at least of the manned guarding sector, making it plain that such a system could be self-financing, at no cost to the public purse. The Committee unanimously
  906
  "agreed with the overwhelming majority of the evidence we received that the advantages of regulation of the manned guarding sector … in terms of quality of service and protection of the public, of the industry's customers, and of its workforce, outweigh the loss of commercial freedoms which would be involved."
  Finally, let me tell the House which Conservative Members signed that unanimous Select Committee report. They are the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), and of course the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman. We shall see tonight whether those Conservative Members are willing to vote with their principles and support the Opposition motion or whether, yet again, we shall witness them saying one thing and doing another.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: I should like to declare an interest. Since the beginning of this month, I have been a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, although I do not intend to refer to it in this debate.
  Over the past decade, the private security industry has expanded rapidly. Private security guards have become part of everyday life across Britain in shopping centres, business districts, hospitals and entertainment complexes. Indeed, as the Home Affairs Select Committee report noted, increasingly the private security industry is expanding into areas that were previously in the domain of the police. Although it is important to ask whether that development is to be welcomed, that is for another debate.
  The private security industry is becoming more and more involved in protecting people and property, patrolling and guarding and, because of that expansion, we must be concerned about the industry's relationship with the public. Security guards are protecting people's lives and guarding people's property. That task should be undertaken by people who have been properly vetted, trained and paid. Some security companies address those issues thoroughly and act responsibly; however, many private security firms do not, and that must concern us all.
  Self-regulation has not worked. The industry is dogged by cowboy firms that continue to damage the reputation of responsible companies. There is no legal requirement to comply with minimum standards or join professional associations. The lack of vetting procedures, which lead to the kind of incidents that hon. Members have cited, must cause considerable concern.
  Until the Government are prepared to legislate on regulation in the security industry, I commend to the House the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, which I shall introduce on 1 March. It will go some way towards protecting those who discover malpractice, especially in the private security industry, from being penalised.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: We have heard it all tonight. The Home Secretary is not willing to listen. He is not willing to listen to decent employers, chief constables, the Opposition or the Home Affairs Select Committee, and he is not willing to act to protect the public.
  Last night, we received a pathetic so-called interim response addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). The Opposition have not chosen

  907
  to divide the House; the Home Secretary's reply has caused that to happen. It is an insult to the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House.
  It is almost two years since I commented that, sadly, it was difficult to find opponents of statutory regulation apart from Home Office Ministers and criminals who might be deprived of their jobs. Yet, since then, more examples of private security have arisen in different parts of the country. People have been approached by individuals who say that they operate a security system and look after homes in the area for a weekly payment. Such an approach is sometimes close to operating a protection racket and it is wholly unacceptable.
  There have been examples of people developing a security system on an estate, telling the police of their plans, then telling local people that they have the approval of the police when that was not the case. One group's circular offered patrols by staff free of criminal convictions, yet bore the name of a director who had several convictions for dishonesty and violence. Another firm was run by two men—one had a record for violence and the other for embezzlement. Perhaps in Conservative Britain that is regarded as a good partnership.
  A senior police officer told me:
  "I personally find it monstrous that people with convictions for burglary in dwelling houses are being allowed to run businesses and work for such companies whilst having strings of convictions for the offence for which they are purporting to protect the public".
  We have heard such comments from police officers in various parts of the country, and the Home Affairs Select Committee received specific evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which made exactly the same point.
  It is outrageous that no action has been taken and that the Government have failed to respond to the Select Committee's report. Indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee has tried to persuade and cajole Ministers to act, but they have refused to do so, thus insulting him. He is handling that insult with great restraint, but members of all parties who worked to produce a coherent report calling for action by the House have the right to ask better from Ministers.
  The public have every right to ask why Ministers are not answering questions. To whom does a dissatisfied customer complain if there is no statutory body to monitor and regulate private security firms? What criteria are used to decide whether people are suitable for employment if there is no enforcement in the industry? How can we ensure that all employees are trained to an acceptable level if there is no power of oversight?
  The Minister always forgets that there is no point in allowing employers access to criminal records if the employers themselves are criminals. Such employers may be in the minority in the private security industry, but it is decent employers who are supporting us whole-heartedly in calling for sensible regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was right to say that decent companies in the industry would be seriously damaged if the Government failed to join the search for proper regulation.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to staff with criminal records employed by someone with a criminal record for grievous bodily harm. He was right to say that this is not a new problem and that the only question to be asked is, how do
  908
  we achieve sensible regulation? I happily agree with his comments, but who is missing from the search for proper regulation? Only Ministers at the Home Office.
  The answer to the question how to find proper regulation was given in the unanimous cross-party report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to say that the private security industry is totally different from, for example, the housebuilding industry, where self-regulatory systems can work and be comprehensive. That is not so in the private security industry, which is why the Home Affairs Select Committee was so persuasive and why we have sought the sensible minimum in the debate—that we should unite behind the Select Committee's report.
  The unanimous report proposed proper regulation of the private security industry, but that regulation is obstructed by dogma and the obsession for deregulation displayed by Francis Maude and his like, even though it is obvious to the police, the public, the British Retail Consortium and decent companies in the industry that regulation on a statutory footing is urgent and essential.
  The Minister chose to ramble on about crime, the police, law and order and a series of issues on which the Conservatives are floundering and inept. He did so to avoid debating the issue before the House. He told us that he wanted to get any regulation of the private security industry right. He said that he had not rushed to make a decision, but, in truth, his contribution was pathetic. I know that the Home Secretary had a prior engagement but, by gosh, he must have been delighted and relieved to have missed such an embarrassing effort.
  The Minister tried to ridicule the serious commitment shown by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), but he must take seriously the experience of those who have taken action in the interests of their constituents, as my hon. Friends have done at a local level. Tonight, the Government have struggled to appear serious.
  Why did a Home Office Minister respond to the debate when it is dogmatic Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry who are blocking regulation that is in the public interest? Why is dogma standing in the way of protecting the public interest? That question was answered on the "Today" programme by a failed Conservative candidate who has been given a job by Ministers.
  More than a quarter of a century ago, Philip Sorenson, who was then the chairman of Group 4, said:
  "It is the responsibility of the security industry to work towards statutory backing for a system of control.
  That system should allay any fears about the role of private security companies in our society."
  Twenty-five years later, the Government offer only prevarication and delay.
  There are decent employers and decent employees in the private security industry. Their friends are on the Labour Benches. We are their friends, as we are the friends of the police and the public. There are also crooked employers and crooks employed in the private security industry. By Conservative Ministers' pathetic response to this debate, they have shown themselves to be the villains' friends.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I wish to make it clear that the Government have great respect for the

  909
  private security industry, which employs some 160,000 people and conducts the vast majority of its business without any problems. For example, the alarms sector, locksmiths, and cash-in-transit companies all operate well. The in-house part of the guarding sector is generally recognised to be sound. The one group that raises real concerns is the contract guarding sector.
  Legitimate concerns arise about the contract guarding sector, but no one should exaggerate the degree of criminality or security industry-related crime. A number of Opposition Members were guilty of that. Among other things, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) accused Mr. Francis Maude of speaking for the Government. Although Mr. Maude probably will speak for the Government again, he is what one might call a resting Minister, to borrow a phrase from another profession. He spoke as an independent business man on a panel that advises the Government. This morning, I was waiting by my telephone to be asked to appear on the "Today" programme, as were all my colleagues and the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It was entirely the BBC's decision to ask Mr. Maude to speak and I hope that that is not a habit to which they will become accustomed.
  The hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the problems of bouncers in their area.
  Ms Janet Anderson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I will not give way because I have very little time.
  I think that the hon. Members for Wigan and for Makerfield exaggerated somewhat. I do not think that thousands of people are threatened by bouncers.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned that there is an excellent voluntary scheme in Wigan, which makes my case that deregulation can work.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) demonstrated his long interest in this subject. He lamented the lack of regulation during the Labour Government and his interest goes back before the last Labour Government. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend did not manage, in one of the many seats that he occupied in the Cabinet in the past 15 years, to bring forward the regulatory measures that he suggested. Ireassure him that the Government are considering the Home Affairs Select Committee report carefully and we shall shortly produce proposals on vetting that may address his concerns. I certainly echo my right hon. Friend's call to avoid rushed legislation. He always showed remarkable prudence in introducing legislation in the many posts that he occupied in the Government.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) produced the old chestnut about the danger that closed circuit television video might be abused for commercial purposes. We had an isolated case, but that did not happen. That case demonstrates that it is possible
  910
  for the CCTV industry, which makes a huge contribution to crime prevention, to regulate itself. We should be careful about restricting CCTV unnecessarily.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made a characteristically wise speech. He chided us for being slow in replying to the report, but he conceded that he did not expect a speedy response given that the issue is complex and that any action we take has many ramifications. I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend that his report has been carefully studied. We need to do further work on a number of issues, but we shall introduce proposals soon. I noted the point that he made so vividly: the industry is growing and public concern is growing. Those matters need to be addressed.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) also showed a long-held interest and expertise in the subject, which we greatly respect. He warned us about the position of airline employees, the probity that is needed and the respect for the security industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made an interesting point when he said that we cannot be too prescriptive about training, because there are many different sorts of jobs in the security industry. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) warned us against red tape. His was a timely warning. We may need to ensure that there is access to records for employers, but without unnecessary burdens—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should listen to the winding-up speech and I should be grateful if hon. Ladies who want to have a giggle would have it outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Sackville: I shall not enter into that discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned violence. He made an interesting point, but we must be careful to keep it in context.
  The report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs covered the ground expertly and the Committee has done some excellent work in identifying the problems. However, we need to do more detailed work on tackling the problem, which is why we are considering some aspects of the report. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, we shall shortly be publishing our proposals on vetting, which should go a long way towards resolving the difficulties.
  The net effect of the contract guarding sector—even though there may be problems—is to deter crime. It reassures the public in many different ways. It has grown partly because of the lack of intrusive legislation. The vast majority of firms do a good job and add to the community's safety. They give businesses peace of mind and allow people to leave their premises at night; they do much to reassure vulnerable people in the high street.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) accused us of complacency. The Labour party's new-found interest in crime is hardly convincing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made some remarks the other day about Labour and criminals. Some of us were disappointed by his remarks, as we felt

  911
  they were far too restrained. The gulf between what Labour says about crime and what it does about crime is striking.
  When we raised the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life, what did the Labour party do? It voted against it.
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No, I will not give way.
  When we raised the maximum penalty for taking guns to a crime, the Labour party voted against that measure. We gave the Attorney-General the power to appeal against lenient sentences; the Labour party voted against that. We gave the courts the power to make the parents of 16 and 17-year-olds pay their children's fines; the Labour party voted against that. We reformed the right of silence; the Labour party voted against that. We gave the police powers to take DNA samples; the Labour party voted against that. Where were Labour Members? Perhaps most significantly, every year that we renewed the prevention of terrorism Act, the Labour party voted against it. Labour Members voted to weaken our controls against terrorism and against the bombers.
  The debate is not about security; it is a piece of Labour party opportunism. Labour Members are trying to combine their new-found display of interest in crime with an attack on the thing that they hate most—an unregulated private sector industry.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 294.

  Division No. 53]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Church, Judith

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Coffey, Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cox, Tom

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Laurence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Darling, Alistair

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Byers, Stephen

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

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  912

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litheriand, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fatchett, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  MacShane, Denis

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Maddock, Diana

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marek, Dr John

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Garrett, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hodge, Margaret

  Olner, Bill

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Ruddock, Joan

  Khabra, Piara

  Salmond, Alex

  S Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  913

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Trickett, Jon

  Short, Clare

  Tyler, Paul

  Simpson, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watson, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wise, Audrey

  Straw, Jack

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brown, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butler, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  French, Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Fry, Sir Peter

  914

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  915

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ward, John

  Sykes, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the valuable work done by the Home Affairs Committee in its First Report, Session 1994–95, on the private security industry (House of Commons Paper No. 17), welcomes the Government's plans to introduce the White Paper which will allow greater access to criminal records; and congratulates the Government on its firm and positive commitment to ensuring that standards throughout the industry are raised to the level of the best.

Private Security Industry PETITION

  Retirement Pensions
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to present a humble petition addressed to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, from the residents of Coventry. The petition reads:
  The recent reports of plans for changes to retirement pensions has filled the people of Coventry and in particular its British pensioners and the Trades Unions Action Association of the Coventry Branch with deep concern because the threat to the universal basic retirement pensions will in the long term be to their detriment and cause great hardship to the least well off of the pensioners of Coventry and the Nation. Two thousand and six hundred and twenty four people of Coventry have expressed their concern by signing the petition because if these proposed changes are implemented, they would be neither economically nor socially justified.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will approve no action that will be to the detriment of pensioners' entitlement and rights, instead commend the enhancement of pensions to at least one third of average earnings. And your pensioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Coastguard Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the coastguard service this evening, and I am particularly delighted with the choice of Minister to reply—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). That allows me to pay tribute to the Minister's erudition, wit and courtesy—which we will sadly miss when the hon. Gentleman leaves the House—and to say how much I anticipate with joy the description of the coastline of the Minister's constituency that he will no doubt give when he replies.
  The coastguard service is a serious subject, but it has not received much attention in the House in recent years. This is the first debate on the service in many years—in particular, the first since the publication of the Transport Select Committee's report on the future of the coastguard service that was published on 7 December 1994. I know that other hon. Members with coastal constituencies and those who are fellow officers of the all-party coastal group feel that this important issue should have been given Government time, but we welcome this opportunity. I am pleased that a number of my hon. Friends are present, as well as hon. Members of other parties.
  The Select Committee's report concluded with this important analysis:
  "The evidence we have received suggests that the operational personnel and equipment of the Coastguard are thinly stretched at present. The agency is dealing with many more incidents than in 1986, with fewer staff, and may recently have relied too much on the use of overtime and auxiliary coastguards to maintain service levels. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government has rejected the option of requiring the agency to produce efficiency savings of 20 per cent. Given the financial pressures under which the agency is presently operating, we are concerned that its present target of achieving a 6.4 per cent. saving in the next 18 months might adversely affect the provision of coastguard services. In view of the haste with which the agency was obliged to agree to the target, it may not in fact be possible for its management to find sufficient economies in non-operational elements of the budget to achieve such savings without compromising the effectiveness of the service."
  We are reaching the end of the period to which that conclusion relates, so this is a fitting moment to take stock.
  I pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and sheer guts of those who serve in the Coastguard Agency throughout the country. There are nearly 500 full-timers and 3,700 auxiliaries. They have been, and still are, demoralised by five years of non-stop reorganisation. In 210 BC, the Roman General Petronius said:
  "I was to learn in later life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
  That is precisely the impact that these continual reorganising proposals have had on this dedicated team of men and women.
  The current review is not the first in recent memory. The so-called Laver review, which was completed in 1978, recommended an increase in staff to more than 700. In 1987, cuts were imposed, resulting in the closure
  918
  of more rescue sub-centres. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the number of centres was reduced from 28 to 21. Recently, the following centres have closed: Wick, Peterhead, Tees, Shoreham, Ramsey in the Isle of Man, Land's End and Hartland Point on my constituency border.
  On 3 December 1991, the then Minister announced the latest comprehensive reorganisation, following a year-long review. There were elaborate plans to redesignate the auxiliary stations—some would be initial response teams, and some would be back-up teams. This caused confusion and consternation. The name games have played a major part in the confusion of recent years, including the curious suggestion that watch monitors be appointed—that seems more relevant to the classroom than to the serious occupation of watching the coast. This has contributed to the feeling that the service is unloved and misunderstood.
  On 9 May 1994, the then Secretary of State announced that he had set the service a 20 per cent. economy target, to be achieved over a two-year period by 1 April 1996. The chief executive anticipated the closure of seven rescue centres, and the loss of one third of the full-time jobs. As part of the Transport Select Committee exercise to which I have referred, Ministers subsequently back-tracked. The abrupt U-turn meant that the full implications were not, and are still not, apparent—they have not come out into the open, which is one of the reasons for continuing concern.
  Savings of some £1.4 million or £1.5 million by the end of next month are still being sought, but their manpower implications have not been fully explained to those most concerned. I know that my colleagues front Scotland, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), will confirm that morale is low.
  One officer has written the following to me:
  "After almost 30 years as a regular officer and 5 years as an auxiliary, I more than most can see just how the service if falling apart…recent decisions in the Coastguard service leave staff astounded, disenchanted and with morale at an all-time low".
  Hon. Members may recall that the timing of this debate was announced only last Thursday. The fact that all this information has reached me so speedily suggests that many people share our concerns.
  Another officer has written:
  "Rumours were flying around that discussion had taken place, or even agreements reached, about a range of issues … it appears that these rumours may have emanated from some senior managers".
  That is no way to conduct an effective, constructive negotiation or to improve confidence in the service.
  As in any organisation, there is room for savings, and there may be waste in particular areas. If so, it should be identified and eradicated. For example, there seems to be widespread criticism of the vehicle policy of the service in relation to initial costs, replacement and running expenses. The rationale should surely be the improvement of the efficiency of the service, not a dogmatic and arbitrary cost-cutting exercise to a predetermined monetary target.
  Between 1986 and 1994, the total number of incidents dealt with by the coastguard service almost doubled, from 5,300 to 10,470; the number of persons assisted increased from 8,960 to 17,400; and, thankfully, the number of fatalities decreased from 286 to 272. That in itself is

  919
  a tribute to the quality of the service. With much less manpower and a reduced budget in real terms, it is already achieving a great deal more.
  The gales of the past few days around the west country coasts, and especially in my constituency, are a salutary reminder of what we owe to those who dedicate their lives to safety at sea. The current collapse in morale, following months of secret cost-cutting schemes, is surely too high a price to pay if it results in reduced standards and obstacles to high quality recruitment.
  We are already hearing reports of distress signals being missed. I have a dossier referring to reports from regular coastguards of information that they have passed on to their superiors about missed mayday calls and missed urgent transmissions on the new 2182 medium frequency. There are renewed fears of inadequate manual watch—the cover in known danger spots around west country cliffs and secluded coves. Our coastal seafarers are expressing their concern; just when their numbers are increasing, inshore surveillance is being reduced.
  In recent weeks—particularly since the announcement of this debate—I have received expressions of frustration, anxiety and dismay from members of the service. They are dismayed, because the future is still so shrouded in official mist. The coastguards simply cannot understand why the bureaucrats, safe behind their desks, are being so slow and so secretive.
  Why cannot we have the full picture now? Surely dogmatic insistence on a budget cut across the board—still rumoured to be a reduction of at least £1.5 million to be achieved by the end of March—is quite wrong for a service in which safety must be paramount. Saving lives must take precedence over saving money, if only because, in the long term, driving volunteers out of the coastguard service will cost huge sums to reverse.
  Tonight is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the coastguards and all who depend on them and represent them that the current review will not be allowed to weaken the service. We need to be confident that this review will not be penny wise, pound foolish.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his kind words when introducing the debate. It is often said that a compliment from a colleague on the other side of the House is the kiss of death for a parliamentary career, but as mine has already received that self-inflicted wound, I shall accept the hon. Gentleman's kind words in the spirit in which they were intended. I can assure him that Epping Forest—when I last looked—had no coastline; but that no more diminishes my interest in the subject than if I were translated to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and were required to attend to matters there.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The staff of the coastguard service, regulars and volunteers, provide a vital maritime rescue service around our seas and coasts. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we in the Department, and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, hold the coastguard in the highest possible regard.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that we have incorporated the coastguard in the Coastguard Agency. We have put it on a sound footing; we have given it some clear objectives; and we have provided it with the resources it needs to undertake its tasks.
  920
  I should like to say a word about the changes proposed to the service, which are expected to improve the already high level of service being delivered. I stress that the changes are supported by the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency and the chief coastguard—I have spoken to them both today, and they underlined the point.
  The sea is vital to our economy, and it provides many opportunities for us all to enjoy our coast line in a variety of recreational pursuits. But as the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who takes a close interest in these matters, and many other hon. Members here tonight know all too well, the sea is also unpredictable and dangerous. When problems arise, we turn to the coastguard service to provide a quick and effective response to any maritime emergency. It is a coastguard service that is recognised as the most modern in Europe, equipped as it is with state-of-the-art communications equipment, sophisticated helicopters and coastal response teams manned by auxiliary guards, who are volunteers prepared to turn out at any time in any conditions to carry out rescues or searches along the 10,500 miles of our coastline.
  The House will recall the recent civil emergency on the Shetland islands, and I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is an assiduous attender to these debates. He will know of the recent civil emergency over the Christmas and new year period. The local coastguards and the coastguard helicopter played a key role in maintaining vital communication links.
  The helicopter carried out 23 urgent medical and other evacuations. It undoubtedly saved a number of lives. Coastguard officers maintained a fully operational rescue centre on Shetland, despite the appalling weather and the travel difficulties. Many of them spent the festive period away from their families simply to ensure that vital emergency services were maintained.
  Many other examples of dedication and professionalism could be cited, and it is the unique mixture of highly trained professional coastguards, high-technology equipment and competent and well-trained volunteers that provides a first-class search and rescue organisation of which we can be proud.
  The men and women of the modern coastguard service can also be proud of the vital maritime services they provide. During 1995, they dealt with a total of 12,220 incidents, involving more than 19,000 people—a 17 per cent. increase on the previous year. Those figures hide many dramatic rescues and, sadly, tragedies, but more than 98 per cent. of the incidents were brought to a successful conclusion, in the sense that they managed to avoid any loss of live. It is that record of achievement and success that we are committed to maintaining, but at the same time ensuring that the vital maritime emergency service is delivered as cost-effectively as possible.
  I make no apology to the hon. Member for North Cornwall for asserting straight away that no organisation these days can afford to stand still. He is quite right to say that HM Coastguard completed a "coastal review" in 1991, which looked at the role, functions and numbers of sector officers around the coast. The implementation of that review took some four years, and has only recently been completed. More recently, the Coastguard Agency looked at the tasks, numbers and grades of staff at its headquarters.

  921
  It was then the turn of uniformed coastguards at rescue centres. The number of incidents dealt with by rescue centres, as the hon. Gentleman said, has increased remorselessly over the years. My figures are broadly comparable with his. There were just under 6,000 in 1985. There were more than 12,000 last year. New technology has been introduced, in particular the action data automation system—ADAS.
  The organisation has to adapt. The amount of overtime having to be worked by coastguard watch officers was increasing, and it was becoming harder to find auxiliaries with the time and skills necessary to provide us with the consistent and reliable backup that the service needed. It was decided to take a fundamental look at how the operational staffing of the 21 rescue centres could best be provided and organised.
  That review, as the hon. Gentleman knows, became known as "Focus for Change". It was tasked straightforwardly to determine the best use of staff at the 21 rescue centres by more flexible shift working and to ensure that the staffing levels reflected the loading at individual centres. The current arrangement is that there is a basic standard complement, irrespective of the rescue centre's work load.
  At the outset, it was fully appreciated that any such review had to take into account the special nature of the coastguard work if it was to achieve any credibility with the uniformed staff. Because of that, the review team was made up of three experienced coastguard officers of different grades in addition to the three Department of Transport staff inspectors.
  The team visited all 21 rescue centres. Its members are said to have interviewed in the process 80 per cent. of watch-keeping officers and about 25 per cent. of watch-keeping auxiliaries. Many of the review's findings stemmed from that staff input, and ensured that the "Focus for Change" document was about the most thorough review of the structure, workloads and running of the coastguard service that we have ever seen.
  The brief of the review team was to recommend the optimum staffing solution to meet the operational requirement. I should make it clear to the House that the team was given no instructions to meet any financial targets.
  The proposals were made for each rescue centre's complement, tailored to meet the work that it had to do. In no instance is it recommended that fewer than three qualified watchkeepers should be on watch. A flexible working pattern was evolved to ensure that the right number of people would be on watch at any time. The proposals will markedly reduce staff shortages at critical periods, and hence overtime. They will make the local use of manpower more efficient in a variety of other ways.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: I shall continue for the moment.
  The main thrust of the review was to recommend the restructuring of the uniformed staff. It was concluded that, first, it was becoming more difficult to find reliable voluntary auxiliaries who were trained, proficient
  922
  and familiar with the technical environment of the modern operations room. The review recommended the appointment of permanent coastguard watch assistants to replace the part-time voluntary service currently provided in operations rooms by auxiliary coastguards.
  It was concluded, secondly, that the person in charge of a watch should have the rank, training and experience to take most key decisions without referring to a superior. He or she should also be part of the local management team. The review recommends the new grade of watch leader to fill that post.
  Thirdly, it was found that coastguard officers in the management team of each district are too occupied with routine administrative work. The review recommended that they should have permanent administrative support, which would allow reductions in management. There was a variety of other recommendations, which are under review.
  Throughout "Focus for Change", there has been full consultation with the staff and their trade unions. Copies of the report have been made available to all staff, who have been invited to submit their comments. It is proposed that recruitment for the two new grades should start in April.
  Overall—I stress this against the background of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—the review requires an increase in employed staff. It means introducing 154 watch assistants, offset by a decrease in 51 watch officers and phasing out the use of auxiliaries in operations rooms. There will be a requirement for new higher grade watch leaders to replace the 84 senior watch officers. With proper administrative support at each centre, and taking into account the extra responsibility that the watch leaders have taken on, 21 fewer station officers will be required.
  Bearing in mind all the figures, the review provides an increase of 82 in the uniformed staff of the coastguard service. To underline the fact that the review is about making the best of available resources, the effect is expected to be neutral in terms of paybill costs. The savings that are rightly demanded of the service in operational terms will be made on overtime, and on a reduction in the payments to auxiliary coastguards who formerly worked in operations rooms.
  We have given repeated assurances about the future of the coastguard service, in the sense that efficiency savings can be achieved without compromising safety at sea and along the shoreline. That is something—
  Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Norris: Of course.
  Mr. Harris: We have reached an important stage in the debate. There have been many allegations or suggestions about cuts facing the coastguard service. Is my hon. Friend able to give a categorical assurance that, especially in the south-west, there has been no reduction in the service provided by the coastguards, and there has been no cut in the Coastguard Agency's budget?
  Mr. Norris: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the agency's budget for 1996£97 has been set at £25.1 million. Additional temporary funding to implement the

  923
  "Focus for Change" strategy has also been provided. The budget will enable the agency to continue to provide its main functions in terms of search-and-rescue co-ordination, counter-pollution, and sea safety education at the same high professional level as before while continuing the drive to eliminate unnecessary work, waste and inefficiency.
  I can say specifically that no rescue centres will be closed and no staff will be made redundant. I repeat the remarks of the chief coastguard and the head of the agency: that the efficiency savings will not compromise safety at sea or along the shoreline.
  The House should appreciate that it is perfectly possible to deliver efficiency savings—to deliver more efficient ways of doing the jobs that the service is tasked to perform—without compromising safety, provided that that is the objective that is set.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall is a serious observer of these matters. He mentioned the monitoring of distress signals and referred to the 2182 kHz frequency band now employed. All coastguard watch officers are trained in radiotelephony skills and distress communication procedures to a syllabus that is approved by British Telecom Maritime Radio Services. I checked the matter only today, when I discussed it with the chief coastguard. Neither I nor he is aware of any missed distress messages.
  If the hon. Gentleman has details, I should be genuinely grateful to him—I do not say this as a challenge, but as an invitation to share the data—if he would let me know what that evidence is. My noble Friend in another place will be happy to investigate.
  Our conclusion is that the 2182 kHz service monitoring is working well. That work being undertaken in-house—ironically, avoiding a dog-leg in the translation of information that previously went through a third party before it was received to be acted on by the Coastguard Agency—has made a saving to the service per annum of about £500,000 in running costs, without compromising efficiency.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way, and I compliment the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on his choice of subject for debate.
  Is the Minister personally reassured about the levels of skill and training of watch assistants who will replace the coastguard auxiliaries? We have heard some reports that those people will be trained to a lower level of skill than the auxiliary coastguards. If he cannot answer that now, it might be helpful if he wrote to the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
  Mr. Norris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Because of the lack of time available to us this evening, I will write to the hon. Member for North Cornwall to set out the background of the present position.
  He is right to focus on the fact that we have changed the nature of the watch service in terms of both rank and responsibilities. It requires us to concentrate the attention of the skilled personnel on what they are essentially paid for, while, for example, administrative work and work that
  924
  can be undertaken by people who are less well qualified can be happily done in a safe environment. I understand that the chief coastguard remains content with the training level that is to be provided. I have had his personal assurance that he is determined that at no stage should the quality of the service's output be compromised by any lack of training in any part of the service.
  It is important that hon. Members from all parties should be given the opportunity to express legitimate concerns about the service—it is right that that should be possible. We have heard from hon. Members from all three principal parties in the House. They are evidence of the fact that the interest here is a non-party political interest in a service of which, I think, we are all extremely proud.
  The overwhelming evidence suggests that, although, with the greatest respect, it will always be possible to find one or two members in an organisation of this size who may express dissatisfaction, we have been able to deliver what the chief executive has frequently committed himself to: a more efficient service, able to deliver the better value for money that any Government have a right to demand of any public service, while at the same time ensuring that safety standards are not compromised.
  I have discussed with the chief executive the whole issue of search and rescue, auxiliary coastguards and fixed-watch lookouts. I understand that all those issues are of concern to hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has been particularly anxious about fixed-watch lookouts in the south-west. I hope that, over time, the efforts that the agency is currently making will assure his constituents that a more than adequate service is being provided.
  As I said at the outset, our coastguard service is widely respected in Europe as the best in Europe. It is arguably the best in the world. The service that the agency and its staff provide is first-class. I know that hon. Members in all parties will wish to join me in complimenting them on that service.
  Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend mentioned the fixed watch, which is indeed a particular concern of mine. I made my maiden speech on the subject. Now that the coastguard has been withdrawn from fixed watches, will my hon. Friend, and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, examine the possibility of closer co-operation between the voluntary sector—the Sea Safety Group and the National Coastwatch Institution, of which I am a trustee—and Her Majesty's Coastguard?
  Mr. Norris: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I hope he will accept that the Coastguard Agency is content that the service that it provides is fully compatible with the needs of seafarers of both kinds, both professional and recreational. My hon. Friend may be assured—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

ENVIRONMENT

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty buildings his Department currently owns; what is the cost of insuring and securing these buildings; how many were designed as residential properties; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on empty property taxes in each of the last five years. [14574]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Property Holdings is responsible for the whole of the Government civil office estate known as the common user (office) estate in which Government Departments and their agencies are housed. At 31 December 1995 there were 195 empty buildings on the CUE, 38 owned by the Government and the remainder held on lease.

  As a general rule, the Government carry their own insurance risk. Where premises are leasehold, some landlords require formal insurance cover. This invariably forms part of the service charges. The security and insurance elements within such charges cannot readily be disaggregated and consolidated without disproportionate cost.

  Until vacation the empty properties on the CUE have been used by the Government as business premises. An assessment of their original design criteria is not available centrally.

  The Government make a contribution in lieu of rates on their CUE properties. The figures for payments of CILOR made by Property Holdings on its vacant space, leased and owned, are as follows:

  1991–92: £16.0 million

  1992–93: £18.0 million

  1993–94: £17.2 million

  1994–95: £15.0 million

  1995–96: £24.6 million (estimate)

  Sewage Outfalls (Solent)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the length of the sewage outfall pipe at Norton for which the National Rivers Authority gave its discharge consent; and what is the actual length of the pipe as it now exists; [14335]

  (2) if he will list those outfall pipes that (a) have been and (b) have not been measured for length by the National Rivers Authority for which it has discharge consent; [14323]

  (3) when the National Rivers Authority measured the outfall pipes for which it has given consents. [14341]
  480
  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority does not usually measure the length of outfalls, but does verify locations of the discharge positions. The consent for the discharge at Norton, which pre-dates the establishment of the NRA, does not specify a pipe length but does specify the discharge location by national grid reference.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment the National Rivers Authority has made of the advantages of introducing a computer model of the tidal flow off the Norton outfall; [14339]

  (2) when the National Rivers Authority expects to have a model for the flow of dispersal off the Norton outfall. [14340]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority already has a model which can be applied to any discharge to the Solent.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the National Rivers Authority gave permission for the discharge of sewage on the flood tide at Norton. [14337]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that, since its establishment in 1989, the National Rivers Authority has not altered the discharge consent for the Norton outfall.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what enforcement action the National Rivers Authority intends to take for non-compliance with its consents at the Norton outfall. [14336]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority is not aware of any current breaches of the consent for the Norton outfall.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the National Rivers Authority's response to the imposition of tertiary treatment plants for Solent outfalls. [14324]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no requirement for tertiary treatment in the Solent.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies the NRA has made of the closure of the Totland outfall and the consequential effects on outflow at Norton; and what studies were made by the NRA of increasing the volume of discharge inside the Solent as opposed to outside it. [14408]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority has carried out monitoring at Totland for bathing water directive and other purposes. Bacteriological quality at Norton foreshore has also been monitored by the NRA and has shown an improvement since 1993.

  Detailed studies of the dispersion characteristics of the Solent for the purposes of the urban waste water treatment directive have resulted in a requirement for full secondary biological treatment for all significant sewage discharges into these waters.

  Solent Shellfish Beds
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to designate the Solent's
  481
  native oyster beds under the biodiversity plan; and what other bi-valve oyster beds and eco-systems in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU are of similar ecological importance. [14409]

  Mr. Clappison
  "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report", published on 13 December 1995, contains no plans to designate the Solent's native oyster beds. The report does recommend that the native or European oyster,Ostrea edulis, be among 1,253 species whose conservation status should be monitored. The Government expect to publish their response to the report in spring of 1996.

  Important native oyster beds are found in the Fal and Helford estuaries, River Tamar, River Lynher, the Crouch, Blackwater, Roach and West Mersea estuaries in England; Loch Ryan in Scotland and Milford Haven and Swansea bay in Wales. In the European Union important native oyster beds include Oosterscheldte in the Netherlands and the north Brittany coast around St. Malo in France.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the National Rivers Authority has made of the advantages of monitoring the Solent under the shellfish waters directive. [14334]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority is the competent authority for reporting compliance with and enforcing the shellfish waters directive. It is required to monitor all the areas of the Solent designated under the directive.

  Areas of Special Scientific Interests
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) restoration orders for areas of special scientific interest and (b) the consultations he has had about extending his powers under section 31 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [14591]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have agreed in principle to consult on the extension of the powers of the court to make an order requiring restoration when the special interest of such a site is damaged.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of finance for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14606]

  Mr. Clappison
  The budget allocated to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee by English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales over the past five years has been:

  1991–92: £3.955 million

  1992–93: £5.050 million

  1993–94: £4.900 million

  1994–95: £5.008 million

  1995–96: £4.735 million

  This funding has enabled the country agencies to carry out those special functions relating to nature conservation in Great Britain as a whole and beyond Great Britain which are exercised through the joint committee.
  482

  River Humber
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what account he takes of topography and salinity when deciding the outer estuarine boundary of the River Humber; [14955]

  (2) if he will now receive the outer estuarine limit of the Humber under the urban waste water directive taking account only of objective criteria. [14956]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority has been asked to review the basis for establishing estuary boundaries for the purposes of the urban waste water treatment directive, including the relevance of salinity and topography, and to advise my Department accordingly.

  Global Temperature Increases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to monitor global temperature rises. [14928]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department receives regular reports from the Meterological Office about global temperatures.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EU legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13654]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since the implementation of the Maastricht treaty all EC environmental legislation has been adopted under qualified majority voting and a veto cannot apply. 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 Ministers consider the UK's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Supplementary Credit Approval, Hull
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his response to the revised bid of the City of Hull for SCA 1996–97. [14965]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An announcement will be made in the near future.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he intends to be the implementation date of the reorganisation of local government in areas for which orders have not yet been made. [15380]

  Mr. Gummer
  As I said in my statement on 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 1333–52, we envisage staging the implementation of reorganisation in England to take account of the resources available. We also needed to allow time to receive and consider representations on the Local Government Commission's final report which was submitted on 19 December, and, where we accept recommendations for change, to consult on draft orders. With these considerations in mind we have reluctantly concluded that implementation of reorganisation in the remaining areas for which we have

  483
  not already laid orders cannot take place in 1997. I intend to make a further announcement setting out our decisions on the recommendations in the commission's final report, and the timing of the remaining orders, as soon as possible.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in conducting the market test of the management of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. [15381]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have now decided to award a five-year service level agreement to the in-house team, based on the existing executive agency for the conference centre. It will take effect from 1 April 1996. Having considered the advice of a steering group and of consultants, KPMG, I am satisfied that the bid submitted by this team offers better value for money than those received from elsewhere. It also satisfies the quality and security requirements set for the test.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the grants distributed from the Duchy benevolent fund in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [14945]

  Mr. Freeman
  Lists of grants distributed from the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund for the last three years would run to several hundred items. A list of donations made to charitable causes in the County Palatine in 1993, before the fund became a registered charity, was placed in the Library on 2 February 1994.

  I am not a trustee of the fund. As a properly constituted charity, the trustees produce an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commissioners which is open to public scrutiny. The accounts show all donations except the many grants below £1,000 which are made on behalf of the trustees by the lords lieutenants of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside who are all trustees of the fund.

  If the hon. Member would like details of donations made to organisations or individuals in his local area, I shall arrange for the secretary of the fund to provide the information.

  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1995–96 cash limit for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner and health service commissioners. [15285]

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner and health service commissioners—class XIX vote 4—will be increased by £702,000 from £9,000,000 to £9,702,000.
  484
  The increase is in response to growth in the work load of the office and to prepare for the work which will be generated by the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill, which was debated in another place last night.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to support the President of the European Commission's policy of less but better legislation and to improve the operation of the fiche d'impact procedures. [13656]

  Mr. Freeman
  Through my contacts with the Commission and with Ministers in other member states I have been pressing for improved regulatory systems at the European level, a rolling programme of regulatory reviews and action on a number of specific burdensome directives. At the informal meeting of the Internal Market Council to be held later this month, I shall share our experience of compliance cost assessment as a contribution to the current review of the Commission's impact assessment systems.

TRANSPORT

  Swapbody Freight Containers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount of investment(a) estimated to be required to make lines suitable for the passage of European swapbody freight containers and (b) which has already taken place for such conversion, indicating the location, in respect of each main rail route and for Great Britain; and if he will make a statement. [14234]

  Mr. Watts
  BR has upgraded existing railway infrastructure at a cost of some £26 million to facilitate the carriage of standard European swapbodies and containers between the channel tunnel and terminal sites at Glasgow Mossend, Liverpool Seaforth, Manchester Trafford Park, Wakefield Normanton, Birmingham Landor Street and London Willesden. It will be for Railtrack to consider the commercial case for undertaking further loading gauge clearance work in the light of demand for freight services.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to personnel management staff within the Driving Standards Agency concerning retraining following a formal complaint under chapter 17 of his Department's staff handbook. [14440]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driving Standards Agency is producing a revised course on new desk instructions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department his plans for changes to annual staff reporting and promotion procedures. [14432]
  485
  Mr. Norris
  I have none. However, where the chief executives of my Department's agencies have such plans, these are shown:DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY
  Promotion
  Planning to introduce changes to the internal job application and promotion procedures. A new application form covering both procedures will support more objective assessments of the skills required for the advertised post and the applicant's suitability for it.
  DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY
  Planning to review the current staff repotting and promotion procedures.
  HIGHWAYS AGENCY
  Annual staff reporting
  Will pilot a new staff appraisal system in 1996–97 with a view to introducing it in 1997–98. The new system aims to improve the accuracy and consistency of reporting standards, provide a more effective means for staff and their managers to identify development needs and to encourage a frequent and constructive dialogue on performance.
  THE COASTGUARD AGENCY
  Annual staff reporting
  Aiming to introduce changes from November 1996.
  VEHICLE CERTIFICATION AGENCY
  Annual staff reporting
  Planning to introduce new appraisal and reporting procedures in 1997–98.
  VEHICLE INSPECTORATE
  Promotion
  Developing arrangements for selecting the most suitable applicants for posts by means of assessment centres.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has issued to staff in the personnel management section of the Driving Standards Agency on the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service guidance on disciplinary procedures. [14444]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driving Standards Agency follows the Department of Transport's disciplinary procedures. They are aware of the ACAS guidance and the Department of Transport is reviewing its disciplinary procedures.

  Railway Contracts
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts have been awarded by Railtrack to Hall and Tawse; and what work under these contracts has been subcontracted to British Rail maintenance departments. [14486]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Railtrack plc has awarded contracts to Hall and Tawse for rapid response and planned maintenance work. Hall and Tawse have subcontracted two small specialised work packages (about 1 per cent. of total contract value) covering professional inspection and track possession management advice to BR infrastructure maintenance companies.

  Chingford-Liverpool Street Train Crash
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the causes of the Chingford-Liverpool Street train crash on 19 September 1995 and the remedial action that has been taken. [14301]
  486
  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has conducted its investigation into this accident and is now considering what further action to take. It would be inappropriate to comment on the cause pending that decision.

  Staff Clothing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which offices of his Department have dress codes for administrative staff; [14413]

  (2) if male staff in his Department are allowed to wear earrings; [142395]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the factors which led to the decision not to include staff at grade 7 and above in the dress guidelines issued to staff of the north eastern traffic area office on 29 January; [14400]

  (4) what are the requirements on female staff in the dress guidelines issued to staff of the north eastern traffic area office on 29 January; [14396]

  (5) what representations he has received in the last 12 months from members of the public with regard to the dress and appearance of staff of the north eastern traffic area office; [14443]

  (6) what plans his Department has to introduce a dress code for the administrative staff employed in the north eastern traffic area office; [14414]

  (7) if female staff of the north eastern traffic area office are allowed to wear leggings; and if he will make a statement; [14398]

  (8) which traffic area officers were visited by the clerk of the north eastern traffic area office in his assessment of the dress guidelines issued on 29 January; [14399]

  (9) what instructions he has given to the clerk of the north eastern traffic area office on the matter of a dress code for staff below grade 7 in that office; [14442]

  (10) what financial assistance he plans to make available to staff of the north eastern traffic area office to meet the costs of appropriate clothing set out in the dress guidelines issued on 29 January. [14397]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's position on dress code is that staff who are required to wear a uniform while on official duty are provided with such uniforms. For other staff, there is no formal dress code nor instructions as to male earrings or leggings for females. This is left as a matter for discussion between local management and the individuals concerned.

  The dress guidelines for clerical staff in the North Eastern traffic area office have been suspended pending discussions with the trade union side. There are separate guidelines for staff in the management grades, which include the grade 7 clerk, agreed with the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union locally.

  The dress guidelines had been prepared to give staff an indication of what is considered suitable in the light of the TAO's wish to improve the image and service that it presents to the public. There are no plans to provide additional financial support.
  487

  Rail Services, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport how much will be paid by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to the British Railways Board for the operation and marketing of passenger rail services in Greater Manchester in 1996–97; and how much in 1996–97 prices was paid by Greater Manchester passenger transport executive in 1995–96. [14614]

  Mr. Watts
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising is currently negotiating a contract with the British Railways Board for the provision of passenger rail services including those currently supported by Greater Manchester PTE for 1996–97. When this is completed it will be possible to indicate only the amount of support paid for each train operating company, not the amounts paid for specific areas. The amount paid by Greater Manchester PTE is a matter for it or for the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisation will become responsible from 1 April for the services for the(a) marketing, (b) promotion and (c) provision of information about passenger rail services currently provided by Greater Manchester passenger transport executive; and what sums will be allocated for these purposes in 1996–97. [14615]

  Mr. Watts
  From 1 April 1996, the train operating company, North West Regional Railways, will be responsible for these activities, and for funding them.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations will be responsible for the compilation of timetable information for Greater Manchester passenger rail services after 1 April. [14613]

  Mr. Watts
  From 1 April 1996 North West Regional Railways and Railtrack will become responsible for the compilation of timetable information on local rail services formerly supported by Greater Manchester passenger transport executive.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in the responsibilities of the British Railways Board and North West Regional Railways for the provision of passenger rail services in Greater Manchester are planned to be introduced from 1 April. [14612]

  Mr. Watts
  From 1 April 1996 the franchising director will assume responsibility for the financial support of local rail services in the Greater Manchester area. The franchising director will also become responsible for determining the future level of services formerly secured by the Greater Manchester PTE.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has to enforce the contract held by North West Regional Railways, for providing Greater Manchester passenger rail services from 1 April. [14616]

  Mr. Watts
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will have a legally enforceable contract with the British Railways Board for 1996–97 which will include the timetable for Greater Manchester services to be operated by North West Regional Railways.
  488

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the introduction of the piggyback principle for freight to the west coast main line. [14742]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is examining costs and technical feasibility.

  Great Central Railway
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the re-opening of the Great Central Railway; and how many were opposed to it. [14740]

  Mr. Watts
  Up to Friday 9 February, we have received 465 letters from Members of Parliament, local authorities, other outside organisations and the general public about the project being promoted by Central Railway plc, including letters about the recent waiver applications. All but five of these letters expressed opposition to, or reservations about, the scheme in whole or in part, or opposition to waivers.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys his Department has undertaken into the number of homes and businesses that would be affected by the resurrection of the Great Central Railway. [14743]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The promoters of the project, Central Railway plc, are required under the Transport and Works Act procedures to survey all land that would be compulsorily acquired, for the purpose of listing all affected owners and occupiers in a book of reference. The book of reference must be provided with the application.

  Rail Freight Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail facilities which received freight facilities grant since the inception of the grant are now no longer in operation. [15005]

  Mr. Watts
  More than 200 grants have been made since the scheme started in 1975. The Department undertakes monitoring of the tonnage moved through a grant-aided facility for a period equal to the commitment made by the grant applicant to move goods through that facility. This period is normally in the region of five to 10 years. Information on the current use of the relevant facilities is not held centrally.

  Freight Costs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs of transporting low value, high bulk goods over long distances(a) by road and (b) by rail. [14981]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department makes such estimates when assessing applications for the grants which are available to encourage freight to be moved by rail rather than road transport.
  489

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many pages of evidence were provided by his Department to the Scott inquiry. [14835]

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 16,234.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department provided all documents requested by Lord Justice Scott in the furtherance of his inquiry. [14838]

  Mr. Hanley
  All documents requested by Sir Richard Scott and in our possession were provided to his inquiry.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official ministerial visits have been paid to the Republic of Cyprus in each of the last five years; and what further such visits are planned. [14764]

  Mr. David Davis
  Since 1991. there have been five such visits: two in 1992 and three in 1993. These visits all took place in a multilateral context. There are no present plans for further visits.

  Mr. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to support current proposals for the demilitarisation of the island of Cyprus. [14763]

  Mr. Davis
  Moves by both sides to reduce deployment of troops and levels of military equipment on the island can only help to improve the climate for a settlement. This is an issue that we discuss regularly with both communities in Cyprus.

  Imia
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 321, if he will set out the authority for his statement that the question of sovereignty over the island of Imia is not determined. [15083]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) observed in his oral answer on 7 February 1996,Official Report, columns 321–23, that the Greek and Turkish Governments take different positions on sovereignty over the island of Imia. We warmly welcome expressions by both sides of determination to deal with the issue by peaceful means. This must be right. It is important that it is done in accordance with international law.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Malaysian Government regarding Lim Guan Eng; and if he will make a statement. [14545]
  490
  Mr. Hanley
  We are following Mr. Lim Guan Eng's case, which is before the Malaysian courts. We have not made any representations.

  South Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his officials have made to the South African authorities in the case of Paul Grecian. [15104]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in regular contact with the South African prison authorities in the course of giving Mr. Grecian full consular support.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the legal procedures which have been followed in the case of Paul Grecian, at present in prison in South Africa. [15103]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Grecian has his own lawyer in South Africa who is able to advise on the legal procedures in his case.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish as a Command Paper the current provisions of the treaty on European Union and the treaty establishing the European Community. [15313]

  Mr. David Davis
  Such a Command Paper has now been published and has been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  Aircrew Standards Evaluation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are employed in aircrew standards evaluation duties in the Royal Air Force; and what is the minimum frequency of standards evaluation reviews of flying units. [13210]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF is committed to ensuring that its aircrews maintain the very highest standards in all aspects of military flying. In addition to the continuous process of maintaining standards within units, all aircrew are regularly subjected to formal standards evaluation reviews every 12 to 24 months, depending on units' roles and operational commitments. Currently, 115 service personnel directly support the standards evaluation process.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints in respect of low flying have been received by his Department from addresses in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in each month since September 1995. [14232]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of inquiries and complaints about military low flying received by my Department since September 1995 from addresses in England, Wales and Scotland are in the table.
  491

  Month

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1995

  October

  375

  52

  116

  November

  364

  80

  69

  December

  150

  61

  87

  1996

  January

  141

  44

  87

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the fine weather in the summer of 1995 on the rate of public complaints to his Department concerning low-flying aircraft. [14233]

  Mr. Soames
  It is our experience that the rate at which complaints about military low flying are received by my Department increases when the weather is fine, as people are more likely to be outdoors or to have windows open and noise of any sort is more intrusive. We believe that the prolonged period of fine weather in the summer of 1995 was a significant factor in the increase in complaints during that year, but we are not able to quantify the effect.

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty buildings his Department currently owns; what is the cost of insuring and securing these buildings; how many were designed as residential properties; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on empty property taxes in each of the last five years. [14575]

  Mr. Soames
  No central record is maintained of the number of buildings which may be empty at any given time and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Apprentices College, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to find alternative uses for the Army apprentices college, Harrogate,(a) within his Department, (b) in conjunction with other Government Departments and (c) by selling the property on the open market. [14143]

  Mr. Soames
  Since the announcement in December 1992 of the decision to close the Army apprentices college, Harrogate, my Department has considered the property for a number of other defence uses, none of which was found to be suitable. While the scope for alternative defence use is still being explored, we have, in parallel, conducted a without commitment "Expressions of Interest" advertising campaign through consultants to identify possible commercial interest in the site. The results of this advertising campaign are being assessed. A regular dialogue is maintained with the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Commissioned Officers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned officers(a) in the Royal Air Force under Queen's Regulation 2905(3), (b) in (i) the
  492
  Royal Navy and (ii) the Army under the equivalent Queen's Regulations have been required to retire, relinquish or resign their commissions in each of the last 10 years. [14555]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of commissioned officers who have been required to retire, relinquish or resign their commissions under Queen's Regulation (RAF) 2905(3) or equivalent regulations in the Royal Navy and the Army over the past 10 years are:

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1986

  3

  1

  1—

  1987

  5

  3

  1—

  1988

  10

  3

  1—

  1989

  8

  1

  1—

  1990

  7

  7

  5

  1991

  5

  2

  2

  1992

  7

  3

  6

  1993

  3

  1

  6

  1994

  6

  6

  0

  1995

  10

  6

  8

  1 Figures are not available for these years.

  Nuclear Test Simulation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the United Kingdom has the super-computing capability for nuclear test simulation. [14393]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of techniques and facilities, including super-computers, which will help to maintain the capabilities and expertise necessary for the stewardship of our nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing are being developed. As regards the acquisition of super-computing equipment, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 26 January 1996,Official Report, column 466.

  Empty Dwellings, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty Ministry of Defence domestic dwellings there are in North Yorkshire; and how many are for sale. [14196]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 491 empty MOD domestic dwellings in North Yorkshire, of which eight are currently being sold under the joint services discount scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 810–11, we intend to transfer ownership of the married quarters estate in England and Wales to the private sector.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement for the contract to operate maintenance services at RAF Valley; and what requirements for on-going training commitments have been written into the specification. [14762]
  493
  Mr. Soames
  Tenders for the maintenance work at RAF Valley are currently being evaluated. I expect to be in a position to announce the award of the contract in April. The contract will specify the qualifications and experience levels required by personnel undertaking maintenance work rather than the training needed to achieve those qualifications which will be a matter for the contractor.

  Buy American Act
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1176, what was the response of the US Government when he raised the question of "Buy American" clauses. [14805]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised Her Majesty's Government's concerns over "Buy American" restrictions during his recent visit to Washington. The US Department of Defense has begun to remove such restrictions where they are not required for national security reasons or mandated by law, and is urging the US Congress to follow suit. Regrettably, Congress voted to retain several old restrictions and to introduce a number of new ones in this year's defence legislation. Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for the reversal of these damaging provisions.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1 January 1995(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) offficials in his Department have had contact with Lord Howe concerning his correspondence with the Scott inquiry. [14820]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Defence have had no such contacts with Lord Howe.

  Service Men, Bosnia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to introduce a system of compensation or ex-gratia payments for service men injured in Bosnia, comparable to those available in Germany and Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [14921]

  Mr. Soames
  Where an injury resulting in the death or invaliding of a service man or woman is attributable to service in Bosnia, benefits are paid both from the armed forces pensions scheme and from the Department of Social Security war pensions scheme. My Department also operates a scheme for criminal injuries compensation for members of the armed forces and their dependants who are victims of crimes of violence while serving overseas. Such compensation, however, is not payable where the injury to, or death of, a service man or woman was a result of war operations or, as in Bosnia, military activity by warring factions.
  494
  A review of death and invaliding benefits for service personnel, and the criteria for their award, is currently being undertaken as part of the detailed study of the pensions recommendations made by Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the armed forces' manpower, career and remuneration structures.

  Air Squadrons, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of university air squadrons and air experience flights in Northern Ireland. [15283]

  Mr. Soames
  The primary role of the university air squadrons is to attract new recruits of good quality and education into the Royal Air Force. The defence costs study "Front Line First" recognised the university air squadrons as a source of high calibre pilots for the RAF, but identified scope for rationalisation in the organisation as a whole. As part of rationalisation, it was proposed that the Queen's university air squadron— QUAS—being the least successful squadron in terms of providing pilot recruits for the RAF, should close. A consultative document covering this proposal was issued on 5 September 1995, recommending the closure of QUAS and, as a consequence, the closure of No. 13 Air Experience Flight based at Belfast.

  My Department received a number of representations from Members of Parliament and other interested parties. The consultation included the trades unions and local authorities and full and careful consideration has been given to the representations received. Following this work, I am satisfied that no issues have been raised which call into question the viability of the proposals.

  I have therefore decided with regret that QUAS and No. 13 Air Experience Flight should close at the end of this academic year. Air experience flying for air cadets will be provided by offering them places at summer camps on the mainland. We also propose to reactivate No. 664 Volunteer Gliding School at Belfast with immediate effect.

  Munitions Exports (form F680)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those officials in his Department who were authorised to sign F680 forms in the period June to December 1986. [14857]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: No.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. George
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Government responses to Select Committee reports have been made more than six months after the publication of the Committee's report in each parliamentary session since 1990. [15086]

  Mr. Newton
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information that he requests.
  495

WALES

  Health Trust Costs
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the management costs for each health trust

  11993–94

  21994–95

  NHS trust

  Management costs £000

  Per cent. of total income

  Management costs £000

  Per cent. of total income

  NHS trust operational 1 April 1992:

  Pembrokeshire

  2,053

  4.95

  1,873

  4.46

  NHS trusts operational with effect from 1 April 1993:

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital

  1,865

  3.37

  1,702

  2.94

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  1,664

  3.39

  1,881

  3.50

  Gofal Cymuned Clwydian Community Care

  3,205

  5.27

  2,385

  3.72

  Powys Health Care

  2,301

  5.50

  1,882

  4.90

  Glan Hafren

  2,824

  3.10

  2,633

  2.82

  Gwent Community

  2,567

  4.57

  2,699

  4.70

  Llandough Hospital

  2,698

  5.89

  2,520

  5.00

  Bridgend and District

  1,635

  2.69

  1,558

  2.43

  Swansea

  1,426

  2.73

  1,233

  2.27

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  1,024

  3.38

  812

  2.62

  Carmarthen and District

  1,133

  3.06

  1,207

  3.19

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  790

  3.48

  831

  3.59

  South and East Wales Ambulance

  661

  4.11

  1,054

  6.00

  NHS trusts operational with effect from 1 April 1994:

  North Wales Ambulance

  —

  —

  516

  420

  Derwen

  —

  —

  955

  4.25

  Nevil Hall

  —

  —

  1,463

  3.59

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  —

  —

  1,982

  3.28

  Gwynedd Community

  —

  —

  1,636

  3.42

  Rhondda Healthcare

  —

  —

  993

  3.40

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  —

  —

  1,002

  12.86

  Velindre Hospital

  —

  —

  619

  5.85

  East Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1,678

  3.54

  Morriston Hospital

  —

  —

  1,609

  2.59

  Sources:

  1 Welsh Office Management Costs Savings exercise—Audited data provided by the service.

  2 NHS Trusts Annual Accounts—management costs data were not recorded in annual accounts prior to 1994–95.

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds there were in Welsh hospitals in each year since 1979. [14803]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the table.

  Almost 60 per cent. of the reduction in NHS hospital beds over the period is associated with better care for people with mental illnesses or learning disabilities away from the hospital environment. Reductions in the acute sector have been made possible through advances in medical technology and practice, including day case surgery. Since 1979, the total number of people treated as in-patients or day cases in Welsh hospitals has almost doubled.

  Average daily available beds in Welsh NHS hospitals

  Number

  1979

  23,456

  1980

  23,203

  1981

  22,940

  1982

  22,441

  1983–84

  22,412

  1984–85

  22,295

  496
  in Wales in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 expressed as an actual figure and as a percentage of the total budget. [14453]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Average daily available beds in Welsh NHS hospitals

  Number

  1985–86

  21,999

  1986–87

  21,565

  1987–88

  21,103

  1988–89

  20,504

  1989–90

  19,855

  1990–91

  19,414

  1991–92

  18,640

  1992–93

  18,078

  1993–94

  17,475

  1994–95

  16,834

  Schools Inspections
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of a school inspection per day for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales. [14530]

  Mr. Richards
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales. I have asked Mr. Roy James to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.
  497

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14026]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office issues guidance as appropriate to assist members of the public and others using Welsh Office services.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many empty dwellings owned by Government Departments there were in Wales for the latest available year; and if he will make a statement. [15105]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for housing on 23 November 1995,Official Report, column 238. Separate information is not available for other Government Departments in Wales.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the annual average cost of prescription items per patient prescribed by(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners for each year since the introduction of fundholding for which statistics are available for (i) Wales and (ii) each family health services authority. [14964]

  Mr. Hague
  The 1994–95 figures are as follows. We do not hold data for earlier years.

  March 1994–April 1995

  Fundholding cost per person £

  Non-funding cost per person £

  Clwyd

  77.74

  92.28

  Dyfed

  78.18

  93.43

  Gwent

  68.19

  86.86

  Gwynedd

  73.21

  97.01

  Mid Glamorgan

  70.67

  90.63

  Powys

  62.91

  84.47

  South Glamorgan

  64.67

  80.09

  West Glamorgan

  80.01

  91.43

  Wales

  73.24

  89.40

TREASURY

  OECD Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average unemployment rate over the period 1979 to 1994 for each OECD country; [13913]

  (2) what was the average annual rate of export growth in real terms for each of the OECD countries over the period 1979 to 1994; [13921]

  (3) what was the value of total investment per capita converted at current purchasing power parities for each OECD country in 1979 and 1994; [13912]
  498
  (4) what was the average annual rate of growth in real terms of gross domestic product for each OECD country over the period 1979 to 1994; [13920]

  (5) what was the average annual rate of interest for each of the EU and G7 countries over the period 1979 to 1994; [13918]

  (6) what was the percentage change in civilian employment excluding those on work-related Government training programmes over the period 1979 to 1994 for each OECD country. [13914]

  (7) what was the average ratio over the period 1979 to 1994 in current prices of investment to gross domestic product for each OECD country; [13922]

  (8) what was the value of gross domestic product per capita converted at current purchasing power parities for each OECD country in 1979 and 1994; [13916]

  (9) what was the ratio of the balance of trade to gross domestic product for each OECD country in 1979 and 1994; [13911]

  (10) what was the average annual rate of inflation for each of the EU and G7 countries over the period 1979 to 1994; [13919]

  (11) what was the increase in the volume of manufacturing output over the period 1979 to 1994 for each OECD country; [13915]

  (12) what was the average ratio over the period 1979 to 1994 in current prices of imports to gross domestic product for each OECD country; [13923]

  (13) what was the average ratio over the period 1979 to 1994 in current prices of Government investment to gross domestic product for each OECD country. [13917]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The data requested can be found in the following OECD publications:

  Economic Outlook

  Labour Force Statistics

  Quarterly National Accounts

  National Accounts, Main Aggregates Volume 1.

  OECD civilian employment figures excluding those on work-related Government schemes are not available.

  These publications are all available in the House of Commons Library.

  European Union Budget
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on United Kingdom Government contributions to European Union budget line B3–4004; and if he will make a statement. [13765]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The budgetary commentary to line B3–4004 of the general budget of the European Communities cites as its legal base the agreement on social policy annexed to the social policy protocol to the treaty on European union, and in particular the European works council directive adopted under that agreement. Article 2 of the social policy protocol states that for acts adopted by the Council under this agreement:"any financial consequences other than administrative costs entailed for institutions shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
  499

  Capital Gains Tax
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children currently make use of their annual capital gains tax allowance. [14259]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that precise estimates are not possible for the number of individuals with net gains below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount. Details of gains are not required on tax returns where chargeable gains do not exceed the annual exempt amount and aggregate proceeds from disposals of all assets do not exceed twice the annual exempt amount.

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many empty buildings his Department currently owns; what is the cost of insuring and securing these buildings; how many were designed as residential properties; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on empty property taxes in each of the last five years. [14566]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury does not own any property. All buildings occupied by the Treasury form part of the Government common user estate. Information relating to the CUE was given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 30 January 1996,Official Report, columns 648–49.

  European Communities (Unemployment)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of unemployment in the member states of the European Community in each of the years 1972, 1982 and 1992. [14527]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Comparisons between the UK and other EU countries of unemployment on the internationally standard international labour organisation basis are available only from 1984. The table shows the extent of the available information.

  Unemployment rates in EU countries

  1984

  1992

  Belgium

  11.9

  6.7

  Denmark

  8.9

  9.0

  France

  9.5

  10.2

  Germany1

  6.7

  6.3

  Greece

  8.1

  7.8

  Ireland

  16.5

  15.0

  Italy

  9.5

  9.4

  Luxembourg

  2.7

  2.0

  Netherlands

  12.4

  5.6

  Portugal2

  —

  4.0

  Spain2

  —

  17.7

  UK

  10.9

  9.7

  EC average3

  9.4

  9.2

  Notes:

  1 Rate relates to the former West Germany.

  2Not available.

  3Rates relate to EU10 in 1984 and EU12 in 1992.

  Source:

  Statistical Office of the European Community Labour Force Survey results. Figures refer to the results of the Spring Labour Force Survey in the listed countries for the specified years.
  500

  Offshore Single Pension Bonds
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax forgone as a result of the use of offshore single pension bonds. [14262]

  Mr. Jack
  We are not able to identify an offshore single pensions bond and, as a consequence, regretfully are not able to answer the hon. Member's questions.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages of evidence were provided by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to the Scott inquiry. [14837]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have provided 15,381 pages of evidence to the Scott inquiry. This figure does not include correspondence between the Department and the inquiry or evidence supplied to the inquiry by individual witnesses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14988]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Since October 1992, when arrangements were introduced for enabling agency chief executives to answer parliamentary questions, chief executives responsible to Treasury Ministers have replied to seven questions:

  1992: 3

  1993: —

  1994: —

  1995: 2

  1996: 2

  Griffin House VAT and Excise Office
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he intends to pay off the lease on the VAT and Excise office at Griffin house, 161 Hammersmith road; [13600]

  (2) what considerations led to the decision to close the VAT and Excise office in Hammersmith road; and what consideration has been given to the future of the lease on the property; [13601]

  (3) what is the nearest alternative office to the VAT office at 161 Hammersmith road at which people can get advice on VAT and excise; [13602]

  (4) what is the cost of closing the VAT and Excise office at 161 Hammersmith road; and what is the cost of buying the lease; [13603]

  (5) if his plans for staff at the VAT and Excise office in Hammersmith road include compulsory redundancy; [13604]

  (6) what is the annual rental on his Department's VAT and Excise office at Griffin house, 161 Hammersmith road; [13605]
  501
  (7) what consultation exercise his Department has initiated with customers of the VAT and Excise office at 161 Hammersmith road about its proposed closure. [13606]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise recently completed a fundamental expenditure review which has resulted in planned changes in working practices, with reductions in staff numbers and the need for accommodation. The regional collection responsible for the Hammersmith office, Thames Valley, decided to close the office as part of the consequential rationalisation of its operations, based on a detailed business case which took account of value for money for the taxpayer.

  There are no plans to "buy out" of the existing lease. When the property is vacated it will be in the first instance offered to other Government Departments in the locality. If they do not take up the additional accommodation it will be let on the open market. The annual rent is £511,988 with rates of £134,534 and landlord's service charge of £110,580.

  The cost of closing Griffin house will be some £400,000, which covers alterations to two nearby offices to house the additional staff who will be located there.

  Set against this are the reductions in running costs, a significant portion of which will start to accrue from the moment the building is vacated.

  There are no plans to make any of the existing staff at Griffin house compulsorily redundant.

  It is not departmental policy to conduct formal consultation exercises about the location of offices. However, the needs of traders and the public are always taken into account before a decision about the closure of an office is taken. In the case of Hammersmith, as it covers a small geographical area coupled with satisfactory transport links, it was felt that the public and the trading community would not be unduly inconvenienced by visiting another local office. In addition, at our adjacent offices vehicle access is generally easier and there are better parking facilities.

  The nearest offices are as follows:

  To the north:

  Wembley LVO

  Valiant house

  356 High road

  Wembley

  MIDDLESEX HP9 6AY

  To the west:

  Uxbridge business centre

  1 Park road

  Uxbridge

  MIDDLESEX UB8 1RW

  Staines business centre

  14 Thames street

  Staines

  MIDDLESEX TW18 UD

  To the east:

  Westminster and west end

  Dorset house

  Stamford street

  London SE1 9PY

  502

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 118, if the figures covering the Isle of Wight include taxpayers on the island whose tax affairs are handled by other districts. [15077]

  Mr. Jack
  The figures are derived from the survey of personal incomes where taxpayers are allocated to counties according to their place of residence or to their business address if self-employed, regardless of where their tax affairs are handled.

  Employment Growth
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage rate of employment growth over the period 1979–95 in respect of(a) each EU state, (b) USA, (c) Japan, (d) Australia, (e) Canada and (f) New Zealand. [14972]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest available information showing the most up to date comparisons is provided in the table.

  Civilian employment, change 1979 to 19941 (per cent.)

  Percentage

  Austria

  17

  Belgium

  2

  Denmark

  5

  Finland

  -10

  France

  2

  Germany

  7

  Greece

  12

  Ireland

  -1

  Italy

  6

  Luxembourg

  4

  Netherlands

  36

  Portugal

  9

  Spain

  -1

  Sweden

  -6

  United Kingdom

  1

  United States

  21

  Japan

  18

  Australia

  30

  Canada

  28

  New Zealand

  24

  Note:

  1 Ireland, Luxembourg 1979 to 1991; Belgium, Italy 1979 to 1992; Austria, Denmark, Greece and USA 1979 to 1993; UK 1979 to 1995; Germany (West) 1979 to 1990, (unified Germany 1991 to 1994 = 0 per cent.).

  Source:

  OECD Labour Force Statistics 1979–1993, Quarterly Labour Force Statistics, No. 4, 1995 and CSO (UK).

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are in small self-administered pension schemes; and what is the annual cost to the Revenue of tax relief on contributions under such schemes. [14666]
  503
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Information is not available concerning the actual number of taxpayers who are members of small self-administered pension schemes.

  The estimated cost of tax relief for contributions to occupational pension schemes is published in table 7.10 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library. It is not possible to separate these estimates between small self-administered schemes and other occupational pension schemes.

  £ million

  Lender

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Barclays

  14.389

  13.790

  12.825

  42.198

  61.916

  29.185

  National Westminster

  38.169

  32.916

  12.704

  26.775

  50.731

  27.824

  Lloyds

  4.161

  2.417

  2.155

  25.865

  51.113

  24.668

  Midland

  15.517

  8.744

  13.495

  24.639

  42.260

  27.303

  Bank of Scotland

  1.385

  2.464

  2.018

  6.232

  10.259

  5.816

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  1.939

  1.018

  0.425

  6.608

  8.492

  6.719

  Clydesdale

  0.490

  0.559

  0.897

  2.439

  2.217

  1.281

  3i

  4.091

  4.631

  4.170

  7.567

  6.461

  2.523

  Co-operative

  0.295

  0.101

  0.025

  0.335

  1.048

  0.406

  Hill Samuel2

  0.190

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Yorkshire

  0.069

  0.110

  0.000

  1.741

  2.318

  1.284

  Bank of Ireland

  0.179

  0.070

  0.000

  1.420

  1.117

  0.787

  Northern

  0.583

  0.265

  0.205

  0.322

  0.529

  0.430

  Ulster

  0.288

  0.046

  0.219

  0.214

  0.412

  0.230

  First Trust

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.250

  0.856

  0.550

  TSB

  0.632

  0.082

  0.000

  0.303

  2.656

  0.860

  Bank of Wales2

  0.000

  0.030

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Northern Venture Managers

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.270

  0.325

  0.000

  Yorkshire Enterprise

  0.025

  0.250

  0.225

  0.465

  0.528

  0.302

  DonBAC

  0.087

  0.052

  0.218

  0.425

  0.331

  0.050

  Lenta

  0.000

  0.035

  0.013

  0.005

  0.010

  0.000

  Equatorial2

  0.025

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Ulster Development Capital

  0.057

  0.105

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Total

  82.571

  67.685

  49.594

  148.073

  243.579

  130.218

  1 To 30 September.

  2 No longer a lender.

  These figures may differ from ones quoted previously. They take account of loans guaranteed but subsequently withdrawn before the loan is taken out.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will describe the baseline between Skegness and Great Yarmouth for the purposes of the common fisheries policy. [14649]

  Mr. Baldry
  The territorial sea baseline is drawn in accordance with the Territorial Waters Order in Council 1964, as amended by the Territorial Waters Order (Amendment) Order 1979. The base points are held and maintained by the territorial waters officer of the UK Hydrographic Office, Taunton.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he ensures that the negotiating
  504

  Small Firms (Loan Guarantees)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been committed each year since 1990–91, and by which banks, under the small firms loan guarantee scheme. [14644]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The value of loans guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme since 1990–91, by lender, is as follows:

  brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13716]

  Mr. Boswell
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the booklet, "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by UK compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library of the House.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the highest and (b) the lowest hourly rate charged to abattoirs by the Meat Hygiene Service for the services of official veterinary surgeons. [15087]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30 January to his previous question on the subject of official veterinary surgeons' hourly rates,Official Report, column 694.
  505

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has for the future of the site and building of the Public Record Office, Chancery lane. [10891]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The efficiency scrutiny of the Public Record Office concluded that operations should be transferred to new premises at Kew. This transfer should be completed by the end of 1996. Other Government Departments have been widely canvassed, but there is no serious interest in re-use of the existing premises at Chancery lane. They will become surplus to requirements and will be disposed of on the open market by Property Holdings.

  Complex Fraud Cases
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to introduce measures to allow complex fraud cases to be heard by expert juries. [13890]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Not at present. This is only one of a number of possible approaches which would require careful consideration before any alternative to the current jury system was adopted.

  Anonymity Orders
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 1996,Official Report, column 749, if the anonymity order by Mr. Justice Johnson continues indefinitely; and if he will make it Government policy that no dead person's identity can be kept secret. [14040]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A judgment by the president of the family division on 8 December 1995 confirmed that the order made by Mr. Justice Johnson regarding the anonymity of patient C and other individuals connected with the proceedings should continue beyond patient C's death. The text of the president's two judgments and that of Mr. Justice Johnson in this case are available in the Library of the House.

  Questions relating to the anonymity of those involved in proceedings are matters for the court. The court will make its decision based on all the circumstances of the case.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14028]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department produces a wide range of administrative manuals and internal guidance: 13 are in the public domain and a further 84 are available for public inspection or could be provided 506
  on request. A list of these will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses. Guidance on security matters is not available to the public.

  Information on the full range of documents used for internal guidance could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In accordance with the code of practice on access to Govnerment information a charge may be made to cover any additional costs of copies requested for retention.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14036]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 12 February 1996.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the final date on which(a) a Minister and (b) a civil servant delivered information to Lord Justice Scott for his inquiry. [14833]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have been in correspondence with Sir Richard Scott's team throughout the period of the inquiry. The Cabinet Office was last asked to provide documents and information to the inquiry on 22 January.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for civil servants whose actions are discussed by Lord justice Scott to receive copies of his report before its official publications on 15 February. [14840]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are in discussion with the inquiry about this.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many pages of evidence were provided by his office to the Scott inquiry. [14836]

  The Prime Minister
  My office and the Cabinet Office have provided 6,197 pages of evidence to the Scott inquiry. This figure does not include correspondence between my office or the Cabinet Office and the inquiry or evidence supplied to the inquiry by individual witnesses.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if he(a) has discussed and (b) has authorised his Ministers to discuss media presentation of the Scott inquiry report with (i) newspaper proprietors, (ii) newspaper editors and (iii) governors of the BBC. [13993]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The arrangements agreed by the Government with Sir Richard Scott do not permit anyone outside Government to have access to the report before publication, nor to have the contents of the report disclosed to them. I have made it clear that those

  507
  arrangements must be adhered to. The only exception at present agreed is that the spokesmen of the leading Opposition parties should have access to the report some hours before publication in accordance with the precedents for weighty reports of this nature. The preparation of the Government's response to the report has been and will be conducted in accordance with those arrangements. Any changes would be made only after consultation with Sir Richard Scott.

  Higher Education Institutions
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion on which he has visited(a) a British university, and (b) another institution of higher education in each of the last five years; and what was the purpose of the visit in each case. [14961]

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited a range of education establishments and discussed a variety of issues over the past five years.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February. [13608]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February. [13609]

  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.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department has responsibility for responding to accidents caused by the dumping of munitions in the Beaufort's dyke area. [14920]

  The Prime Minister
  The response to any particular incident would, in the first instance, be a matter for the relevant emergency services. Any associated departmental responsibility would be determined by the circumstances of the particular incident.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of municipal CCTV systems in fighting crime. [14224]

  Mr. Maclean
  The reports we have received from the police and closed circuit television—CCTV —operators confirm that there has been significant reductions in crime and the fear of crime in the areas where CCTV has been introduced. The reductions demonstrate the value of CCTV as a crime prevention measure. The evaluation of the cost effectiveness of individual CCTV schemes is a matter for the system operators.
  508
  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his criteria for (i) accepting and (ii) rejecting applications from local authorities for matching funding for CCTV systems. [14142]

  Mr. Maclean
  Bids to the second Home Office closed circuit television—CCTV—challenge competition will be judged against the criteria set out in the bidding guidance which was issued on 22 November 1995. Copies of the bidding guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Blackmail
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions cases of alleged blackmail serious enough to involve arrests by Serious Crime Squad detectives have not led to charges in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [14250]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the divisions of the Metropolitan police by borough with the number of officers per division and population per borough, in the same format as in his answer of 26 March 1993,Official Report, column 763. [14565]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information in respect of the London boroughs is as follows:

  London borough

  Number of police officers (full-time equivalent at 8 January 1996)

  Population of borough (OPCS mid-1994 estimates)

  Barking and Dagenham

  155,018

  Dagenham

  281.60

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  308,192

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  280.70

  Golders Green

  190.90

  West Hendon

  225.35

  Bexley

  220,414

  Bexleyheath

  270.50

  Brent

  244,467

  Kilburn

  325.14

  Wembley

  238.60

  Bromley

  292,970

  Bromley and Orpington

  452.44

  Camden

  182,484

  Hampstead

  195.00

  Holborn

  187.90

  Kentish Town

  251.86

  City of Westminster

  190,147

  Belgravia

  308.15

  Charing Cross

  398.10

  Marylebone

  335.70

  Paddington

  356.60

  West End Central

  316.00

  509

  London borough

  Number of police officers (full-time equivalent at 8 January 1996)

  Population of borough (OPCS mid-1994 estimates)

  Croydon

  326,757

  Croydon

  267.30

  South Norwood

  317.58

  Ealing

  289,783

  Ealing

  332.93

  Southall

  270.96

  Enfield

  259,765

  Edmonton

  237.38

  Enfield

  255.50

  Greenwich

  212,201

  Greenwich

  264.36

  Plumstead

  311.95

  Hackney

  192,479

  Stoke Newington

  305.94

  Shoreditch and

  297.60

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  156,550

  Fulham

  216.73

  Hammersmith

  316.40

  Haringey

  212,328

  Hornsey

  254.60

  Tottenham

  244.00

  Harrow

  210,266

  Harrow

  272.80

  Havering

  231,693

  Havering

  335.79

  Hillingdon

  242,968

  Hillingdon

  403.90

  Hounslow

  202,723

  Chiswick

  187.50

  Hounslow

  254.70

  Islington

  175,194

  Holloway

  246.90

  Islington

  264.10

  Kensington and Chelsea

  151,476

  Brompton

  375.40

  Notting Hill

  229.00

  Kingston upon

  138,486

  Thames

  Kingston

  360.34

  Lambeth

  260,677

  Brixton

  287.10

  Streatham

  254.01

  Vauxhall

  342.25

  Lewisham

  242,411

  Catford

  269.80

  Lewisham

  314.80

  Merton

  177,246

  Merton

  306.85

  510

  London borough

  Number of police officers (full-time equivalent at 8 January 1996)

  Population of borough (OPCS mid-1994 estimates)

  Newham

  226,842

  Forest Gate

  288.00

  Plaistow

  289.00

  Redbridge

  225,090

  Ilford

  231.40

  Richmond upon Thames

  172,011

  Richmond upon

  294.40

  Thames

  Southwark

  228,762

  Peckham

  288.38

  Southwark

  282.08

  Walworth

  259.40

  Sutton

  173,351

  Epson and Sutton

  402.38

  Tower Hamlets

  170,523

  Limehouse

  259.00

  Whitechapel

  307.70

  Waltham Forest

  221,779

  Chingford

  213.30

  Leyton

  208.00

  Wandsworth

  266,554

  Battersea

  257.80

  Wandsworth

  318.38

  Mary Druhan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on Mary Druhan's appeal application. [14590]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are working urgently towards reaching a decision in this case.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the last three years from Justice on the case of Mary Druhan; and what response he has made. [14559]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Representations from Justice were received in August 1993, and it has written occasionally with further points since then. In response, we commissioned inquiries by the Metropolitan police, whose report we are now considering.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account is taken of the cost of Home Office controllers when cost comparisons are made between private and public managed prisons. [14448]

  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.
  511
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what account is taken of the cost of Home Office controllers when cost comparisons are made between private and public managed prisons.
  At each privately managed prison there is a controller, deputy controller and secretary. Their costs are included in the Prison Service annual report figures for cost per place and cost per prisoner at each private prison. They were not included in the analysis of comparative costs between private and public managed prisons carried out on 1993–94 figures. They are being included in the re-analysis being carried out in 1994–95 figures.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on smoke detectors in homes. [14317]

  Mr. Sackville
  Our policy is to ensure that people are aware of the potentially life saving benefits of smoke alarms and to encourage them to install smoke alarms in their homes and to maintain and test them regularly. Our efforts, and those of fire brigades, have been very successful. Ownership has increased from 9 per cent. in 1987 to its present figure of 74 per cent. of all households.

  Police Officers (Bosnia)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made to protect the position of police officers who volunteer for military duty in Bosnia through their membership of the Territorial Army, with particular reference to pensions, pay increments, annual leave, injury pensions and lump sum payments and death gratuities. [142394]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for chief constables to decide whether to allow officers leave of absence to volunteer for military duty in Bosnia.

  Police officers who are members of Her Majesty's reserve forces and who are compulsorily called up for military service would be able to count such military service towards pension, pay increments and annual leave. They would also be eligible to have any shortfall in their military pay relative to their police pay made up and, provided they are members of the police pensions scheme, they would be covered by the "service men" provision— part I—of the police pension regulations.

  Police officers who are members of the reserve forces and who volunteer for military duty need first to obtain the permission of their chief constable and, depending on the terms under which any leave of absence is approved, may be able to count the military service towards pension, pay increments and annual leave. Officers who are given approval to volunteer for military service, like those who might be compulsorily called up, are covered by the "service men" provisions of the police pensions regulations.

  London Fire Brigade
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the expected average additional time that will elapse prior to the arrival of an appliance of the London fire brigade at a512
  fire if he accepts the proposals for reduced fire cover in London. [14332]

  Mr. Sackville
  No requests have been received by the Home Office from the London fire and civil defence authority to reduce levels of fire cover and therefore there is no basis on which to make such an estimate.

  Overloaded Lorries
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the levels of fines applicable to lorry operators convicted of overloading their vehicles; and when the levels were last reviewed. [14447]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are satisfied that the penalties for offences relating to overloaded goods vehicles are adequate. Driving an overloaded goods vehicle carries a maximum sentence of a £5,000 fine. This level of fine was set in 1991 and has not been reviewed since because there is no evidence that the courts have found it too low.

  Fire Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time fire appliances currently take to reach household fires in Hendon NW4. [14756]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entry clearance applications by husbands, wives or fiancé(e)s were refused (a) partly and (b) wholly on primary purpose grounds in 1994. [14799]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information for the Indian sub-continent—ISC—is given in the table. Corresponding information for non-ISC posts is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Initial refusals of entry clearance on primary purpose grounds for spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent 1994

  Numbers1

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  Partly on primary purpose grounds

  Husbands

  750

  940

  Wives

  270

  180

  Male fiances

  90

  60

  Female fiancees

  60

  20

  Terrorist Groups
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards United Kingdom-based groups which issue statements of support for middle east terrorist organisations. [14650]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government deplore all statements of support for terrorist organisations. The police and the Security Service attach a high priority to countering any active support in the United Kingdom for terrorist groups.
  513
  Where there is evidence of involvement in terrorist, action will be taken against individuals, either under the criminal law, supported as necessary by the prevention of terrorism legislation, or under immigration Act powers.

  Secure Training Centres
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the first secure training centres to be opened for young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [14651]

  Mr. Maclean
  Tender proposals for the provision of the first two secure training centres at Gringley, Nottinghamshire and Cookham wood, Kent, were received on 12 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. The opening dates have not yet been settled: they will be specified in the signed contract.

  Gaming Act 1968
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is proposing to complete his review of the workings of the Gaming Act 1968; and if he will make a statement. [14932]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 26 January,Official Report, column 470.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances a visit to a prisoner by a person whose name appears on a correct visiting order(a) may be disallowed and (b) may be considered a threat to security at the prison; and if he will make a statement. [14497]

  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the refusal of visits to prisoners.
  In general, providing the prisoner is still in that prison and able and willing to receive visitors, bona fide visitors appearing during visiting hours on the day specified will only be denied access for the reasons set out in Standing Order 5A or section 40 and 69 of the Prison Service Manual on Security, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
  A visitor would be considered a threat to security if it was thought they were planning to procure the escape of any prisoner or to supply weapons or equipment to assist in an escape. They would be considered a threat to good order and disciple if, for example, it was thought they were trying to smuggle drugs or other illicit items into the prison.

  Prosecutions of Police Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private prosecutions against 514
  police officers have been brought in each year since 1970; how many of these cases each year the police officers (a) won and (b) lost; how many they settled out of court; and how much they paid out each year (i) in damages and (ii) in legal costs. [14962]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the response to the first report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1994–95, HC17, on the private security industry. [15134]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have responded to many of the recommendations made by the Select Committee; a copy of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply has been placed in the Library. We will answer the Committee's recommendations on regulation for part of the industry as soon as possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend to the Immigration Service decisions regarding the removal of illegal entrants. [15311]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  At present, designated senior officers in the immigration service may authorise the removal of certain categories of people who have entered the United Kingdom illegally while other cases are referred to Ministers for authority to remove. In future, designated senior officers will be responsible for authorising removal in all cases other than those in which special features, such as Parliamentary interest or a high level of public concern about a case, indicate that they should be referred to Ministers for decision.

  The existing arrangements under which Ministers personally authorise and sign orders requiring a person's deportation from the United Kingdom are unaffected by these changes.

  Pregnant Women Prisoners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the professional bodies consulted by(a) Ministers, (b) officials in his Department and (c) officers of the Prison Service in respect of its rules and practices concerning use of chains and similar equipment for (i) pregnant women, (ii) those in or approaching labour and (iii) those giving birth that applied prior to his oral statement of 18 January; and if he will place a copy of those rules in the Library. [11543]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about handcuffing of women.

  515
  The instructions which applied before the Home Secretary's announcement on 18 January are contained in sections 53 and 60 of the Manual on Security, copies of which are already held in the Library of the House. They were last amended in April 1995.
  No formal external consultation took place prior to the drawing up of the April 1995 instructions. In the context of the changes made and announced on 18 January I had extensive consultation with the Royal College of Midwives.
  On the basis of their advice, and after consultation with Ministers, I made the changes which were announced by the Home Secretary on 18 January.

  Prisons (Staffing)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give staff figures for each prison establishment showing the number of(a) unified grade staff, (b) governor grade staff, (c) auxiliary grades and (d) civilian staff. [12767]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the grade breakdown of staff in each prison establishment.
  The information requested, as at 26 January 1996 is shown in the attached table. Prison Service staff at privately managed prisons have been included. Unified grade totals include officers working within the various specialisms, for example healthcare. Auxiliary grades include night patrols, prison auxiliaries and temporary officers. Civilian grades include all other staff working in establishments.

  Prison establishment staffing: grade breakdown

  Establishment

  Officer grades

  Governor grades

  Auxiliary grades

  Civilian grades

  Acklington

  269

  7

  39

  34

  Albany

  250

  8

  16

  30

  Aldington

  57

  2

  4

  16

  Ashwell

  119

  6

  23

  48

  Askham Grange

  46

  2

  13

  12

  Aylesbury

  175

  7

  22

  56

  Bedford

  219

  4

  24

  31

  Belmarsh

  650

  9

  75

  81

  Birmingham

  503

  12

  44

  60

  Blakenhurst1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Blantyre House

  43

  3

  9

  8

  Blundeston

  218

  7

  23

  26

  Brinsford

  228

  7

  29

  66

  Bristol

  384

  9

  36

  —

  Brixton

  553

  11

  58

  —

  Brockhill

  68

  3

  6

  23

  Buckley Hall1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Bullingdon/Oxford

  416

  10

  55

  50

  Bullwood Hall

  86

  4

  6

  515

  Camp Hill

  213

  7

  26

  —

  Canterbury

  177

  3

  11

  —

  Cardiff

  248

  6

  33

  81

  Castington

  145

  4

  20

  24

  Channings Wood

  202

  10

  23

  32

  Chelmsford

  269

  6

  14

  33

  Coldingly

  176

  8

  23

  23

  Cookham Wood

  74

  3

  10

  3

  Dartmoor

  314

  8

  21

  36

  Deerbolt

  185

  4

  25

  61

  Doncaster1

  —

  2

  1

  2

  Dorchester

  123

  3

  4

  19

  Dover

  141

  4

  18

  47

  Downview

  153

  4

  18

  25

  516

  Prison establishment staffing: grade breakdown

  Establishment

  Officer grades

  Governor grades

  Auxiliary grades

  Civilian grades

  Drake Hall

  70

  3

  17

  46

  Durham

  477

  11

  44

  61

  East Sutton Park

  27

  2

  6

  26

  Eastwood Park

  7

  1

  3

  10

  Elmley

  362

  9

  45

  42

  Erlestoke House

  151

  3

  20

  23

  Everthorpe

  186

  5

  19

  28

  Exeter

  229

  7

  17

  74

  Featherstone

  268

  4

  25

  39

  Feltham

  392

  11

  56

  97

  Ford

  136

  5

  19

  34

  Frankland

  523

  13

  50

  35

  Full Sutton

  647

  16

  47

  53

  Garth

  302

  10

  19

  34

  Gartree

  229

  10

  26

  29

  Glen Parva

  359

  12

  42

  95

  Gloucester

  179

  4

  11

  30

  Grendon/Springhill

  182

  8

  26

  73

  Guys Marsh

  109

  7

  23

  55

  Haslar

  64

  2

  7

  11

  Hatfield

  67

  4

  13

  54

  Haverigg

  205

  6

  25

  32

  Hewell Grange

  68

  6

  12

  55

  High Down

  367

  11

  35

  44

  Highpoint

  295

  7

  31

  49

  Hindley

  221

  6

  23

  32

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  183

  7

  20

  131

  Holloway

  405

  14

  36

  42

  Holme House

  348

  7

  25

  38

  Hull

  340

  7

  31

  39

  Huntercombe/Finnamore Wood

  109

  4

  9

  44

  Kingston

  99

  1

  4

  16

  Kirkham

  153

  6

  18

  36

  Kirklevington

  50

  2

  10

  10

  Lancaster

  108

  5

  5

  13

  Lancaster Farms

  160

  6

  24

  75

  Latchmere House

  51

  4

  5

  19

  Leeds

  560

  18

  42

  72

  Leicester

  278

  5

  26

  35

  Lewes

  257

  5

  22

  30

  Leyhill

  130

  5

  14

  27

  Lincoln

  300

  9

  26

  41

  Lindholme

  298

  9

  48

  42

  Littlehey

  219

  7

  22

  38

  Liverpool

  647

  22

  42

  70

  Long Lartin

  508

  13

  35

  44

  Low Newton

  119

  4

  21

  36

  Maidstone

  285

  9

  22

  34

  Manchester

  562

  12

  79

  64

  Moorland

  280

  9

  30

  86

  Morton Hall

  32

  3

  9

  34

  Mount

  177

  8

  25

  48

  New Hall

  112

  4

  13

  56

  Northallerton

  106

  4

  13

  40

  North Sea Camp

  36

  3

  11

  59

  Norwich

  221

  5

  35

  134

  Nottingham

  139

  7

  14

  47

  Onley

  206

  6

  20

  57

  Parkhurst

  397

  15

  11

  89

  Pentonville

  381

  13

  30

  135

  Portland

  168

  6

  33

  70

  Preston

  337

  11

  17

  54

  Pucklechurch

  56

  5

  6

  38

  Ranby

  176

  5

  32

  65

  Reading

  142

  3

  5

  41

  Risley

  352

  15

  37

  126

  Rochester

  188

  6

  25

  79

  Send

  51

  3

  5

  22

  Shepton Mallet

  89

  4

  6

  45

  Shrewsbury

  154

  5

  10

  51

  Stafford

  249

  6

  32

  72

  Standford Hill

  88

  6

  10

  81

  Stocken

  134

  6

  19

  67

  Stoke Heath

  147

  5

  29

  58

  Styal

  135

  3

  8

  70

  517

  Prison establishment staffing: grade breakdown

  Establishment

  Officer grades

  Governor grades

  Auxiliary grades

  Civilian grades

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  82

  7

  18

  89

  Swaleside

  257

  7

  11

  90

  Swansea

  145

  5

  11

  61

  Swinfen Hall

  96

  3

  16

  49

  Thorn Cross

  82

  8

  19

  52

  Usk/Prescoed

  104

  4

  15

  61

  Verne

  166

  6

  29

  100

  Wakefield

  492

  13

  21

  105

  Wandsworth

  511

  15

  55

  158

  Wayland

  176

  9

  18

  73

  Wealstun

  181

  11

  12

  80

  Wellingborough

  134

  7

  25

  48

  Werrington

  46

  2

  10

  26

  Wetherby

  78

  6

  13

  43

  Whatton

  78

  4

  11

  35

  Whitemoor

  494

  17

  41

  89

  Winchester

  345

  7

  22

  78

  Wolds1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Woodhill

  333

  10

  49

  96

  Wormwood Scrubs

  503

  16

  31

  114

  Wymott

  223

  8

  36

  78

  1 Privately managed prison/remand centre: Prison Service staff monitor the contract.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his reasons to the report on the future of the Fire Service College. [14669]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]The Fire Service College will continue as a next steps agency operating as a trading fund. A review of possible alternative options for the college's future status and financial structure was completed in June 1995. Since then, further work has been commissioned. An announcement will be made when this work has been completed and considered.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 114, how much money he has allocated to build the first two secure training centres. [14825]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]Secure training centres will be provided under the terms of the Government's private finance initiative. The capital costs of construction will be met by the private sector contractor. Contract payments made by the Home Office will allow private sector providers to meet the operating and maintenance costs and capital financing costs as well as provide a return on their investment. For each centre, contract payments will begin when all available places are ready for use. The precise level of payments will depend on the results of the competitive tendering exercise.

  Addict Index
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual cost to his Department of the addict index; what other drug databases his Department operates; what plans he has to ensure the continuing viability of the addict index; and if he will make a statement. [14243]
  518
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]The estimated cost of the addicts index for 1995–96 is approximately £282,000. The Home Office collates information on police and customs drug seizures and court proceedings for drug-related offences from the drugs self-report component of the British crime survey—being developed as a new indicator of the prevalence of drug misuse—and on companies licensed to trade in drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department issues concerning police relations with victims of crime from vulnerable groups; and if he will make a statement. [14245]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Guidance has been issued to the police on the treatment of a wide range of victims of crime, including victims of sexual offences, child abuse and domestic violence.

  The victim's charter, published in 1990, sets some 17 standards for the police to aim for in their treatment of victims of crime. We aim to publish a new victim's charter in April, which will define more clearly the minimum standards of service victims can expect from the police and the other criminal justice agencies.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the initiatives taken by police forces in England and Wales to provide protection for vulnerable victims of crime; and if he will make a statement. [14249]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The police give a high priority to the protection and safeguarding of victims, witnesses, and other vulnerable persons. The police research group published a report on witness intimidation in 1994, and the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has encouraged its members to have regard to the report's recommendations. National performance indicators for the police service require forces to develop strategies for reducing repeat victimisation.

  Cleared-up Crime
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the definition of a cleared-up crime for official statistical purposes; and what changes have been made to the definition over the last five years. [14247]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]An offence can be recorded as cleared up if any of the conditions listed are met. There have been no changes in the last five years.

  An offence is cleared up when:

  1. a person has been charged or summonsed for the offence, irrespective of any subsequent acquittal;

  2. the offence has been taken into consideration by the court or if the unequivocal consent of the offender is obtained by way of statement of admission and desire to have further offences taken into consideration;

  3. the offender has been proceeded against in another police force area for the offence;

  4. the offender dies before proceedings could be initiated or completed;

  519

  5. the offender has been cautioned by the police;

  6. the offender is ill and is unlikely to recover or is too senile or too mentally disturbed for proceedings to be taken;

  7. the complainant or an essential witness is dead and the proceedings cannot be pursued;

  8. the guilt of the offender is clear but the victim refuses, or is permanently unable, or if a juvenile is not permitted, to give evidence;

  9. the offender admits the offence but it is decided that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge;

  10. it is ascertained that an offence has been committed by a child under the age of criminal responsibility;

  11. an offence is admitted by a juvenile of the age of criminal responsibility and police take no action other than reporting the particulars to a local authority for action under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

  12. There is sufficient evidence to charge the offender but

  (a) The police prosecuting department, the Crown Prosecution Service or a senior police officer decides that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge; or

  (b) for summary offences of unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle or criminal damage value over £20 the time limit of six months for commencing prosecution has been exceeded.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of recorded crime(a) resulted in a conviction and (b) was cleared-up in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [14248]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Information on the percentage of offenders committed which result in a conviction is published on page 25 of "Digest 3—Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales". Information for other years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on the percentage of recorded offences cleared up is published in table 2.8 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1994". Copies of both these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) the number of convictions and (b) the number of cleared-up crimes, for each category of offence, for each of the last five years;and if he will make a statement. [14276]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Information on the number of notifiable offences cleared up by offence groups and on the number of offenders found guilty for all types of offence by main offence group is published in tables 2.8 and 5.8 respectively of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Immigration Officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the regulations relating to the scales for, and payment of, performance-related pay for immigration officers posted at United Kingdom ports; and if he will make a statement. [14493]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Immigration Officers receive performance pay in accordance with the national 1992 pay agreements and subsequent pay settlements negotiated between the Treasury and the National Union of Civil and Public
  520
  Servants. The placing of these papers in the Library is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certain discretionary arrangements were negotiated within my Department and published in a departmental notice, a copy of which I have arranged to place in the Library.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the prison population in England and Wales is currently held in(a)secure prisons and (b) open prisons and related establishments; [14001]

  (2) how many prisoners are currently held in open prisons and related establishments. [14003]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 12 February 1996]: Responsibility for these matters 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about how many prisoners are currently held in open prisons and related establishments; and what proportion of the prison population in England and Wales is currently held in (a) secure prisons and (b) open prisons and related establishments.
  On 7 February 1996 the prison population in England and Wales was 52,437. On that date 48,630 prisoners, representing 92.7% of the total population, were held in closed establishments and 3,807, 7.3% of the population, in open establishments.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Family Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, columns 665–66, what were the criteria used for awarding grants to non-governmental organisations applying for funding for reproductive health projects in (a) 1994 and(b) 1995. [14801]

  Mr. Hanley
  Grants were awarded for activities which addressed reproductive health needs in the community. The criteria included (i) the innovative content of proposals and prospects for their replication, (ii) the capability and experience of the organisation seeking funds, (iii) the overall quality of the project design, (iv) relevance of the project to ODA's reproductive health aims, (v) the cost of the project in relation to anticipated achievement and (vi) availability of funds.

  Expenditure Review
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration. [15312]

  Mr. Hanley
  The fundamental expenditure review of the ODA was thorough and wide ranging. It involved
  521
  consultation with many of our principal partners. We deposited the report in the Libraries of the House in December and it is available also from the ODA.

  The FER's conclusions were recommendations only. Many built on work already in progress. The Government have taken into account Members' views expressed in the debates on development on 30 January and 7 February. The Government's response to the key recommendations is as follows.

  First and foremost, the FER confirmed the continuing need for the UK to provide substantial flows of concessional aid; and recommended that the ODA should retain responsibility for bilateral and multilateral aid. The Government strongly endorse both recommendations, which underpin our commitment to remain a major donor.

  The review recommends clarification of the purpose of the aid programme by a better definition of its basic purpose and aims. The Government have agreed a revised mission statement which defines the ODA's overriding purpose, as well as the aims to be pursued.

  The new mission statement is as follows:
  ODA's purpose is to improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
  To this end ODA will aim:

  to encourage sound development policies, efficient markets and good government;

  to help people achieve better education and health and to widen opportunities—particularly for women;

  to enhance productive capacity and to conserve the environment; and

  to promote international policies for sustainable development and enhance the effectiveness of multilateral development institutions.

  The FER recommended that ODA's country programme resources should be more concentrated in order to enhance impact. The Government agree with this principle. A larger proportion of our bilateral resources will be allocated to those countries which need it most, can use it effectively and where it will have a real impact. Account will also be taken of Britain's wider national interests. There will be no sudden change. Already the 20 largest recipients accounted for some 69 per cent. of planned country programme expenditure in the last financial year, and on current plans we expect this proportion to increase to some 73 per cent. by 1998–99. There is no specific target percentage nor will the list of the largest recipients necessarily be exactly the same from year to year—though concentration on the poorer countries in Africa and Asia will continue.

  The Government will continue to assist a wide variety of other countries through bilateral country aid programmes. At the same time we will increase the number of countries where a direct aid relationship is sustained through heads of mission schemes rather than a traditional bilateral country aid programme. In addition, we shall maintain worthwhile aid relationship through multilateral channels and through other non-country bilateral programmes, including research, scholarships, volunteers and our financial support for British non-governmental organisations.
  522
  At the same time, the ODA will sharpen its focus even further on activities which contribute directly to its aims. The FER made a number of sensible recommendations to enhance the strategic planning process within the ODA. Better corporate and business planning has begun, strengthening the important links in all cases between the objectives and the resources of all kinds used to achieve them.

  The United Kingdom makes an increasing contribution through multilateral aid. The FER recommended strengthening our role in multilateral organisations; improving linkages to our bilateral aid; and securing better value. The Government accept these recommendations. The ODA will continue to have lead policy and financial responsibility for those multilateral programmes which are a charge to the aid budget. We will reinforce our efforts to improve the quality and focus of programmes managed by multilateral organisations. This will include reform in the UN agencies as well as continuing work in Brussels. The ODA will play a still greater role in promoting international policies for sustainable development and enhancing the effectiveness of multilateral development institutions.

  The FER made a number of recommendations concerned essentially with internal management processes. All have a common purpose: to improve further the effectiveness of the ODA, to increase impact, and to obtain better value for money. The majority have been accepted and are now being implemented.

  Very few recommendations were not accepted. Notwithstanding the recommendations in the FER, the geographical Minister of State in the Foreign Office will continue to have formal responsibility for the joint assistance units managing programmes in the former Soviet Union and east and central Europe; and the ODA will continue to make a grant in aid to the British Council.

  The FER was followed and complemented by a senior management review. Changes recommended include a restructuring of responsibility at senior management level and the designation of a senior manager to promote each of the four aims.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Computer Networks
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all(a) Internet and (b) other computer network, sites or bulletin boards operated by his Department or containing information supplied by his Department, indicating for each site or bulletin board (i) the inaugural date, (ii) the timetable and policy in respect of updates, (iii) the Internet, or other network, address and (iv) to whom the site or board is currently made available and the criteria which must be fulfilled by applicants for access. [14228]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service makes press notices available to the public via the Internet using the Central Office of Information's service on the world wide web. The information requested is as follows:

  (i) 19 April 1995.

  523

  (ii) Press notices from the Crown Prosecution Service remain on the Internet until the information becomes out of date.

  (iii) http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GCP/GCP.html.

  (iv) All subscribers to the Internet have access to the press notices.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14087]

  The Solicitor-General
  There have been no such sales by departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible.

  Harassment
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people have been prosecuted for stalking under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as it relates to crimes of intentional harassment. [14464]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on cautioning and court proceedings data for offences of "Causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress" under section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) on how many occasions, in each year since 1966, Ministers have signed public interest immunity certificates in criminal trials; [15099]

  (2) on how many occasions, in each year since 1979, public interest has been claimed in the courts in criminal cases. [15100]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not collected centrally either by Government or by individual prosecuting authorities. My answer is therefore confined to the three prosecuting authorities for which I have ministerial responsibility. On the basis of the best information currently available, the number of criminal cases in which public interest immunity certificates are known to have been used is as follows:

  CPS1

  SFO1

  DPP(NI)

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  2

  1

  —

  1990

  1

  1

  —

  1991

  —

  1

  —

  1992

  2

  —

  1

  1993

  4

  —

  —

  1994

  3

  1

  —

  1995

  5

  —

  1

  1 The Crown Prosecution Service became operational in 1986 and the Serious Fraud Office in 1988.

  The number of cases in which public interest immunity is claimed without ministerial certificate—for example, in relation to informants which is the regular practice—is not recorded centrally.
  524

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ulster-Scots Language
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make representations to the Arts Council to(a) accord the Ulster-Scots language the same recognition in future publications as it did to the Irish language on its final strategy report and (b) develop a similar approach to Ulster-Scots as it has to Irish in its strategy for the arts in Northern Ireland. [12825]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. The Arts Council for Northern Ireland is aware that the Government expect it to accord recognition to Ulster-Scots arts, just as the Scottish Arts Council does for work in the Scots language.

  Mitchell Commission
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of the Mitchell Commission; and what percentage of this was paid by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the Irish Government. [14000]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) on 5 February 1996,Official Report, column 75.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Irish Government or the European Commission to have the rules governing Irish language qualifications for teaching appointments rescinded. [14547]

  Mr. Ancram
  This has been the subject of occasional discussion between officials from each jurisdiction. I am pleased to note that Mrs. Bhreathnach recently announced new provisions which ease the requirement in certain circumstances.

  School Transport (Belfast)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will create a special beneficial home-to-school free transport category for Belfast city centre grammar schools whose catchment area necessarily includes Greater Belfast and North Down; and if he will make a statement. [14548]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. Following consultation on proposals for revising the school transport arrangements, I have decided that there should be no change in the present arrangements in the school year beginning next September. My Department will, however, be writing to education and library boards about the arrangements for taking forward further detailed consideration of the options for reducing expenditure on home-to-school transport, including consultation with schools and other interests.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants for student
  525
  awards for fees and maintenance payments have been recently turned down because parents do not meet the three-year residency rule; and if he will consider an alternative rule for United Kingdom citizens who have spent the majority of the previous two decades within the United Kingdom. [14549]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the 1995–96 academic year 36 applicants for mandatory and discretionary awards administered by the education and library boards were ineligible because of the residency rule. No applicants were ineligible on these grounds for the postgraduate awards made by the Department.

  There are no plans to change the residence requirements, which are common throughout the United Kingdom.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of

  Table 1: Unemployed persons

  Population by sex

  Total

  Roman Catholic

  Presbyterian Church of Ireland/ Methodist

  Other denominations

  None

  not stated

  Males

  Number

  77,326

  40,647

  23,068

  3,827

  3,376

  6,408

  Percentage

  100

  52.47

  29.83

  4.95

  4.37

  8.29

  Females

  Number

  29,744

  13,863

  10,086

  1,857

  1,337

  2,601

  Percentage

  100

  46.61

  33.91

  6.24

  4.50

  8.74

  Persons

  Number

  107,070

  54,510

  33,154

  5,684

  4,713

  9,009

  Percentage

  100

  50.91

  30.96

  5.31

  4.40

  8.41

  Table 2: Ratios of Roman Catholic unemployment rates1 to other groupings

  Population by sex

  Presbyterian/ Church of Ireland/ Methodist

  Other denominations

  None

  Not stated

  Males

  2.2:1

  2.5:1

  1.8:1

  1.3:1

  Females

  1.8:1

  1.8:1

  1.2:1

  1.1:1

  Persons

  2.1:1

  2.3:1

  1.6:1

  1.3:1

  1 The unemployment rates are calculated by expressing the number recorded as economically active out of employment as a percentage of the total economically active.

  Burglary
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police cautions for burglary have been given in the last five years. [14552]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I very much regret that the information is not at present available in the form requested. I am seeking to establish the means within the Royal Ulster Constabulary to ensure that it is available in future.
  526
  Unemployed persons are (a) Protestant, (b) Catholic and (c) other, what are the ratios between the categories; and what number and percentage of each were (i) male and (ii) female. [14550]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population recorded information on the religion and employment status of individuals and results are available for the main denominations separately. Information is not presented on an amalgamated Protestant category as a specific question on this was not included in the census and the large number of small religions recorded make precise classification difficult. A comprehensive list of denominations included in the "other denominations" category is recorded on page xvi of the Northern Ireland census 1991 religion report. Requests for tables on amalgamations of individual religious denominations can be produced by the census office for Northern Ireland based on specifications supplied by users. Information on the main denominations and other groups approximating most closely that requested is provided in the table.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Training and Employment Agency. [15310]

  Mr. Ancram
  A prior options review and an evaluation of the Training and Employment Agency have been completed. On the basis of these Ministers concluded that the agency should continue as a next steps agency with the same operation responsibilities for a further five years. In November 1995, Ministers agreed a new framework document for the agency which, among other things,
  527
  commits the agency to seeking further involvement of the private sector in the delivery of programmes and services. The new framework document has now been printed and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Sport (Young People)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a replacement grant to the Northern Ireland Boys' Football Association in place of that withdrawn by the Sports Council; and if he will meet a delegation from the Sports Council to discuss its recent report on the organisational needs of ungranted non-school boys' football. [13803]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: The provision of grant is a matter for the Sports Council.

  The council has advised that it has not sought a meeting, nor has it produced a report.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the criteria used by Price Waterhouse to argue for the abolition of the team grant in its review of the junior sports club scheme. [13804]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: Decisions in the light of the Price Waterhouse report were a matter for the Sports Council, and were taken on the basis that the promotion of sport for young people could be undertaken more effectively and efficiently by other means. Support for youth football is being maintained, but has been refocused to increase effectiveness and value for money.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ethical Investment Criteria
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners decided that they would invest in companies producing armaments where armaments make up less than 30 per cent. of a company's portfolio; on what occasions in the last five years the cut-off point has been altered; and what it was previously. [14500]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners do not operate this policy through the application of percentages. Those companies in which we invest and which derive a significant proportion of business from armaments or any of the other banned categories—tobacco, newspapers, gambling, brewing and distilling—are automatically put on the agenda for review by the ethical working group.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what talks the Church Commissioners have held with the General Electric Company; what was the subject of the talks; and what conclusions were reached. [14499]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners met David Newlands, finance director of GEC, on 19 July 1995 to discuss the company's role in the defence industry and to gain a clearer understanding of its corporate strategy.
  528
  We were informed that GEC is a multi-product company employing 86,000 people and assured that all military equipment sales made by GEC were to the Her Majesty's Government or sponsored by Her Majesty's Government and that they were subject to rigorous controls. The equipment is used in the defence of our country, our NATO partners and allies. Its corporate governance standards were deemed to be high.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, which(a) armaments companies and (b) other companies the Church Commissioners have disinvested from, or decided not to invest in, because of their ethical policies in the last five years. [14498]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners refrain from investing in any company whose main business is in armaments, newspapers, gambling, brewing and distilling.

  A number of companies with defence interests, such as Babcock International, British Aerospace, Cobham, Hunting, Racal Electronics, Rolls-Royce, Serco, Smiths Industries, Vickers, Vosper Thornycroft, are excluded from the portfolio for this reason. The commissioners have not disinvested over the last five years from any companies with defence interests held within the portfolio, and therefore are meeting the "main business" criterion, on ethical grounds.

  In answer to (b), the commissioners disinvested from British Sky Broadcasting in November 1995 following the company's decision to promote and broadcast the Playboy TV channel.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount of Government funding currently provided to the TECs. [14277]

  Mr. Paice
  The total amount of funding provided to training and enterprise councils by the Department in 1995–96 is £1.216 billion. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment also provide TECs with additional Government funding.

  The responsibility for TECs in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total annual cost to the Exchequer of the running of the training and enterprise councils. [14466]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not collect this information. Training and enterprise councils are private companies. The Department makes a contribution to the council's administration costs. In 1995–96 the contribution is £126 million.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to reach an agreement with training and enterprise councils about their operating agreement for 1996–97. [15081]
  529
  Mr. Paice
  The published agreement will be with training and enterprise councils by the third week of February. Negotiations with TECs on budgets and targets for 1996–97 are progressing. Officials from the Department expect to sign agreements with TECs by 25 March 1996, the start of the new contract year.

  School League Tables (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will set out the league tables of achievement for the schools in the Yorkshire counties. [14141]

  Mr. Paice
  The annual secondary school performance tables published by the Department list schools alphabetically rather than in order of achievement. Copies of the performance tables for the Yorkshire area are in the public domain and are available in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if new asylum seekers will qualify for the same concessionary fee status as asylum seekers in receipt of benefit under the new regulations; [14478]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the financial impact on further education colleges required to cease claiming recurrent funding from the Further Education Funding Council for those asylum seekers with concessionary fees who are no longer eligible for income support after 5 February; [14479]

  (3) how many asylum seekers are currently receiving concessionary fees and FEFC funding for part-time courses; and if these arrangements will continue when the new regulations come into force. [14477]

  Mr. Paice
  The FEFC has only recently begun to collect separate data on asylum seekers eligible for student fee remission, so it is not at present possible to give the number of those currently benefiting from fee remission.

  It is estimated that the number of students likely to be affected by the change in regulations will be very small. However, I understand that the FEFC has decided that if any further education colleges are seriously affected by the loss of recurrent funding from this source it will consider their cases sympathetically.

  Arrangements for fee remission for asylum seekers studying at FE colleges are a matter for the FEFC, and I am asking the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much each region has received from the FEFC each year since its formation; [14518]

  (2) how many colleges are funded by the FEFC in each region. [14519]
  530
  Mr. Paice
  Details of the allocation of funding to colleges, and the number of FEFC-funded colleges in each region are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much it costs annually to run the Further Education Funding Council. [14517]

  Mr. Paice
  The amounts paid to the council to cover running costs in each financial year from 1992–93 to 1994–5 are as follows:

  Financial Year

  1992–93: £4.3 million

  1993–94: £18.8 million

  1994–95: £23.7 million.

  In the current financial year there is provision of £24.2 million to cover the council's running costs.

  The council's running costs are expected to be lower in subsequent years. Estimated totals for 1996–97 to 1998–99 are as follows:

  Financial Year

  1996–97: £23.6 million

  1997–98: £23.0 million

  1998–99: £23.0 million.

  Pupils' Performance Tables
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to use value added criteria in her proposed performance tables for 11-year-olds. [14482]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to report on the potential of different models of value added at key stages 2 and 4. It expects to do so by December 1996. The possibility of including value added measures in primary school tables, at some point, will be addressed in the light of that report.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish the performance tables for 11-year-olds in national assessment tests; in what format the information will be published; and if she will make a statement. [14481]

  Mr. Squire
  I intend to publish this summer's assessment results for 11-year-olds in school performance tables early in 1997. I shall consult in due course on the format of the tables.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many cases the Equal Opportunities Commission have brought before a tribunal where there has been no formal complaint in each of the last five years. [14411]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has no power to bring complaints to an industrial tribunal in its own name on behalf of an individual alleging sex discrimination.
  531
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has such power in respect of complaints about discriminatory advertising, instructions to discriminate and pressure to discriminate. The number of cases where proceedings in these categories have been instituted are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1991

  4

  1992

  2

  1993

  0

  1994

  3

  1995

  6

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidelines have been issued to the Equal Opportunities Commission in respect of cases where job applicants have failed to comply with the jobseeker's scheme; [14412]

  (2) what guidelines have been issued to the Equal Opportunities Commission in respect of pursuing cases in the absence of a complaint (a) in general and (b) in respect of small businesses. [14410]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Equal Opportunities Commission is an independent body which decides what cases to pursue with reference to its statutory duties to work toward the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women generally. The Government have not issued guidelines in respect of pursuing cases.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors led her to reduce her Department's expenditure for disbursement via the access to work scheme for disabled employees; and what estimate she has made of the number of persons in employment on account of this scheme whose employment will be terminated by the planned reductions. [14761]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the expenditure on Access to Work; and for an estimate of the number of people, in employment on account of the programme, whose employment will consequently be terminated.
  The expenditure on Access to Work has not been reduced. The Secretary of State announced on 14 December that additional funds had been allocated to meet the demand made on the programme this year. You may know that by the end of December some 12,000 people had been helped—close to 2,000 more than for the whole of 1994/95.
  We are continuing to support people in employment to whom we have an existing commitment and I would not expect there to be any change to their employment position.
  I hope this is helpful.
  532

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are now on the modern apprenticeship scheme. [15080]

  Mr. Paice
  The number of modern apprentices in England and Wales is currently well over 15,000. Because the numbers are growing rapidly, it is not possible to give a precise up-to-the-minute figure.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what have been the costs to date of the advertising campaign to promote the modern apprenticeship scheme; and what is the estimate of the total cost. [15079]

  Mr. Paice
  There have been two phases of advertising promotion modern apprenticeships in the year 1995–96. The first phase ran from September to December 1995 at a cost of £2.425 million.

  The second phase runs throughout February this year. The estimated cost is £1.274 million.

  The estimate of the total costs is £3.699 million.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost incurred in carrying out the evaluation of training for work funding pilots. [15078]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on 15 January 1996.Official Report, Column 475.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of the areas of local education authorities for(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster, (c) Kensington and Chelsea and (d) Norfolk, (i) the number of three and four year olds, (ii) the number receiving nursery education in nursery schools or classes maintained by the authority, (iii) the number in nursery schools or classes not maintained by the education authority and (iv) (ii) and (iii) as a percentage of (i). [15101]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Provision of education for under five's—January 19951

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Kensingtson and Chelsea

  Norfolk

  Estimated population aged three and four as at 31 December 1994

  6,800

  4,000

  3,300

  18,300

  Nursery schools

  Pupils

  216

  190

  249

  404

  Percentage3

  3

  5

  8

  2

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Pupils

  2,176

  993

  608

  857

  Percentage3

  32

  25

  18

  5

  Infant classes2

  Pupils

  1,624

  574

  385

  5,646

  Percentage3

  24

  14

  12

  31

  533

  Provision of education for under five's—January 19951

  Wandsworth

  West minster

  Kensingtson and Chelsea

  Norfolk

  Special schools

  Maintained

  Pupils

  11

  0

  0

  47

  Percentage3

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Non-maintained

  Pupils

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Independent schools

  Pupils

  897

  486

  836

  635

  Percentage3

  13

  12

  25

  3

  — negligible (i.e. less than 0.5 per cent.)

  1 Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January 1995.

  2 Inludes reception and other classes.

  3 Pupils aged 3 and 4 years old expressed as a percentage of the 3 and 4 year old population at 31 December 1994.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of Thursday 8 February,Official Report, column 321, concerning responses to the advertised contract for administering the proposed voucher system, if she will place a list of the unsuccessful applicants in the Library. [15102]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A list has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Thefts
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for from each region of the former Department of Employment in each of the past five years, listing by name such items valued at £5,000 or more. [13360]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]: The Employment Department group kept site records of each incident of loss, which were subject to audit; these records included details of the numbers of items lost in each incident, and the nature of the loss—that is, theft or other hostile action, or other causes. However, the large majority of these records are retained regionally or locally. It would be disproportionately costly and time consuming to search these records to provide the information on a regional basis.

  Summary reports were made to the head offices of the former Employment Department and its agencies for central recording.

  These reports included a valuation of the loss, which was based on either the cost of the item at purchase or the estimated value at the time of the loss or the replacement cost; the measure chosen in each case was the one giving the most accurate picture of the loss to the Department. It was not always appropriate for the summaries to show the number and details of items of equipment involved in an incident.

  I am able to provide the following information about items of equipment stolen or unaccounted for in the last five financial years. One incident involving loss of
  534
  furniture is recorded. No items of equipment valued individually at £5,000 or more are recorded as lost. The following table gives the information available:

  Employment Department: Cost and number of items of equipment lost or incidents of loss of equipment

  Number of items (where recorded)

  Number of incidents (number of items not recorded)

  Total value (£)

  1991–92:

  ES (total for all regions)

  —

  2

  886

  ACAS

  0

  0

  —

  ED

  0

  0

  —

  HSE (total for all regions)

  34

  —

  51,405

  DE group total 1991–92

  34

  2

  52,291

  1992–93:

  ES (total for all regions)

  —

  24

  34,877

  ACAS

  0

  0

  —

  ED

  2

  —

  3,420

  HSE (total for all regions)

  86

  —

  197,362

  DE group total 1992–93

  88

  24

  235,659

  1993–94:

  ES (total for all regions)

  —

  34

  20,150

  ACAS

  3

  —

  14,400

  ED

  —

  3

  400

  HSE (total for all regions)

  275

  —

  507,518

  DE group total 1993–94

  278

  37

  542,468

  1994–95:

  ES (total for all regions)

  —

  70

  59,389

  ACAS

  21

  —

  16,200

  ED

  24

  —

  2,875

  HSE (total for all regions)

  22

  —

  25,760

  DE group total 1994–95

  67

  70

  104,224

  1995–96 (part-year):

  ES (total for all regions)

  —

  48

  84,928

  ACAS

  40

  —

  79,191

  ED

  517

  —

  285,570

  HSE (total for all regions)

  98

  —

  37,352

  DE group total 1995–96 (part-year)

  655

  48

  487,041

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 711, if he will make a statement on his Department's current policy in respect of regulation of the Internet and encryption. [12610]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Internet represents a significant range of commercial opportunities and it is important for the competitiveness of the UK economy that business take full advantage of it. It is crucial that the regulatory framework should not discourage this.
  535
  Although child pornography and obscenity are covered by the same laws on the Internet as in any other media— recent prosecutions have been encouraging—the Government recognise that there are legitimate concerns about the distribution of unsuitable material over the Internet. The Government consider that a voluntary approach is now most likely to be effective in addressing these issues further. Constructive discussions have been held with service providers to establish how action by them can help control access to undesirable material and this will be pursued over the coming months.

  On encryption, I described the consideration being given to the provision of encrypted services on public networks in the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 23 October 1995, Official Report, columns 421–22. Discussions within Government and within Europe are continuing.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 639, what further progress has been made in assessing the feasibility of regulating the content of material disseminated via the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [13402]

  Mr. Taylor
  DTI and Home Office officials have had a constructive meeting with Internet service providers to discuss concerns about the availability of pornographic material on the Internet, and ways of controlling access by children and young people to such material. The Government consider that a voluntary approach is most likely to be effective in addressing the problem and will be pursuing this with service providers over the coming months. There are service providers who will assist parents and schools in providing restricted access, but this is a matter for individuals to pursue.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14024]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The administrative manuals and internal guidance that my Department has already made available to the public are as listed. Material that has not been made public can be identified only at disproportionate cost. In line with the code of practice on access to Government information, it is my intention to make available progressively any remaining administrative manuals and internal guidance relating to our dealings with the public.

  Authorisation of insurers in the United Kingdom: a practical guide for assessing applications;

  Business Links: Guidelines for Officials;

  DTI Enquiry Unit guidelines;

  DTI Guide to Market Testing;

  DTI Procurement manual;

  EJS (Engineers to Japan Scheme) details;

  Export Control Compliance Unit: Compliance visit procedures;

  Export Control Organisation (ECO) Staff Handbook;

  Export Control Policy Unit procedures;

  Guidance notes of the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund;

  Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme;

  536

  Offshore Research and Development Programme (OSSCAR): Guidance notes for staff;

  Open Government (Minute to DTI Information Officers);

  Open government case file guidance, charging form, application form;

  Open government office notice;

  Open Government: dealings with the public (Laboratory of the Government Chemist);

  OSTEMS (Overseas Science Technology Expert Missions Scheme) details;

  OTIS (Overseas Technical Information Service) details;

  Procurement Guide: EC Services Directive;

  Procurement Guide: EC Supplies Directive and GATT GPA;

  Rules and procedures for Use of Technology Programme.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14077]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has provided computer-related services to other Departments where they have represented best value for money for the Departments concerned. These arrangements are as follows: financial services for the Department of National Heritage, from 1993 to 1995, and to the Department of Energy, 1987 to 1992, of which computer support was one element. In addition, a number of other Departments and non-departmental public bodies continue to be provided with access to our specialist library systems. The latter services continue to be provided on a repayment basis at a current annual cost of £36,000.

  Other users of my Department's computer systems, together with recoverable costs where figures are available, have included;

  Year

  £

  Central Statistical Office

  1991–92

  30,723

  1992–93

  27,244

  1993–94

  20,218

  1994–95

  10,070

  National Audit Office

  1991–92

  17,896

  1992–93

  8,223

  1993–94

  1,775

  Scottish Office

  1991–92

  13,910

  1992–93

  16,847

  1993–94

  8,037

  1994–95

  5,074

  Sydney Olympics
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 866, what remuneration and expenses are payable to members of the Sydney Olympics United Kingdom business task force. [14446]
  537
  Mr. Nelson
  No remuneration is payable to the members of the task force. Any expenses which the chairman would normally have received will be paid to the British Paralympic Association.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the minimum levels of pay prescribed by each of the wages councils immediately before their abolition; and what were each of these levels of pay as a percentage of(a) average wages in the industry and (b) the national average wage at that time. [14320]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Minimum monthly rate

  Minimum rates as percentage of:

  £

  Average wages in industry

  National average wage

  Aerated waters

  3.05

  —

  39

  Boot and shoe repairing

  3.02

  62.9

  38.6

  Button manufacturing

  2.66

  —

  34

  Clothing manufacturing

  2.7166

  65.6

  34.7

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  3.20

  —

  40.9

  Cotton waste reclamation

  2.78

  —

  35.5

  Fur

  2.85

  —

  36.4

  General waste materials reclamation

  2.675

  56.8

  34.2

  Hairdressing undertaking

  2.88

  67

  36.8

  Hat, cap and millinery

  2.76

  59.9

  35.3

  Laundry

  2.98

  65.1

  38.1

  Licensed non-residential establishment

  3.01

  57.3

  38.4

  Licensed residential establishment and licensed restaurant

  2.92

  53.9

  37.3

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  2.83

  75.3

  36.1

  Made-up textiles

  2.70

  61.5

  34.5

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  2.73

  —

  34.9

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  3.13

  —

  40

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  3.20

  61.3

  40.9

  Retail food and allied trades

  3.175

  59.7

  40.6

  Retail trades (non-food)

  3.155

  57.7

  40.3

  Rope twine and net

  2.755

  71.2

  35.2

  Sack and bag

  2.745

  —

  35.1

  Toy manufacturing

  2.71

  59.8

  34.6

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  2.99

  61.9

  38.2

  Average earnings figures are not available for certain of the smaller councils.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what account is taken of the level of commercial insurance in setting the nuclear industry's level of liability in respect of a nuclear accident; and what account is taken of inflation; [14560]
  538
  (2) at what intervals reviews are conducted on the level of nuclear industry liability in respect of a nuclear accident; and when the next review is planned to take place. [14561]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department keeps the level of insurance required to be held by nuclear operators under review. There are no formal review intervals. The most recent increase was in April 1994. The key considerations were to meet the internationally agreed target limit for parties to the Paris convention and the level of commercial insurance then available. There has been no significant change in insurance capacity since that time.

  Second-hand Furniture
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that second-hand furniture may be sold only if it bears a "Fire Resistant" label. [14316]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I do not believe it is necessary specifically to require second-hand furniture to bear labels indicating fire resistance. Since 1 March 1993, the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, have prohibited in the UK sale, in the course of a business, of second-hand furniture that does not meet the full requirements of this legislation. Trading standards departments have all the necessary powers to take action against traders who sell non-compliant items.

  The regulations also require permanent labels, indicating compliance, to be attached to all new furniture. Purchasers of second-hand furniture should look for these permanently affixed labels.

  Electro-magnetic Fields
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he, his Ministers or his civil servants have had about indemnifying the National Grid Company against potential claims relating to electro-magnetic fields and their impact upon communities after privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [14511]

  Mr. Page
  No discussions have been held or are planned on the question of indemnifying the National Grid Company against potential claims relating to electro-magnetic fields.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received on the representations made to the United Kingdom ambassador in Dublin by the Irish Minister for Energy, Transport and Communications during their meeting on 6 February to discuss Sellafield. [14844]

  Mr. Eggar
  The meeting was held at the ambassador's request. Mr. Stagg, the Irish Minister for Energy, Transport and Communications, expressed anxiety about the UK nuclear industry, including operations at Sellafield, following a minor incident there on 2 February. However, as Mr. Stagg recognised in his subsequent statement in the Dail on 8 February, the incident had no radiological or health implications for Ireland nor was there any release of radioactivity to the environment. Mr. Stagg and the ambassador agreed on the importance of
  539
  continued early notification to the Irish Government of incidents at UK nuclear installations which could affect the Irish environment.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his timetable for the closure of the Magnox nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement. [14758]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are satisfied that it makes economic sense to continue to generate electricity from the Magnox stations. Decisions relating to closure of Magnox stations are a matter for the operator, subject to the views of the independent regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate— NII. The safety of all UK Magnox nuclear power stations has been considered in detail by the NII under the long-term safety review—LTSR—programme. Subject to continuing satisfactory results from the routine tests and inspections required under licensing arrangements, and the outcome of periodic safety reviews, the NII has given its agreement for those Magnox stations currently operating to continue to operate.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what council funds have been earmarked for(a) "realising our potential" awards and (b) other schemes in each of the last 10 years (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a proportion of the Medical Research Council budget. [14721]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  (a) The following additional allocations have been made to the Medical Research Council—MRC—for the first year costs of new realising our potential awards, ROPA, grants:

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Proportion of MRC budget (per cent.)

  1996–97

  1.0

  0.4

  1995–96

  2.6

  0.9

  1994–95

  1.0

  0.4

  In 1996–97, the MRC's allocation includes £5.8 million for expenditure on new and on-going ROPA grants, 2.1 per cent. of its total allocation.

  (b) Information is not available in the form requested. Over the past 10 years, the MRC was allocated additional funds for the first-year costs of the following specific programmes:

  Year

  Programme

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Proportion of MRC budget (Per cent.)

  1996–97

  Equipment

  1.5

  0.5

  1995–96

  Equipment

  1.0

  0.4

  1994–95

  Genome and Immunology

  2.4

  0.9

  1993–94

  Genome Mapping Programme

  2.5

  1.0

  540

  Year

  Programme

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Proportion of MRC budget (Per cent.)

  1992–93

  Genetic basis of disease

  4.2

  1.9

  Neuroscience

  1.4

  0.6

  Clinical research

  1.3

  0.6

  1991–92

  None

  —

  —

  1990–91

  None

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Equipment at units and institutes

  2.9

  1.6

  LINK

  0.7

  0.4

  Human genome mapping

  2.3

  1.3

  AIDS strategic programme

  2.6

  1.5

  Macromolecular interaction

  2.0

  1.1

  Cell biology

  3.6

  2.0

  National Institute of Medical Research animal accommodation

  2.0

  1.1

  1988–89

  Interdisciplinary Research Centre in toxicology

  0.3

  0.2

  AIDS programme

  6.0

  4.1

  1987–88

  None

  —

  —

  In most years, there have in addition been allocations for less specific programmes, such as the support of studentships and responsive mode grants, and allowances for the ongoing costs of new initiatives started in previous years.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money the Medical Research Council has been allocated in each of the last 10 years. [14720]

  Mr. Taylor
  The allocations made to the Medical Research Council from the science budget over the last 10 years are as follows:

  1996–97: £281.9 million

  1995–96: £278.0 million

  1994–95: £269.2 million

  1993–94: £256.9 million

  1992–93: £227.6 million

  1991–92: £200.4 million

  1990–91: £185.7 million

  1989–90:£176.3 million

  1988–89: £146.7 million

  1987–88: £139.8 million.

  Electricité de France
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been paid to Electricité de France under the fossil fuel levy from its introduction to date. [14757]

  Mr. Page
  Electricité de France does not receive payments from the fossil fuel levy.
  541

  Research Funding
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on core research funding for the public sector research establishments. [14643]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Public sector research establishments provide a wide variety of scientific and technical services for their customers within Government, the research councils, academia and industry. These are supported by a varying mixture of "core funding" for a range of facilities or services, and funds for specific activities, often awarded on a competitive basis.

  The 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential" made clear our intention that Government research contract should be awarded wherever possible by a competitive process, as a means to ensure an efficient and effective service is obtained. The progress of Departments and research councils in implementing this policy is reported annually in the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look".

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the firework injury statistics relating to November 1995. [14913]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The fireworks injury statistics are collected from all hospital accident and emergency departments in Great Britain. As soon as all this information has been received, collated and checked, which should be some time in March, the figures will be published.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14987]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested in respect of the DTI's executive agencies is set out in the list. The answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 357, explains the basis on which this information has been prepared.

  1991–92: 0

  1992–93: 4

  1993–94: 0

  1994–95: 2

  1995–96: 1 (Year to date).

  No parliamentary questions have been passed to the non-departmental public bodies for which the DTI is responsible.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what power stations have been closed by(a) National Power and (b) PowerGen since privatisation; and what proceeds have accrued to public funds as a result of each sale. [14937]
  542
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy to his similar question of 5 February 1996,Official Report, column 18.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion the statutory minimum wage contributes to the average national wage in(a) each EU state, (b) USA, (c) Japan, (d) Australia, (e) Canada and (f) New Zealand. [14973]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Limited and somewhat dated evidence is available from the OECD jobs study, from which the table is taken.

  Minimum wages relative to average wages by age, education, occupation and gender minimum wage/average wage of the respective groups

  Men

  Women

  Both sexes

  Education

  Netherlands, 1989, lowest level, (adults)

  0.627

  0.777

  —

  Canada, 1988, 0–8 years of education

  0.356

  0.544

  —

  United States, 1987, 8–11 years of schooling

  0.362

  0.579

  —

  Occupation

  France, 1991:

  Blue-collar workers (ouvriers)

  0.657

  0.805

  0.685

  White-collar workers (employee)

  0.603

  0.667

  0.639

  Senior managers (cadres)

  0.246

  0.310

  0.257

  Age

  Netherlands, 1989:

  15–22, average youth MW

  0.538

  0.622

  —

  (15–22, adult minimum wage)

  (1.021)

  (1.182)

  —

  Canada, 1988:

  16–19

  0.565

  0.607

  0.583

  20–24

  0.443

  0.510

  0.470

  France, 1987:

  15–19

  —

  —

  1.164

  20–24

  —

  —

  0.747

  United States, 1987:

  16–24, workers paid hourly rates

  0.682

  0.794

  —

  16–19, full-time wage and salary earners

  0.697

  0.795

  —

  20–24, full-time wage and salary earners

  0.496

  0.564

  —

  Note:

  1. The youth minimum is estimated as the simple average of the seven specific youth rates.

  Sources:

  Netherlands: 1989 Wage Survey (submission from the Statistical Central Bureau);

  Canada: Market Activity Survey (submission from Statistics Canada);

  United States: Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labour Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey"

  1948–87. 1988 (for age) and tabulations from the CPS from Prof. L. Katz (for education).

  France: 1987, Declarations annuelles de donnees socials (DADS); 1991,

  "L'Evolution des salaries", Dossiers statistiques du travail et de I'emploi.

  No. 87, 1993.

  Taken from OECD Jobs Study (1994), table 5.26, page 49. OECD, Paris.
  543
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer given on 15 January,Official Report, columns 476–77, if he will list the figures for purchasing power parity on a common basis, indicating the figures per hour; and if he will give the equivalent figures for minimum wage levels and purchasing power parity exchange rates for (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand and (d) those EU countries excluded from the answer. [14969]

  Mr. Taylor
  The table shows the minimum wage in a number of countries, calculated as an hourly rate, and translated into sterling using purchasing power parity exchange rates.

  Country

  Minimum wage level (hourly rate) Own currency

  At PPP1 exchange rates Sterling

  Belgium

  BF 249.9

  £4.32

  France

  FF 36.98

  £3.61

  Greece

  Dr 667.2

  £2.20

  Luxembourg

  LF 252.37

  £4.07

  Netherlands

  HfL 12.6

  £3.83

  Portugal

  Esc 300

  £1.64

  Spain

  Pts 374.54

  £1.99

  USA

  US$ 4.25

  £2.75

  Japan2

  Y 554

  £1.98

  Canada

  C$ 6.25

  £3.26

  New Zealand

  NZ$ 6.25

  £2.68

  All minimum wages converted to hourly rates, assuming a standard 40 hour week, 8 hour day.

  1 Wage Rates converted to UK equivalent using 1994 purchasing power parities from OECD National Accounts, 1996.

  2 The lowest regional rate.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the work force is covered by the minimum wage in respect of(a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand, (d) all EU countries, (e) USA and (f) Japan. [14970]

  Mr. Taylor
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Business Links (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects there to be a business link one stop shop in East Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [15157]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 4.

  Information Society
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the Government's plans for an information society initiative. [15282]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information society initiative— ISI—was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade today. The initiative is a partnership between industry and Government to help improve the competitiveness of British business in the emerging information-based economy. It represents a coherent and extensive response to the challenge of information and 544
  communication technologies which will have a major impact on the way we do business and the way we lead our lives.

  The main aim of the ISI is to encourage British companies, particularly small and medium-sized companies, to take full advantage of information and communication technologies. It will help to explain how technology can solve problems for industry and help to win new business. Electronic networks, for example, can give smaller companies access to resources and markets previously only in the domain of large corporations.

  UK industries are well placed to take advantage of the information society. We have significant strengths in communications and multimedia which put us ahead of most other European countries, but considerably more needs to be done to apply our skills, to build on our strengths and to sustain competitiveness in a tough global market-place. The ISI, in which the DTI is to invest up to £35 million over the next four years, will play a key role in achieving these objectives.

  The ISI provides a comprehensive package of programmes and activities to help UK business into the information society—guidance, road shows, clubs, awards, local support centres, projects grants and technology programmes. It is based on close partnership between Government and industry, with many companies launching complementary programmes.

  The campaigns will be integrated with existing DTI services, such as business links. Our specific objective will be to raise awareness and understanding of: multimedia, communications, creativity, technology transfer and technology development. Methods highlighted will include use of the Internet, E-mail, electronic data interchange—EDI—video-conferencing, simultaneous remote access to a computer, CD-ROMS for information storage and marketing, electronic commerce, home shopping and telebanking.

  Further details are available at the ISI website, http://www.isis.gov.uk.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Coal Authority's first report on the administration of the coal mining subsidence damage repair and compensation scheme. [15286]

  Mr. Page
  I have now received this report from the Coal Authority and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what account was taken of the costs relating to(a) their mainframe computer, (b) each separate on-line terminal, (c) the annual service fee for the mainframe computer and (d) the annual service charge for each on-line terminal in determining whether to allocate the contract to run the national lottery to Camelot; and what were the figures involved. [14255]
  545
  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. The Director General of the National Lottery has licensed Camelot to run the national lottery and he regulates their operations. I have therefore asked the director general to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Library Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to extend compulsory competitive tendering into library services. [14514]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am currently considering a number of options for improving efficiency in public libraries, including the option of compulsory competitive tendering. My right hon. Friend will be making a more detailed statement in due course.

  Broadcast Sports Rights
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will include the fourth report of the National Heritage Select Committee of Session 1993–94, HC 289, "Sports Sponsorship and Television Coverage", as part of the evidence to her consultation document "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate." [14318]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are aware of the views expressed in the National Heritage Select Committee report and will take account of these and other views before making our position clear.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to which organisations had she sent copies of her document "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate". [14313]

  Mr. Sproat
  In addition to copies deposited to both House Libraries, copies of the discussion paper have been sent directly to the following organisations:

  BBC

  ITVA

  Channel 4

  S4C

  Channel 5 Broadcasting

  BskyB

  Cable Communications Association

  Sports Councils for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Central Council for Physical Recreation

  British Sports Forum

  Institute of Sports Sponsorship

  Test and County Cricket Board

  Football Association

  The Premier League

  Scottish Football Association

  English Rugby Football Union

  Welsh Rugby Football Union

  Professional Golf Association

  Rugby League

  Lawn Tennis Association

  British Olympic Association

  British Athletics Federation

  British Paralympic Association

  Independent Television Commission

  546

  Radio Authority

  Office of Fair Trading

  Patent Office

  Consumers' Association

  National Consumers' Council

  Voice of the Listener and Viewer.

  The paper has also been widely publicised in the media and copies have been sent to any organisation requesting them. A record of these organisations has not been kept.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the closing date for the submission of evidence on her consultation document "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate"; [14311]

  (2) when she plans to announce her conclusions on her consultation document "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate". [14312]

  Mr. Sproat
  The paper is not a formal consultation document, but a discussion paper published to assist the public and parliamentary debate. There is, therefore, no formal end date to a consultation process. However, the Government will make their position clear on Report in the other place.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she will take to assess the opinions of viewers and listeners on her document "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate". [14314]

  Mr. Sproat
  Representatives from the National Consumers Council, the Consumers Association and the Voice of the Listener and Viewer will meet my officials, to discuss both the document and the general issue of broadcast sports rights. My Department has also received a large number of representations from members of the public on this issue.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) of 18 January,Official Report, column 726, what are the qualifying criteria that sheltered accommodation must meet to be eligible for a concessionary television licence. [14592]

  Mr. Sproat
  In order for residents to qualify for concessionary television licences, sheltered accommodation must be provided or run by a local authority or housing association and must consist of a group of at least four dwellings:

  (a) which are provided for occupation by disabled persons, mentally disordered persons or retired persons of pensionable age;

  (b) which have been erected or converted for the purposes of such occupation;

  (c) for which there is a person whose function is to care for the needs of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) above and who either lives in one of the dwellings within the group or works in that group for at least 30 hours per week; and

  (d) which fall within a common and exclusive boundary.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 625, in which council tax band is

  547
  the accommodation occupied by the military knights of Windsor. [14538]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: The governor's residence is in band G, and the remaining residences are all in band E.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 693, what accommodation is occupied by each of the 13 military knights at Windsor. [14415]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: The accommodation occupied by the military knights is as follows:
  One has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, sitting room and study.
  Eleven have three bedrooms, one bathroom, a kitchen, dining room, sitting room and study.
  One has two bedrooms, one bathroom, a kitchen with dining area, a sitting room and study.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 625, if the £1,287 paid in water charges by the 13 military knights of Windsor is a collective charge. [14416]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: The water charge of £1,287 is a collective figure; each military knight pays approximately £99.

  Royal Residences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 626, which members of the royal family occupy each of the royal residences listed. [14891]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Members of the royal family have apartments or residences at each palace as follows:

  Buckingham Palace

  Her Majesty the Queen

  Kensington Palace

  The Princess of Wales

  The Princess Margaret

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  The Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

  St James's Palace

  The Prince of Wales

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  Princess Alexandra

  Clarence House

  Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  Windsor Castle

  Her Majesty the Queen.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of 22 January,Official Report, column 105, if he will list the latest new earnings survey figure for the number of people working up to 29 hours a week earning less than each of the family
  548
  credit ceilings for households of different composition working between 16 and 29 hours per week; and if he will present similar data for those people working about 30 hours per week using the eligibility level for family credit which were applicable for the year during which the earnings survey was carried out. [12735]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The "New Earnings Survey" contains no information on family composition and does not provide reliable estimates of the number of employees. The table shows the proportion of all employees in the "New Earnings Survey" who are working 16 to 29 hours and 30 hours or more and have earnings below the family credit thresholds indicated. Entitlement to family credit depends on household income as well as family size and it should therefore be noted that the information provided gives no indication of the proportion of employees who qualify for this benefit. Employees in the categories shown will include members of two-earner couples whose household income will be above the appropriate family credit threshold. The sample will also include employees with no dependant children who would have no entitlement to family credit irrespective of the level of earnings.

  Proportion of all employees with earnings below family credit thresholds

  Working 19–29 hours

  Working 30 hours or more

  Family type

  Family credit ceiling (£s per week gross)

  Percentage with earnings below threshold

  Family credit ceiling (£s per week gross)

  Percentage with earnings below threshold

  Family with one child under 5

  190.00

  79.4

  212.00

  27.7

  Family with two children under 11

  215.00

  82.4

  237.00

  36.1

  Family with two children 11–15

  248.00

  84.5

  270.00

  43.9

  Family with three children under 11

  240.00

  85.0

  262.00

  46.2

  Family with three children 11–15

  289.50

  87.6

  311.00

  57.5

  Family with two children under 11 and two 11–15

  298.00

  87.9

  320.00

  59.6

  Notes:

  1. Family credit ceilings are 1995–96 and are based on the highest amount of net earnings a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p.

  2. Net family credit ceilings have been converted to gross earnings to allow comparison with New Earnings Survey data. In this conversion it has been assumed that tax allowances are equal to those of a married person.

  3. Percentages relate to all employees in the categories concerned, irrespective of household composition, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey 1995 (GB).
  549

  Tribunals (Merthyr Tydfil)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the number of cases dealt with by local tribunals sitting in Merthyr Tydfil in 1995; [13370]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the travelling costs of staff and appellants to local tribunal hearings at Merthyr Tydfil in 1995; [13372]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of cases heard at local tribunals in Merthyr Tydfil in 1995 which required the presence of a member of staff from the local social security office; and in how many cases appellants were represented by the Merthyr citizens advice bureau. [13371]

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

  Cases heard 1995

  Average travelling costs for staff per session1 £

  Average traveling costs paid to appellants per session1£

  Hearings attended by DSS staff

  Appellants represented by Merthyr CAB

  293

  31.00—ITS 6.02—DSS

  14.48

  293

  49

  Abbreviations:

  ITS—Independent Tribunal Service.

  DSS—Department of Social Security.

  CAB—Citizens Advice Bureau.

  Notes:

  1 An average of five appeals are heard at each session.

  War Widows
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war widows, widowed for a second time, divorced or legally separated(a) have had and (b) are waiting to have the pension restored to them; and what action he is taking to ensure that the restoration programme is being expeditiously implemented. [13578]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Sir Dudley Smith, dated 13 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about restored War Widows Pensions.
  As at 2 February 1996, 12,430 claims have been received of which 7,394 have been notified and had payment arranged. To date 85 have been rejected and 4,951 remain to be decided.
  We have created a special section, and have recently allocated and trained an additional 12 staff (making a total of 57) to ensure that by the end of March we will have notified all those from whom we now have claims of the results of their claims and, where appropriate, made arrangements for payment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Laryngectomy Patients
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability living and mobility allowance there have been from patients who have had laryngectomies; and what percentage of these applications have been successful. [14049]
  550
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The precise information requested is not available. Successful claims for disability living allowance are recorded by type of disability. Between March 1993 and November 1995, some 63,000 awards were recorded under the category of malignant diseases, some of which may have involved laryngectomies.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 835, on benefit savings due to parents with care ceasing to claim income support prior to 1993–94 what was the precise number of weeks used for the multiplier based on the average anticipated duration for benefit claims. [14268]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Twenty-one.

  Income Support
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support are currently having money deducted from their benefit to pay back loans from the social fund; and what is the average weekly repayment per borrower. [14516]

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

  Date

  Number of income support claimants who have Social Fund repayments deducted

  Average weekly payment £

  February 1995

  1675,000

  6.43

  Note:

  1 The figure provided has been rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1995.

  Disability (Access Groups)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Minister for Disabled People or his predecessor last met(a) the Access Committee for England and (b) any of the 400 local access groups; what replies have been given to concerns raised at those meetings; and if he will make a statement on the committee's achievements. [14138]

  Mr. Burt
  My predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Wales, met the Access Committee for England on 14 June 1995.

  I and my colleagues in the Departments of the Environment and Health are considering the report of the working group which has been looking at the committee's future role and functions.

  We will announce our decisions in due course.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the number of employees covered by group personal pension schemes; [14780]
  551
  (2) what is the average number of employees of companies which currently offer group personal pension schemes; and what proportion of those entitled to participate do so; [14781]

  (3) what are the average earnings of members of group personal pension schemes; [14782]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of employers who contribute to group personal pension schemes; and what is the average annual contribution per employee. [14784]

  Mr. Heald
  A group personal pension, GPP, scheme is a grouping of individual personal pensions usually involving a single employer. Official data do not distinguish between personal pensions within a group arrangement and other personal pensions.

  Private sector research1 suggests that around half a million people are covered by upwards of 50,000 GPP arrangements. Some, but not all, of these people will have personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS.

  Preliminary results from the survey of employers' pensions provision2 show that among private sector organisations making some form of pension provision, GPPs were the main arrangement—accounting for the largest percentage of the work force—in just under 20 per cent. of organisations with fewer than 100 employees, falling to just 2 per cent. of organisations with over 500 employees. The survey also shows that 90 per cent. of employers who have arranged a GPP make contributions to their employees' pension.

  Information on the participation rates of employees who are offered a GPP arrangement, average earnings of GPP members and the average employer contribution is not available.

  Notes:

  1 Income Data Services (IDS) Pensions Bulletin—May 1994.

  2 The survey of employers' pension provision is a Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR)/Policy Studies Institute (PSI) survey of over 1,000 private sector organisations in Great Britain. It is expected that a final report will be published in summer 1996.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the regulatory obstacles to the promotion of group personal pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [14783]

  Mr. Heald
  Regulation of the sale and marketing of group personal pension schemes, like all investment products, is governed by the Financial Services Act 1986—FSA.

  In response to concerns that employers would become liable under the FSA by offering group schemes, the Department of Social Security, in association with the Securities and Investments Board, produced leaflet PP4; "A guide to the Financial Services Act for employers", which makes it clear that provided they follow certain rules of thumb, employers should be able to offer a group scheme to their employees without infringing the FSA.

  Pension Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official
  552
  Report, column 51, on pension incomes, if he will give the same information for 1979. [14896]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table 1: Single male pensioners

  £ per week July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 74

  75+

  Mean

  108.50

  88.60

  Median

  81.80

  72.20

  Notes:

  1. Income figures are gross income before housing costs and are rounded to the nearest l0p.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the husband, or head is over SPA.

  3. Due to insufficient sample sizes reliable estimates of further age breakdowns for single male pensioners and pensioner couples are not available at tables 1 and 3.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1979.

  Table 2: Single female pensioners

  £ per week July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80+

  Mean

  80.60

  79.70

  78.60

  76.50

  Median

  70.00

  70.40

  71.10

  67.20

  Notes:

  1.Income figures are gross income before housing costs and are rounded to the nearest l0p.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  3. Due to insufficient sample sizes reliable estimates of further age breakdowns for single male pensioners and pensioner couples are not available at tables 1 and 3.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1979.

  Table 3: Pensioner couples

  £ per week July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75+

  Mean

  187.70

  160.00

  138.30

  Median

  145.40

  125.70

  108.70

  Notes:

  1. Income figures are gross income before housing costs and are rounded to the nearest l0p.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  3. Due to insufficient sample sizes reliable estimates of further age breakdowns for single male pensioners and pensioner couples are not available at tables 1 and 3.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1979.

  Table 4: All pensioner units

  £ per week July 1993 prices

  Age

  60/65 to 74

  75+

  60/65+

  Mean

  124.80

  93.20

  113.40

  Median

  97.40

  75.30

  85.90

  Notes:

  1. Income figures are gross income before housing costs and rounded to the nearest l0p.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  3. Due to insufficient sample sizes reliable estimates of further age breakdowns for single male pensioners and pensioner couples are not available at tables 1 and 3.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1979.
  553

  Maxwell Pension Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 743, what safeguards are in place to protect the interests of the Exchequer in relation to any merger of a closed Maxwell pension scheme with another pension scheme. [14895]

  Mr. Heald
  The Secretary of State has indicated to each of the Maxwell pension schemes trustees on a scheme-by-scheme basis, the circumstances under which he is prepared to exercise discretion to defer the collection of state scheme premiums that are payable by them. He will review the position in the light of any proposal from trustees for a merger of a closed Maxwell scheme.

  There are detailed agreements with Maxwell pension scheme trustees setting out the conditions under which grants from the Government's £2.5 million emergency funding support package, made available in June 1992, are repayable.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he is undertaking of the availability of paediatric intensive care beds. [13317]

  Mr. Bowis
  For the period until 31 March 1996 we have arranged for Sheffield children's hospital to undertake a daily survey of the availability and occupancy of paediatric intensive care beds in hospitals in England.

  Accident and Emergency Provision, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received in respect of accident and emergency provision at hospitals in Liverpool. [13318]

  Mr. Horam
  I have received one letter in the last six months.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for altering the procedures for appointments to health authorities and NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [13319]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to alter the appointment procedures which fully meet the recommendations for public appointments set out by the committee on standards in public life under its chairman, Lord Nolan.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have been made for the position of chairmen of the new health authorities; and what percentage of those applicants are women. [14779]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available in the form requested.
  554

  Community Care
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of community care provision. [13320]

  Mr. Bowis
  We monitor community care on a regular basis. This includes work by the social services inspectorate, the regular collection and publication of statistics and longer-term research to evaluate progress.

  There is clear evidence both from our own monitoring and from independent reports that community care is a success.

  Alternative and Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the total NHS budget is spent on research and other matters related to alternative and complementary medicine. [13321]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally does not identify national health service research into alternative and complementary medicine, nor the expenditure by the NHS on the provision of alternative and complementary medicine services.

  The Department is currently funding research on complementary therapies in primary care at the medical care research unit at the University of Sheffield, at a cost of around £100,000. This builds on their study published last November about access to complementary therapies through general practice.

  Hepatitis C
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to report on the departmental study on hepatitis C and its treatment. [13322]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no single departmental study. The standing group on health technology is taking forward, with the Medical Research Council, work on the effectiveness of alpha-interferon in the early treatment of hepatitis C. The Department is working on establishing a confidential national registry of HCV infection, drawing on information on cases of transfusion infection obtained from its "look back" exercise. It will shortly be seeking research proposals on establishing the prevalence, transmission routes and natural history of HCV infection.

  Private Sector Care
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS funding is now used to buy care in the private sector. [13323]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1994–95 health care purchased by the national health service from non-NHS providers amounted to about 1.6 per cent. of total NHS expenditure.

  Emergency Beds
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Royal College of Nursing to discuss the staffing for emergency beds. [13324]

  Mr. Malone
  I met representatives of the medical and nursing professions, including the Royal College of Nursing, on 21 December 1995 to consider a range of issues relating to emergency care.
  555
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association to discuss the availability of emergency beds. [13313]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with representatives of the BMA when a range of issues are discussed.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS capital projects to be funded through the private finance initiative. [13325]

  Mr. Horam
  Patients will benefit from private finance initiative projects which will bring improvements to national health service hospitals up and down the country. The NHS has so far seen schemes worth over £200 million approved. The momentum for PFI is increasing, pushing up the quality of patient care all the time.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many projects for new community hospitals have succeeded in attracting private capital under the private finance initiative; and how many projects for such hospitals are currently being held up awaiting a determination as to whether any such private finance may be available. [13330]

  Mr. Horam
  I have previously given information on private finance initiative projects which have been approved by the National Health Service Executive for England, and I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 343. If, under the PFI, the private sector can improve health care facilities for the benefit of NHS patients and make the NHS's procurement of facilities more cost-effective, then this possibility must be investigated. However, we do not hold centrally the information requested.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy concerning the future funding of beta-interferon for multiple sclerosis; and if he will make a statement. [13326]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance issued recently EL(95)97 suggested that beta-interferon should be prescribed by hospital neurologists where clinically appropriate, and within local agreements between health authorities and hospitals. As with other hospital-prescribed drugs, the costs should be met from within health authority general allocations.

  A copy of EL(95)97 is available in the Library.

  NHS Building Projects
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major NHS building projects have been completed since 1979. [13327]

  Mr. Horam
  A total of 842 major national health service
  building projects are reported as having been completed since 1 January 1980.
  556

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the increase in the number of general practitioner fundholders from 1 April 1996 will have on health authority purchasing powers. [13328]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities will continue to have a significant role as purchasers of hospital and community health services from April 1996. The developing role of health authorities as general practitioner fundholding expands, has been set out in guidance EL(94)79, "Developing NHS Purchasing and GP Fundholding— Towards a Primary Care-Led NHS". A copy of this guidance is available in the Library.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received in connection with fundholding general practitioners. [13329]

  Mr. Malone
  I have regular meetings with the medical profession to discuss a range of issues, including general practitioner fundholding.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients will be covered by general practitioner fundholding from April. [13331]

  Mr. Malone
  We expect that over 50 per cent. of the population will be served by a fundholding practitioner from April 1996.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors' practices in the Greater London area are fundholding; how many are not; what costs to public funds are involved in each case; and if he will make a statement. [13607]

  Mr. Malone
  A total of 325 general practitioner practices in Greater London are currently fundholders, serving more than a quarter of the population. A total of 1,438 general practitioner practices in Greater London are not currently fundholders. We expect the number of fundholders will rise to 578 practices serving 40 per cent. of the population of Greater London from next April.

  General practitioner fundholders receive allocations to purchase healthcare on their patients' behalf. Similarly, health authorities receive funds to purchase health care on behalf of non-fundholders' patients and for non-fundholding services for fundholders' patients. General practitioner fundholders receive a management allowance to support them in directly managing resources and providing care on their patient behalf.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards achieving the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation". [13332]

  Mr. Horam
  Progress towards the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation" is described in "Fit for the Future", the second report on the strategy. This was published in July 1995 and copies are available in the Library.

  Northumberland Health Authority
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the effect on public sector manpower in Northumberland health
  557
  authority of the implementation of the Health Authorities Act 1995. [13559]

  Mr. Malone
  I have made no such estimate.

  Drugs (Side Effects)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who have died as a result of side effects of drugs in each of the last five years. [14060]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information on deaths recorded by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in England and Wales as a result of adverse effects of drugs, medicaments and biological substances is shown in the table.

  Deaths in England and Wales due to drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use (ICD E930-E949) as underlying or secondary cause

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  108

  1991

  84

  1992

  93

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new plans he has to reduce deaths and serious illnesses caused by medicines. [13303]

  Mr. Malone
  We already have in place well-established systems for licensing and monitoring the safety of all medicines available in the United Kingdom, which ensure that the benefits of medicines outweigh any risks and prevent users coming to unnecessary harm. These systems continue to be developed, in particular to take advantage of advancements in drug development and pharmacoepidemiology.

  Private Patient Activity
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the need to ensure that marginal cost contracts apply only to unplanned spare capacity in the internal market for the benefit of NHS patients and not to private activity. [14510]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service costing for contracting guidance already disallows marginal cost contracting other than where unplanned spare capacity arises. We see no reason, however, why in those circumstances a distinction should be drawn between NHS and private purchasers.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given to external and internal auditors having a specific brief to audit private patient activity within the NHS and to set compliance with Treasury rules. [14502]

  Mr. Malone
  External auditors are independent and exercise their professional judgement about how they carry out their responsibilities. Internal auditors review areas on a cyclical basis with the frequency determined by taking account of risk and materiality. Private patient activity will be examined as part of this process.
  558
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to ensure that private patient activity in the NHS is not adversely affecting NHS patients and their healthcare. [14506]

  Mr. Malone
  This is primarily the responsibility of national health service trusts, which must comply with the provisions of section 5(9) and schedule 2, paragraph 14 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. These prevent private patient activity being undertaken to the detriment of NHS patients.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make statements on the(a) change in volume, (b) costing, (c) pricing and (d) auditing of private patient activity in the NHS. [14508]

  Mr. Malone
  Accommodation and services are made available to private patients in national health service hospitals only when criteria set out in legislation are met. NHS gross income from private patient activity in England rose from £176.3 million in 1993–94 to £193.5 million in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available. Guidance has been issued to the NHS on costing and pricing. The recent report by National Economic Research Associates concluded that NHS pay beds are managed in accordance with their statutory and financial obligations, and generate a sizeable profit for the NHS to use to improve services for all patients. The accounts of NHS bodies, including income and expenditure from private patient activity, are subject to statutory audit by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. The National Audit Office also has access rights to audit the activities of NHS bodies.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given to the need for NHS trusts to adhere to the six principles governing their pay bed and private patient activities. [14507]

  Mr. Malone
  The six principles were set out in the "Management of Private Practice in Health Service Hospitals in England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. This guidance remains in force.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether NHS trusts should produce audited accruals-based accounts according to generally accepted accounting practices for their private patient activity. [14505]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance issued last year—FDL(95)01— reminds the national health service of the requirement to maintain memorandum trading accounts for income generation schemes. MTAs are accruals based, and available for scrutiny by internal and external auditors. The guidance does not explicitly refer to private patient activity, but it is accepted good practice to apply the guidance to these also.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the use of public assets for the development of private patient activity. [14509]

  Mr. Malone
  Subject to the responsibilities set out in section 5(9) and schedule 2, paragraph 14 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, NHS trusts are free to undertake private patient activity and to capitalise it from any sources, with normal investment appraisal processes applying.
  559

  Surplus Land Sales
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects in the NHS funded by the sale of surplus land or buildings since 1992; and how much was realised by each sale. [14462]

  Mr. Horam
  The proceeds from the sale of surplus land and buildings are not assigned to fund specific developments. Receipts contribute to the overall national health service capital programme.

  Management Staff
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) chief executives and (b) senior managers of (i) NHS trusts and (ii) health authorities have been dismissed in each of the last three years; and how many have retired for reasons other than the normal retirement age. [14474]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to NHS trusts regarding the remuneration packages of senior managers and the annual improvements in their pay and conditions. [14476]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trust boards are accountable for the proper appointment, appraisal and remuneration of their senior executives and, as in all their functions, boards must have regard to the public service values of accountability, probity and openness enshrined in the codes of conduct and accountability issued to NHS boards in April 1994. The code of accountability requires all NHS boards to establish a remuneration and terms of service committee to exercise proper control of executive board members' remuneration.

  For those staff employed on the national terms and conditions for general and senior managers, guidance has been issued periodically on the changes in salary rates in a series of health service guidelines, health circulars and personnel memoranda, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers he has to remove NHS trust and health authority senior managers proceeded against (i) in the courts and (ii) by the health service commissioner for maladministration; and how often he has used these powers since 1990; [14475]

  (2) what measures he takes to ensure that NHS trust and health authority chief executives and senior managers who have been dismissed or have resigned after successful allegations of maladministration are not re-employed elsewhere in the NHS in a similar capacity. [14473]

  Mr. Malone
  Powers to dismiss senior national health service staff lie solely with individual NHS employers.

  It is for NHS employers to ensure the suitability of staff appointed. They are expected to have in place formal systems of recruitment and selection, which would include the taking up of references from former employers and the giving of proper consideration to the previous career history of candidates for employment.
  560

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the NHS executive annual planning guidance on nurses in training for each year since 1990. [14450]

  Mr. Horam
  In August 1995 the Department issued formal planning guidance for the first time: the non-medical education and training planning guidance for 1996–97 education commissioning, EL(95)96, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department has given to directing all NHS trust hospitals to conform to Treasury rules concerning commercial activities and returns on capital employed. [14503]

  Mr. Malone
  Trusts are bound by a requirement to fix charges for planned commercial activity, including private patient work, so that cross subsidy with NHS activity is avoided and an appropriate rate of return on capital employed is achieved.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccination
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to parents of children who have been advised not to have the MMR vaccination because of contra-indications in other members of the same family; and what implications this guidance has for general practitioners in rural areas achieving their immunisation targets. [14445]

  Mr. Horam
  There are very few true contra-indications to immunisation; these are listed in the Heath Education Authority's leaflet, "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations", which is available to all parents.

  General practitioner immunisation target levels allow for the fact that immunisation is contra-indicated for some children.

  Probity Pledge
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the probity pledge proposed to NHS trust and health authorities by the NHS executive. [14522]

  Mr. Malone
  No new pledge on probity has been proposed by the national health service executive. On 26 April 1994 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Health, announced in the House the publication of codes of conduct and accountability. These codes, which keep public values at the heart of the operation and management of the NHS, were to be adopted by the boards of all NHS authorities and trusts. They require that all matters in the NHS be conducted with due regard to the very highest standards of probity, accountability and openness.

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take regarding executive managers from the Royal Berkshire Ambulance Trust
  561
  using an emergency ambulance to attend a coroners' court. [14639]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Rosalie Monbiot OBE, chairman of the trust, for this information.

  Practising Doctors (European Union)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) practising doctors and (b) practising doctors per capita there are in each European Union country. [14907]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. However, the second—1995—report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee, copies of which are in the Library, gives data on physicians per 1,000 population in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and United Kingdom.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual amount of study leave given to junior doctors in each of the last three years. [14851]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of junior doctors leaving the NHS each year. [14853]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Department supports studies by the medical careers research group the Oxford unit of healthcare epidemiology to examine wastage from the profession and other career patterns. Wastage rates appear to have declined recently. Of those who qualified in the mid-1970s, nearly 20 per cent. were not working in medicine in the United Kingdom 10 years later. Provisional data indicate that the comparable figure for those who qualified in the 1980s was around 15 per cent. Many of these doctors will be temporarily abroad, on a career break or in alternative medical employment and may well return to the NHS in the future.

  Patients (Complaints)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made by patients in each of the last six years. [14767]

  Mr. Horam
  For the number of complaints received in each of the last five years I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 30 January 1996,Official Report, column 723. For hospital and community health services, the number of complaints in 1989–90 was 36,181. For family health services, the figure for 1989 was 1,927.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he is likely to announce recommendations arising from the consultation document "Moving Forward" to strengthen the legislation on the running and inspection of residential and nursing homes to protect vulnerable people. [13396]
  562
  Mr. Bowis
  We shall consider whether to bring forward legislative or other changes in the light of the report of the independent assessor for the review which we expect to receive later this year.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the consultation on "Moving Forward" to be completed; and if he will place a copy of the responses to date in the Library. [14778]

  Mr. Bowis
  Written responses to "Moving Forward" have been asked for by the end of this month. It will be for the independent assessor to decide whether further consultation is required before he reports to Ministers.

  We shall decide at that time what and in what form to publish. This might include the submissions of respondents if they are content for this to be done.

  Skin Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to speed up treatment of dermatologically related diseases. [13451]

  Mr. Horam
  The organisation of health services and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for health authorities in their role as purchasers of services for their populations.

  However, my Department is aware of a few commercial projects in their very early stages which use televisual means in an effort to help deal with the workload in dealing with skin conditions. I understand that the process involves the general practitioner sending an e-mail picture of the patient's skin condition to a consultant dermatologist along with clinical details. The consultant can review the pictures in his own time and either give advice to the GP on management with suitable protocols or suggest a live consultation.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual average cost of prescriptions per patient prescribed by(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners for each year since the introduction of fundholding for which the figures are available for (i) England, (ii) each regional health authority and (iii) each family health service authority. [14967]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Prescribing costs (£ NIC/PU)—England

  GP fundholders

  Non GP fundholders

  1991–92

  9.23

  9.71

  1992–93

  10.35

  10.91

  1993–94

  11.47

  12.05

  1994–95

  12.56

  13.07

  1995–96 (to Q2)

  13.04

  13.62

  1. NIC/PU = net ingredient cost per prescribing unit.

  2. NIC is essentially the cost of prescriptions before allowing for pharmacists' discounts and container costs.

  3. PUs are a weighting used to adjust for the higher cost of drugs for older people. Each person counts as one PU for under 65-year-olds, three PUs for 65-year-olds and older.

  4. The two groups (fundholding GPs/non-fundholding GPs) are not exclusive—during the period, some non fundholders will have become fundholding and vice versa.

  563

  Patient De-registration
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from registration with their local general practitioner in each of the past five years. [13450]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 2 November 1995,Official Report, column 457.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports have been received via the yellow card system regarding women who have been switched from combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene since 18 October 1995; and what assessment the licensing authority has made of such reports. [12978]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: Ten reports of suspected adverse reactions have been received on yellow cards occurring in women who switched from oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene since 18 October 1995. These have been assessed by the Medicines Control Agency according to its normal procedures.

SCOTLAND

  EU Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total expenditure allocated to date from European Union objective 1 funding for the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement; [11587]

  (2) if he will list the projects that have been approved for European Union objective 1 funding for the highlands and islands since January 1995 for (a) the European regional development fund and (b) the European social fund; what expenditure was approved for each project; and what was the total expenditure; [11585]

  (3) which successful applications for European Union objective 1 funding for the highlands and islands are located in Argyll and Bute; and what was the expenditure approved for each project. [11586]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The total expenditure committed up to the end of January 1996 is £164 million. This is made up by £129 million, ERDF; £30.5 million, ESF; and £4.5 million, EAGGF—European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund—and FIFO—financial instrument of fisheries guidance. As the information requested is somewhat lengthy, I have arranged for the details to be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects which have been approved for objective 1 funding in the highlands and islands, stating the amount in each case. [11607]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: The total expenditure committed up to the end of January 1996 is £164 million. This is made up by £129 million, ERDF;
  564
  £30.5 million, ESF; and £4.5 million, EAGGF and FIFG. As the information requested is somewhat lengthy I have arranged for the details to be placed in the House Library.

  Agriculture Department
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time members of staff are currently employed at each of the Scottish Office Agriculture Department's divisional offices. [12305]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of full-time staff employed in the agricultural divisions of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department who are working at locations outwith Edinburgh is shown in the table, which reflects the position as at 1 January 1996.

  Full-time staff employed in agricultural division of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department based outwith Edinburgh

  Position as at 1 January 1996

  Location

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Ayr

  40

  2

  42

  Benbecula

  8

  —

  8

  Dumfries

  35

  2

  37

  Dundee

  28

  1

  29

  Elgin

  4

  —

  4

  Galashiels

  31

  3

  34

  Glasgow

  12

  —

  12

  Hamilton

  6

  2

  8

  Inverness

  50

  1

  51

  Kirkwall

  17

  —

  17

  Lairg

  5

  —

  5

  Lerwick

  11

  1

  12

  Oban

  22

  —

  22

  Perth

  32

  2

  34

  Portree

  9

  —

  0

  Stirling

  12

  3

  15

  Stornoway

  14

  3

  17

  Thainstone

  56

  3

  59

  Thurso

  16

  —

  16

  Totals

  408

  23

  431

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on the administration, promotion, support and establishment of school boards in Scotland in each academic year since their establishment. [12504]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  School boards were established for the first time during the financial year 1989–90. Departmental expenditure, by financial year, is as follows.

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1989–90

  1,737,000

  1990–91

  51,000

  1991–92

  308,000

  1992–93

  91,000

  1993–94

  157,000

  1994–95

  68,000

  1995–96

  140,000

  1 Expenditure to 31 January 1996.

  565

  Child Day-care Facilities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will conduct a survey of all child day-care facilities with a view to determining whether registration and inspection criteria are being carried out by local authorities in any way which encourages provision of places; [14225]

  (2) if he will conduct a survey of child day-care facilities to ensure that local authorities are interpreting the registration and inspection duties laid on them in a reasonable way. [14226]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend does not have any plans for such surveys.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to revise the guidance issued to local authorities in 1991 on regulation and review of childminding and day-care services for children under the Children Act 1989; [14278]

  (2) if he will update the bibliography referred to in section 3 of annex 4 in the guidance on child care issued to local authorities in 1991. [14279]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend intends to revise and update the guidance to take account of an amendment made to the Children Act 1989 by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and further amendments planned to the 1989 Act which relate to supervised activities and holiday play schemes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extend parental consent to derogation from guideline standards for child care facilities will be taken into account in issuing local authority certificates of registration of day-care premises. [14227]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities are under duty to register suitable providers of day-care for young children. Registration provides a framework to protect children and to ensure that services meet acceptable standards. It also reassures parents who arrange day-care for their children by others. In deciding whether to register applicants, local authorities are responsible for setting appropriate and consistent standards, taking account of central guidance. It would not be practicable to consult individual parents who may use different facilities from time to time about whether lower standards should be set in their facilities.

  Appeal Court
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been referred back to the Appeal Court by the Scottish Secretary since 1966; and in how many such cases conviction was quashed. [14528]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1966, my right hon. Friend has referred nine cases to the High Court of Justiciary under section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Of these cases, five convictions were quashed and in one case a verdict of culpable homicide was substituted for that of murder.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has 566
  been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14079]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has provided computer bureau and related services to a number of other Departments and public bodies. Charges for these services for the years since 1989–90 are as follows:

  Department

  Amount £

  National Gallery of Scotland

  39,6000

  National Library of Scotland

  55,500

  National Museums of Scotland

  27,600

  HM Customs and Excise

  11,800

  Holyrood Palace
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to his Department for the upkeep and maintenance of the palace of Holyrood house in each of the last three financial years. [14811]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for the cost of the upkeep and maintenance of the fabric of the palace, for security and for the costs of utilities such as fuel and telephones. All other costs are met by the royal household.

  The information for the last three financial years is:

  Programme expenditure

  Historic Scotland employee costs

  Total £

  1992–93

  696,600

  338,530

  1,035,130

  1993–94

  693,215

  337,852

  1,031,067

  1994–95

  809,153

  345,124

  1,154,277

  These costs include all expenditure directly attributable to the palace but not professional and central administration.

  Mobile Communications Network
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the mobile communication, network supported by the Scottish Office in the highlands and islands will be capable of handling both digital and analogue calls. [14919]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The £46 million mobile telecommunications investment programme in the highlands and islands will extend coverage to some 95 per cent. of the region's population, including covering almost all major arterial transport routes. The networks will use global system for mobile communications— GSM—technology, which is the European-led standard for digital cellular networks now operating in more than 40 countries worldwide. GSM gives users improved speech quality and greater security over the older analogue technology and access to a range of added value services similar to those available on the digital fixed network. The new GSM networks will complement the highlands and islands fixed network, which is already substantially digital as a result of upgrading by BT in the early 1990s.
  567
  The existing analogue networks offered by Cellnet and Vodaphone in the highlands and islands will be maintained, but will not be extended further.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the annual average cost per patient of prescriptions prescribed by(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health board

  Fundholding practices

  Non-fundholding practices

  Fundholding practices

  Non-fundholding practices

  Fundholding practices

  Non-fundholding practices

  Argyll and Clyde

  61.70

  71.66

  68.79

  79.20

  73.19

  87.07

  Ayrshire and Arran

  58.43

  73.06

  73.95

  79.53

  75.59

  87.62

  Borders

  0.00

  64.93

  71.49

  69.84

  73.32

  76.77

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0.00

  68.98

  0.00

  76.23

  81.83

  84.72

  Fife

  51.92

  62.66

  55.17

  70.22

  67.39

  78.23

  Forth Valley

  58.39

  67.88

  61.57

  74.78

  72.73

  84.21

  Grampian

  58.68

  55.37

  54.50

  70.39

  63.27

  73.54

  Greater Glasgow

  57.20

  62.92

  59.29

  69.57

  67.95

  77.94

  Highland

  50.97

  56.83

  74.82

  63.43

  79.12

  71.90

  Lanarkshire

  59.50

  73.00

  74.14

  79.71

  80.06

  89.26

  Lothian

  59.25

  56.67

  60.32

  62.93

  68.78

  70.21

  Orkney

  0.00

  53.50

  0.00

  57.37

  0.00

  62.25

  Shetland

  0.00

  47.13

  0.00

  55.07

  0.00

  60.33

  Tayside

  67.82

  71.03

  74.98

  78.64

  83.19

  88.16

  Western Isles

  0.00

  53.77

  0.00

  62.35

  0.00

  72.35

  Scotland

  58.39

  62.63

  66.27

  69.95

  73.87

  77.64

  Crofters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact his initiative on crofting will have on the crofters of the Knoydart estate; and if he will make a statement. [15076]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The recently launched consultation paper is specifically concerned with the disposal of the crofting estates owned by my right hon. Friend. However, the issues it raises may be of interest to crofters and landlords elsewhere.

  Court Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those courts that have been closed in each county in Scotland since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [14274]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: There have been no closures of district courts or sheriff courts during the period in question.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11357]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The average number of working days lost per staff year due to sickness in the Scottish Office is in the table.
  568
  for each year since the introduction of fundholding for which statistics are available for (i) Scotland and (ii) each health board. [14966]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information by health board and Scotland for the financial years 1992–93 to 1994–95 is set out in the table. The costs shown are the average cost per patient on GP lists and are based on the value of ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges.

  Calender year

  The Scottish Office

  Scottish Prison Service

  1992

  8.9

  12.6

  1993

  10.3

  15.3

  1994

  8.2

  12.9

  Figures prior to 1992 are not available.

  Drug Reduction Programmes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners were waiting for a place on the Edinburgh and Glenochil drug reduction programmes on(a) 1 February 1995 and (b) 1 February 1996. [14589]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. James Wallace, dated 13 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the number of prisoners waiting for a place on the Edinburgh and Glenochil drug reduction programmes on (a) 1 February 1995 and (b) 1 February 1996.
  As far as HMP Edinburgh is concerned there were no waiting lists in 1995 and 1996 and prisoners' needs are met by programmes provided by the prison authorities and/or community based agencies.
  Glenochil have adopted a multi-disciplinary approach and have been evolving and developing phased addiction programmes over the past 2 years which cover both drugs and alcohol. Prisoners receive both group and one-to-one counselling. There is no waiting list as such but currently 71 prisoners are awaiting completion of their programme.

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

Baroness Wilcox
Judith Ann, Lady Wilcox, having been created Baroness Wilcox, of Plymouth in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Templeman and the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach.
Lord Brocket
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received notification from the Chief Clerk of the Luton Crown Court informing him that Lord Brocket was, on 19th December 1995, convicted at that court of conspiracy to defraud, and was sentenced on 9th February 1996 to five years' imprisonment.

Developing Countries: Multilateral Debt Burden
2.49 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in measures to reduce the multilateral debt burden on developing countries.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have put the issue firmly on the international agenda. We have wide agreement that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is agreed that the IMF and World Bank will put forward proposals at the April meeting of the Development Committee. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking forward to discussing these proposals with his colleagues at that meeting.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is it not totally unacceptable that in a country like Uganda, where it is still the case that one in five children dies before the age of five from preventable diseases, only three dollars per head is available for health, while 17 dollars per head goes on debt servicing—mainly multilateral debt? Does not the debt burden, and particularly the multilateral debt burden, crush development efforts across the world? What are the Government doing to mobilise World Bank reserves, special drawing rights and IMF gold stocks to promote a more constructive approach to international debt management?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly draws our attention to this problem,
496
and in particular uses Uganda as an example. We have made some progress in Uganda since the beginning of the 1990s. The Ugandan Government have undertaken a strong reform programme. They have dealt with the problem of loans from commercial banks and to some considerable extent with the problem of bilateral debt. However, as the noble Lord rightly identifies, the problem of multilateral debt remains.
We have proposed, in general, that the IMF should convert a small part of its gold reserves into income-earning assets. The interest earned could then be used to provide more concessional and, where appropriate, larger loans to the IMF's poorest and most indebted members which have shown a sustained commitment to economic reform.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have urged the IMF to sell some of its gold stocks and to use the proceeds to alleviate the debt burden of the lowest income countries. They are also encouraging world bankers to produce a proposal, albeit unpublished, to create a multilateral debt facility; one that will also he used to reduce the debt burden. Unfortunately, the IMF has taken no action to sell any of its gold stocks and nothing has been done to create the multilateral debt facility. What further action is the Minister proposing in order to make these promising ideas a reality?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, my right honourable friend the Chancellor is looking forward to the April meeting, when these issues will be addressed. We certainly will be urging on the IMF the policy that we have proposed of selling some of its gold in order to buy assets that would earn interest. That interest could go towards helping the poorest countries. We have been pressing other countries, and the various institutions in the international monetary and financial field, to support our efforts to help those countries look for an exit strategy for their multilateral debt problems.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches support the Government's lead role in tackling the problem of debt relief? However, considering the massive burden of debt on countries in sub-Saharan Africa, will the Minister give the House an assurance that when the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, meets with the World Bank next month in Washington this subject will be at the top of the agenda?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my noble friend Lady Chalker. As all your Lordships know from my noble friend's Answers at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, she is much seized of the problems of the poorest countries in the world. I reiterate the assurance that I gave and the assurance welcomed by the noble Lord—I am grateful to him for that—that we shall continue to pursue these matters about multilateral aid on the international stage.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the debt burden indicate that many of the loans were economically

497
unviable in the first place or, in many cases, misappropriated? Does he agree, as is thought on the ground, that there should be more loans made available to very small industries, which can then support the larger infrastructure with their profits, rather than big loans of which much is often misappropriated?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend points out, it is important that both multilateral and bilateral loans are given with a good deal of care and mindful of the fact that the country will have to repay the loan, even though the interest rate charged is extremely low. In this country we have "forgiven"—that is the jargon—over £1.2 billion of old aid loans. All new aid by us to the poorest countries has been on grant terms for many years now to get round exactly the problem raised by my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as one who does much through NGOs to help the underdeveloped countries, could the Minister tell me whether there is any way in which we can ensure that the money given to those countries by international or bilateral loan filters down to the people in need? Very often that money does not go to those in need. As was said, it is simply appropriated by someone at the top who lives in absolute luxury while the people at the bottom remain in a very bad way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend certainly makes a point that has been made by a number of people. Certainly, she could give examples of that in the past. But I very much hope that the situation has improved since then. Certainly, one of the preconditions of multilateral and bilateral aid is that the country concerned has an agreed policy with the IMF of restructuring its economy, and so on, and of sticking to it for three years. That way, we combine the aid, either the grant or the loan, with an insistence that the country attempts to use the grant or loan in such a way that it improves its economy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we found much of what he said this afternoon extremely encouraging? With regard to the misappropriation and misuse of aid, is it not doubly important to ensure that the burden of settling the evils of previous malpractice does not land on the impoverished people of the third world? Will he further accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the full-hearted supported of these Benches in taking a lead at the April meeting of the World Bank in ensuring a comprehensive multilateral and bilateral approach which encourages development rather than crushes it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am certainly very grateful to the noble Lord for his support and that of the official Opposition for my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his efforts in that regard. I shall pass on those words of encouragement and support to him. The noble Lord makes a valid point about the situation in the past. In some cases corruption has meant that the aid given has not achieved the objectives hoped for it. I can assure him that both the
498
World Bank and the IMF, backed by ourselves, are setting standards for accountability and independent audit as conditions for funding. I very much hope that the problem he mentioned will not arise in the future.

Pollution at Sea: Level of Fines
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the maximum fine payable under Regulation 34 of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983; and what was the average fine imposed on conviction under that regulation for pollution offences during 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, there is no maximum fine for conviction secured in the Crown Court. The maximum fine that a magistrate may currently impose for an oil pollution offence is £50,000. On 24th January we announced, as part of a package of 18 measures to prevent illegal discharges of ships' wastes, that we should be seeking fivefold increases in the maximum fines that magistrates may impose for pollution offences at sea. No precise information on individual fines is held centrally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I welcome the intention to increase the maximum fine to £250,000. The new power to prosecute when offences occur beyond our territorial waters of 12 miles is also welcome. Will guidance be given to magistrates' courts—the relationship between government and courts is a delicate one—on the need for appropriate penalties for gross transgressions? The average fine imposed is derisory for companies which deal in millions of pounds.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's support for the measures we have taken to address the complex and important issue of illegal discharges of oil at sea. My noble friend is right to highlight the fines. The levels imposed have not been high so far. We felt that the best course of action was to seek powers to raise them. On the issue of guidance, it is not appropriate for the Government to tell magistrates the level of fines they should impose beyond setting maxima. It is for the courts themselves to decide the appropriate penalty. I can assure my noble friend that we shall provide information on the aims of our policies on marine pollution. We hope that that will be of use.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be curious to know how the Minister, in one supplementary answer, can say that the Government have no central record of the fines levied and then, in another, say that the fines are abysmally low. Can he give the House some indication of the basis on which the Government

499
are considering increasing the level of fines if they have no record centrally of the fines being levied at the moment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my precise words were that we have "no precise information". We have some information from the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea—ACOPS—on the levels of fines in 1994. The average fine was just over £2,000. That is where our information comes from. However, it is not entirely complete and is used for purposes of guidance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for over 30 years we have passed laws with a view to preventing oil pollution at sea but that those laws have been largely ignored or at any rate not adequately enforced? Can he say to what extent continued pollution is due to non-enforcement of our laws?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is a difficult question to answer precisely. What is clear is that deliberate oil pollution discharges still continue. We have chosen to take an approach of both deterrent and increased detection. We use aerial surveillance and other methods to try to identify the culprits. The thrust of our policies has been to negotiate with ports, users, waste management companies and operators to make sure that ports have a waste management plan for the proper discharge of waste. That is the encouragement approach. We vigorously pursue the detection and prosecution approach as well.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reference to the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, a body which I chair. We co-operate in issues concerning the safety of the marine environment. Is the Minister aware that, in the debate we had the other day, I warmly supported the action of the Government over increased fines which is thoroughly welcome? Can he give some indication as to whether the Government feel that charterers should bear some responsibility for the safety and standards of the ships they charter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is another vexed issue. We must ensure that those who operate the vessels do not discharge oil. When we have proper evidence we take measures to prosecute the owners of the vessel and may also prosecute the master. That seems the most efficacious way of tackling the problem. The question of whether those associated with the vessel should also be prosecuted is part of a wider issue. It has been raised in relation to the carriage of oil, but our best course of action is to pursue those who own and operate ships.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is this not an international question that may only be resolved by international agreement?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is certainly an issue where international co-operation is required and fellow members of the Bonn Agreement agreed to co-operate
500
with each other. Indeed, those channels work well. Where we have information regarding a vessel that we believe is polluting the environment, we pass it on to other states, particularly those where we believe the vessel will call. On the wider front, it is an issue where the International Maritime Organisation has a strong role to play.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that in the discussions that take place on these important issues before the International Maritime Organisation the Government will not rule out the idea that charterers should bear some responsibility? Is it not worthy of investigation at that level?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, this is an issue which has been the subject of international discussion. We shall make sure that all areas surrounding the unacceptable issue of maritime pollution with oil are properly discussed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am a former chairman of ACOPS, the organisation mentioned, but that this is not an arranged ambush prepared for him? In regard to international discussions, does my noble friend agree that a huge amount has been agreed internationally in the MARPOL Agreement and others? However, what matters now is the execution and implementation of those agreements.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome contributions from all noble Lords who have had a serious interest in that committee in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, had a prominent position on the committee as well as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is extremely important that we take forward these measures as part of the package approach and that we also pursue detection and deterrent. We have put considerable resources into that effort.

Belfast Airports
3.4 p.m.
Lord McConnell Lord McConnell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take as a result of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the proposed merger of Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published on 9th January. In a press notice issued on that day my honourable friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs announced that the proposed merger

501
would not be allowed to proceed, in line with the recommendations of the MMC. A copy of the press notice has been placed in the House of Lords Library.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that all those who value competition will laud the decision of the Government in this matter?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am very grateful for those kind words.

NHS Residential Care and Mobility Allowances
3.5 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will withdraw their proposals for depriving people in National Health Service residential care of entitlement to support for personal mobility.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the proposals are currently being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations the committee may make. There are no plans at present to withdraw the proposal.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I understand the reluctance of the Minister to go further, although I do not sympathise with it. Can he confirm at this stage that the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee will be accepted rather than just examined by the Government? Can he also confirm that all the voluntary bodies and major charities concerned with disability, together with the NHS trusts, unanimously supported the continuation of the mobility allowances saying that the mobility of disabled people would be severely curtailed if they are withdrawn and that social security benefits would be put hack nearly a quarter of a century?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am aware that there have been reactions to the request for consultation from the SSAC—the Social Security Advisory Committee. However, the end date for observations was only yesterday. The committee will now have to meet and consider before it makes its recommendations to the Government. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that we will necessarily do what the committee wishes. We shall certainly consider carefully what it says. However, we will have to wait to see what the committee says and then deliberate upon it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I can declare a family interest in that I have a severely handicapped daughter who is in receipt of the mobility allowance. Is my noble friend aware that the allowance is not easily
502
obtained? Its issue is strictly administered and if it were to be withdrawn it would cause hardship and a great deal of inconvenience in many families.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the point made by my noble friend is one of the issues we shall need to take into consideration when the Social Security Advisory Committee reports. But it is fair to point out that the mobility component of the disability living allowance is the only benefit of this nature which somebody keeps when they are in hospital for any length of time. For example, the care component ceases after four weeks; the attendance allowance ceases after four weeks; and other benefits are downrated or withdrawn after six weeks. It is only this benefit which continues after people are in hospital in the care of the NHS, which provides from the public purse for all their needs.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this plausible proposal for cost cutting founders in the light of clear evidence that disabled people in hospital have mobility needs? Those needs will not be met if the allowances are withdrawn. That is why the leaders of 11 major disability organisations have written to the Secretary of State to say that withdrawal of the allowances will cause considerable hardship to extremely vulnerable people. If that is so, they should not be withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, knows, the mobility component is primarily intended to help disabled people be independently mobile. We are dealing with patients in National Health Service hospitals whose needs are met by the health service and where every other benefit bar this one is actually withdrawn after four or six weeks. In addition, in the past we have seen examples of hospitals accumulating large balances of patients' funds coming from those allowances. For example, one hospital said that it was not uncommon for patients to have balances of unspent benefits of over £8,000. In that hospital the total size of patients' balances actually exceeded £3 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over many years the mobility allowance has permitted severely disabled people in residential hospitals nonetheless to remain members of the community, to build new relationships, to experience new things and to develop as people? Does he agree that cutting off mobility allowance will confine disabled people to isolation? Will he not think again?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is also some evidence, as the noble Baroness may know, that this money is not just used for mobility but is in fact used for other things—to buy goods and services which are otherwise supplied free by the National Health Service to its patients. As I said a little while ago, if the noble Baroness was being totally logical, she would be urging me not to withdraw those benefits which are already withdrawn—the care component,

503
attendance allowance and other benefits, like income support, which are downrated or withdrawn when people go into hospital.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what happened to the £3 million which the hospital accumulated?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it was a little time ago and the hospital has taken steps to reduce those balances. But this has been a problem for a long time in many hospitals. They have been more careful recently. However, the point I made a little while ago was that the money is not always spent directly on mobility; and that is what it is intended for.
Lord Rix: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I, too, must declare an interest in that I have a daughter who is in possession of the full mobility component. Does the Minister not consider it ludicrous that she, who receives her mobility component direct through social security because she lives in a MENCAP Homes Foundation house, could indeed be living next door to a house funded by the NHS where a person with exactly the same disabilities as my daughter would be denied the maximum amount of the mobility component? Does the Minister agree that that is a ridiculous anomaly and one which certainly is not solved by reducing the mobility component or removing it altogether in the case of hospital care?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point, but it is equally anomalous that people in long-term hospital care should receive a benefit which they may not be using for the purpose for which it is intended—and it can be accumulating or it can be used for other things. In addition, some of the observations made to the Social Security Advisory Committee have been from special hospitals, where patients' mobility outside the hospital is something we would wish to discourage because they are put into those hospitals to keep them secure.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.13 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is an unusual Motion but it is designed to deal with an unusual, not to say unprecedented, case. I have taken the opportunity of looking at the relevant page of the Companion, which, for your Lordships' benefit, is page 43. That makes it clear that a Motion to suspend standing orders is customarily in the name of the Leader of the House—customarily, my Lords, not exclusively.
The House will, however, wish to know the background to the appearance of these two Motions in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say right at the outset that this is not the time to go into the merits or demerits of the Scott Report itself. Indeed, one could hardly do that without first seeing it, despite the extraordinary amount of leakage and comment that seems to have taken place.
504
The Scott Report is, I understand, some 1,800 pages long and of considerable complexity; 278 witnesses gave written evidence and 81 were heard orally. I gather that the 1,800 pages do not include the evidence. The inquiry has now been sitting for some three years and its report, as we know, is to be made public on Thursday.
Understandably, therefore, Opposition spokesmen took the perhaps somewhat naive view that in order to deal with it properly we needed to have reasonable facilities and time to read it. Ministers will have had it for eight days and I have little doubt that the noble and leaned Lord who will be making the Statement in this House on Thursday will have had ample opportunity to brief himself.
Requests were therefore made to the Government for access to the report. When they were made, the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Lang, wrote a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Robin Cook which included the following paragraphs:
"As you will be aware, the Prime Minister said yesterday that Opposition spokesmen would have the opportunity to have access to the report several hours before its publication. The Government will allow access to the report from 12.00, thus giving Opposition spokesmen some 3½ hours' advance access in advance of my statement. This is comparable to or longer than what has been the practice in previous cases (including the recent reports of Lord Nolan, Sir John Learmont, Lord Justice Bingham and the Barings Inquiry). The Government has of course already announced that it is prepared to set aside time for a full debate on 26 February, thus giving the Opposition ample prior opportunity to consider the report".
The letter continued:
"The Inquiry has agreed with the Government exceptional advance access arrangements designed to safeguard the security of the report prior to its publication. I expect they will wish similar undertakings to be given in relation to access by Opposition spokesmen, although Sir Richard Scott has agreed in principle that I should give you access. The Government will therefore be making arrangements for access to the report in a controlled environment. I shall write shortly with details of the location and the practicalities.
Can I invite you to nominate a Lords' spokesman to whom similar arrangements might apply?".
That was the substance of the letter and that remains the position. Indeed, the Prime Minister confirmed it by letter to my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition about an hour ago.
Let me deal with some of the points made in that letter. First, the Scott Report is not comparable to any other that I have been able to trace. Lord Nolan's was 109 pages long, Sir John Learmont's was 182 and the Barings Inquiry 337. But each of those dealt with a fairly narrow point. There is, as far as my researches go, no precedent for a report of this gravity and complexity being handled in this way.
Secondly, the proposal that access to the report should only be in a controlled environment apparently means that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and I, both of whom are Privy Counsellors, should arrive at the gates of the Department of Trade and Industry at noon, be admitted and be permitted to look at the report, there, in an environment which is apparently to he controlled—whatever that means.
Is there to be a guard present in the room? Are we to be locked in? Are we to be permitted to take notes on the report? Are we to be allowed out before three

505
o'clock with the notes that we have taken? Do we have to surrender the copy we have been working on if we do? It is more like visiting day at Strangeways than a serious attempt to give us proper access to the report.
Moreover, on a more serious matter, I find this proposal gratuitously and deliberately offensive. Both the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I are Privy Counsellors. His lineage as such is considerably more ancient than mine. But is it seriously suggested that in circumstances in which there is a need for confidentiality prior to publication, Privy Counsellors who appreciate that need are going to rush out and leak the contents of the report to the press? And if it is said that Mr. Cook and Mr. Campbell are not Privy Counsellors and that we must all be treated in the same way, I can only say that that is then highly offensive to them. I have to say to the Government that I racked my brains to try to discover any conceivable reason why they are behaving in this way. That is the only one I can come up with.
Can government properly function if there is a presumption that the Opposition are not to be trusted in this way? I think not. It is a bad precedent and, if I may say this to the House, it is a precedent which will be remembered. There has to be some basic trust and understanding between the parties; otherwise the system breaks down.
How on earth are we supposed to be able to comprehend, let alone fully digest, 1,800 pages in some two-and-a-half to three hours? At the Bar one had some experience of reading briefs at the last moment. But this is ridiculous.
Finally, there is the "fairness" argument. It is quite simply unfair that Ministers should have a full opportunity for picking over the minutiae of the report, having their civil servants analyse and dissect it in search of some dicta that might justify their positions, whereas the Opposition are being offered not even sufficient time to turn the pages over. In our view the facilities and time being offered are thoroughly unreasonable and even perverse. Ideally, I would like 24 hours in advance on Privy Council terms; but, even if access is to be limited to the day in question, there are no reasonable grounds for insisting on these absurd and offensive restrictions.
If the Government insist on these terms they will have to do so by imposition and without the agreement or acquiescence of the Opposition. That is why I commend to the House the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Richard to be taken before the Broadcasting Bill this day.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am in broad agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Government seem perversely determined to make everything concerned with the long-delayed publication of the Scott Report as awkward as possible. As the noble Lord indicated, it is in many ways a report without precedent. The length of the
506
inquiry and the number and eminence of the witnesses are matched, so we are informed, only by the length of the report—1,800 words.
Noble Lords: Pages!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, 1,800 pages! The noble Lord gave one or two comparable examples. The only equally eagerly awaited report I can recall was that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in 1963. That was 128 pages, barely one-fifteenth of the length of the Scott Report. What is also without precedent is the barrage of semi-official denigration to which the learned judge, who undertook this heavy task at the request of the Government and was specially chosen by them, has been subjected. All this, together with the other signs of an attempt at a massive news management campaign, point to extreme nervousness on the part of the Government.
In the circumstances I would have thought that the Government might have been wise not to provoke the Opposition parties. But nervousness often does not produce wisdom. It seems to me that the Government have done the reverse. Whereas the Ministers concerned have been given eight days to study the report at their leisure and in their libraries—they have libraries—Opposition spokesmen are offered three hours—600 pages an hour—to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has rightly drawn considerable attention, and in what the President of the Board of Trade was pleased to describe as "a controlled environment". I take it that it is the President of the Board of Trade and not the present Home Secretary who is in charge of these arrangements.
I acquit the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal of any personal discourtesy. I gather that he has not seen the report himself. He is one of the lucky ones. He is not involved and therefore not informed. I believe that he has been eager to ensure that Opposition spokesman in your Lordships' House are not treated worse than Opposition spokesmen in the Commons, but that is an equality of suspicion and contempt.
What is this "controlled environment" of the Department of Trade and Industry in which we are to be incarcerated for three hours? Is it a padded cell or a sealed capsule? It is an intolerable offer. To be honest, it would have been better to have done nothing. The only tolerable, courteous and civilised procedure, in my view, would have been to let Opposition spokesmen have the report on Privy Counsellor terms and not in a padded cell from the previous afternoon or early evening. Instead the Government have chosen to produce the maximum irritation.
There is a crowning irony. The Scott Report is unprecedented in yet another way. It is the most leaked report in history, often from official sources. It is from the security of a sieve that they are producing all this trouble.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, if both noble Lords will forgive me, I believe that perhaps the muddle in which noble Lords may be finding themselves over which Motion we are at present

507
debating may all too easily reflect the muddle in both noble Lords' minds over the substance of what they have said.
It is only fair to point out for the elucidation of your Lordships' House that we are considering the Business of the House Motion. If carried, that Motion will enable us to consider the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which moves to resolve,
"That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to allow reasonable time and facilities to Opposition spokesmen prior to the statement in Parliament on the Scott Report".
I am always edified and delighted by the opportunity to listen to both noble Lords, a privilege accorded to your Lordships, I am glad to say, very frequently. I hope that we may at least agree that both noble Lords have spoken to the second Motion on the Order Paper. Although I would be only too delighted to hear a re-run of both speeches, it may be for the benefit of the expedition of business if we confine ourselves to the Business of the House Motion but, with your Lordships' permission, allow our remarks to cover both Motions before us. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, I shall follow the example of both noble Lords.
As regards the Business of the House Motion, which I believe was not addressed by either the noble Lord, Lord Richard, or the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I should perhaps draw to your Lordships' attention how very unusual it is for such a Motion to be tabled in a name other than that of the Leader of your Lordships' House. I should perhaps also point out that although both noble Lords, with their usual courtesy, advised me yesterday that it was perfectly possible that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would put down a Business of the House Motion today, neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, suggested that I might like to do it according to the custom of your Lordships' House. Because of that I was unable to do what I would always try to do, that is, follow the convention of your Lordships' House and accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition that I should do so.
The Business of the House Motion is the means by which the House determines the way in which its proceedings should be ordered. As I said, such a Motion is customarily moved by the Leader of the House. Therefore, I merely note the events of the past 24 hours. While I would not seek to oppose the Motion on the Order Paper today, in the interests of the expeditious and effective dispatch of business in your Lordships' House—if it is the wish of your Lordships that that Motion shall be agreed to—I suggest to your Lordships with the greatest respect that, given the events of the past five to 10 minutes, it would be unwise not to try to dispatch this particular piece of business as efficiently and effectively as possible. Nevertheless, I trust that that will not be regarded as a desirable precedent.
If your Lordships will allow me, I shall now proceed, perhaps in anticipation of the second Motion which my noble and learned friend will no doubt put before us shortly. I hope that I need not detain the House long on this matter. But in all fairness I think there are a number of points which I should draw to the attention of your Lordships. First, the status of the report. The report has been made by Sir Richard Scott to my right honourable
508
friend the President of the Board of Trade. It is for my right honourable friend to decide on the arrangements for publication and advance access. I should also point out that those arrangements have been the subject of detailed correspondence with Sir Richard Scott.
Perhaps I should also say in view of the—dare I say it?—somewhat tendentious remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that I too would greatly deplore any attempt by my colleagues in the Government or indeed myself to denigrate the efforts of Sir Richard Scott. The judge was asked by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to conduct the inquiry. As the noble Lord pointed out, the inquiry has been the subject of considerable interest, but it has also taken up some three years of the time of Sir Richard and his team. It would be extremely perverse of the Government to suggest that they did not take either Sir Richard or his efforts seriously or, indeed, in anticipation of an official reaction from the Government to the report to try "to rubbish"—I think that I quote accurately the words used by the noble Lord—what Sir Richard said. I should like to take this opportunity to say—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: To rubbish? Which noble Lord said that?
Viscount Cranborne: I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, this is not tremendously important, but I thought the noble Viscount was referring to me and suggesting that I used the phrase "to rubbish". I used no such phrase. I hope that he will be more accurate.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, forgive me. I am well aware that I am more capable of vulgarity of language than the noble Lord. Let it be enough for me to say that my colleagues and I will treat whatever Sir Richard Scott says with due seriousness. Indeed, I have no doubt at all that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister feels strongly that the report should be treated seriously and that my right honourable friend is under no misapprehension, since he asked Sir Richard Scott to chair the inquiry and to make the report, that he should not take it seriously and will in no way try to anticipate his official reaction or that of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Perhaps I may add a couple of other points. The Statement which will be made on Thursday will simply give the Government's initial reaction on the publication of what is, as I understand it and as I think both noble Lords made clear, a very lengthy and complex report. Noble Lords opposite are clearly already aware that on Monday 26th February there will be an opportunity for a full debate of Sir Richard Scott's findings on a Motion to be moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. There will therefore be a full 10 days, including two weekends, which I know are sacred to many Members of your Lordships' House and which will therefore provide an opportunity for ratiocination of an appropriate kind, when your Lordships will he able to peruse the report thoroughly and prepare comments.

509
Many of your Lordships may feel, as I do, that it is only reasonable to expect that another place will always take a lead in resolving matters to do with the release and handling of a report of this kind. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will forgive me when I say that it might perhaps be regarded as opportunistic of the noble Lord to seek to pursue this matter here when it has been the subject of discussion between the Government and Opposition in another place, as he himself acknowledged.
As Leader of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, freely acknowledged that and I am grateful to him—I have tried to ensure that Opposition spokesmen in this House are accorded exactly equivalent treatment to those in another place. I hope that your Lordships will feel that in doing so I have done everything which your Lordships would expect of me on the matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his acknowledgement of that, which was made with his usual grace and courtesy.
Perhaps I may also point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, acknowledged, in having the opportunity to read the report in advance on Thursday the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, will have the advantage of me. Since I am not one of those Ministers, and I quote,
"necessarily concerned in the preparation of the Government's response to the report",
I shall have no advance access to it and at 3.30 p.m. on Thursday, like the rest of your Lordships, I shall have to obtain my copy from the Printed Paper Office, which, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will not enable me to have the time to take it to my library in order to study it with all the grace which he and his great subject, Mr. Gladstone, would have wanted.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Leader of the House that I agree entirely that my noble friend has taken an unusual step. Perhaps I may also agree with the noble Viscount that in practice it is undesirable. On the other hand, there are times and circumstances in which unusual and perhaps undesirable steps have to be taken. This is a matter for this House because a Statement will be repeated here. It is not for us to say what should be done or what should be agreed in another place. The noble Viscount has a duty to the House. As I have said on a number of occasions, so, too, the Leader of the Opposition has a duty and an obligation to the House as a whole, but the Leader of the Opposition has no more rights than any of us sitting in the Chamber this afternoon. However, our parliamentary assembly has a formalised procedure whereby, when the Government, through their Minister, make a Statement, it is expected in every quarter of this House that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party will be in a position to give a measured and considered response.
My argument is not about time; although it is an extraordinarily short period in which to consider a paper which, like the noble Viscount, I have not read other than through leaks in the press. It is clearly a report of
510
very considerable significance—perhaps not in terms of the past, but in view of its recommendations about what should be done in the future.
My anxiety is about what is called the "controlled environment". I never thought that I would hear those words used of the British Parliament and I hope that this House will take the view, perhaps this afternoon, that we are not part of the controlled environment. Parliament should be the complete opposite of that. As I understand my noble friend, what is being said is that he and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—I forget those who are down in another place because they are not material to us—will go into a controlled environment, such as the Cabinet Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office or wherever, and will sit there under surveillance to read what could well be a report of infinite significance with the object of coming to this House to give a considered view.
Having been a Leader of this House, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I cannot imagine—I am putting this point directly to noble Lords opposite—what would have happened if I had gone to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, then the Leader of the Opposition, and said, "I can't trust you. You cannot be trusted to have these papers in your room in the House of Lords". I have been here so many years that I can even remember the great Leader of the Opposition, Lord Salisbury. If I had gone, from my side of the Chamber to Lord Salisbury and said, "I cannot trust you to read this report in your room in the House of Lords", we would have been murdered, and quite rightly so.
If we have reached a point when we say that the noble Lord the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and member of the Privy Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and member of the Privy Council, cannot be trusted to guard a paper in their own offices, then we are in a parlous situation. A price will be paid—a price which I do not believe the noble Viscount would wish to recognise let alone to pay.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Back Benches, I understand fully the reservations about the controlled environment. I cannot help but feel that that phrase was not just unfortunate, but may well have been misunderstood.
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if noble Lords will bear with me, I cannot conceive that it can have meant anything that has been attributed to it today in your Lordships' House. At least I have lived some of my life in what was a controlled environment. This is a Business of the House Motion. This is a wholly unprecedented occasion. Is this the occasion to depart from precedent? It is said that it is because of the second Motion. On that Motion, surely Her Majesty's Government ought to be in a position to confirm, as they always have done. Who is to advise them whether they are to make a Statement and when they are to make a Statement? Whether it be the Opposition or the

511
Conservative Government, the Government is Her Majesty's Government. Who is to advise them? Who is to challenge them in this way?
If they give their initial reaction to the report, it would surely he—this a matter of fact—to affirm that that application was a serious deception which inevitably warranted the institution of proceedings, because that machine tool was computer programmed for the manufacture of shell cases. It would be confirmed that there had been no relaxation of those guidelines.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Order". There is another Motion on the Order Paper to which noble Lords opposite have spoken, to which my noble friend the Leader of the House has spoken, and to which, with the leave of the House—to which I always defer—I intend to speak. I have one more thing to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, he is speaking to neither Motion. He is speaking to a debate which will take place on 26th February.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me—we are not friends in a political sense, but we are friends in another sense—to say that I am not. He misunderstands me. What I am saying is that any government have the right to make a Statement if they wish, and to make a Statement when they choose. That is the constitutional position.
I have given two examples in relation to the next Motion to which noble Lords opposite have spoken—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has spoken—and to which surely I am entitled to speak. That is all I am seeking to do. I have just one more thing to say. These PII certificates, as will be explained, were issued in total conformity with the decisions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the decision was that there was no irregularity. The Government are entitled to say that in their initial reaction to the report. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Scott Report
3 45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to allow reasonable time and facilities to Opposition spokesmen prior to the Statement in Parliament on the Scott Report.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to weary the House with a second speech. I was a little surprised at the procedural petulance of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Surely he would have realized—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, surely the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would have realised, and indeed should have realised, that the usual channels have not been clogged for the past 24 hours. If there had been any suggestion that he would have accepted this Motion, naturally we would have considered it; but none came.
I want to make just two points, and then I shall leave it. The issue now before the House is not the merits of the report; it is the facilities being offered to Opposition parties before the Statement is made on Thursday. I do not propose to repeat what I said before. What is on offer is basically unreasonable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to allow reasonable time and facilities to Opposition spokesmen prior to the Statement in Parliament on the Scott Report.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Ezra, L.

Acton, L.

Falkland, V.

Addington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Flowers, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Geraint, L.

Bancroft, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Barnett, L.

Glenamara, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Birkett, L.

Gregson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Hamwee, B.

Borrie, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Haskel, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayman, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Healey, L.

Chandos, V.

Hertford, M.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Hollick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Croham, L.

Hooson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Desai, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Judd, L.

Dubs, L.

Kennet, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Kilbracken, L.

513

Kirkhill, L.

Rea, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Longford, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

McConnell, L.

Roskill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Russell, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

McNally, L.

Sandwich, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Serota, B.

Marsh, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mishcon, L.

Spens, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stallard, L.

Moran, L.

Stedman, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nathan, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Nelson, E.

Tope, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Oxford, Bp.

White, B.

Palmer, L.

Wigoder, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Coleraine, L.

Addison, V.

Colwyn, L.

Ailsa, M.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Aldington, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Arran, E.

Crathorne, L.

Astor, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cuckney, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blake, L.

Dean of Harptree, L

Blaker, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blyth, L.

Downshire, M.

Boardman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Elton, L.

Brentford, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Faithfull, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Flather, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Buchan, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Burnham, L.

Gainford, L.

Cadman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caldecote, V.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goold, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Cayzer, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Chalfont, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hacking, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Halsbury, E.

Clark of Kempston. L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hayhoe. L.

514

Hemphill, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Henley, L.

Munster, E.

Holderness, L.

Northesk, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Howe, E.

Onslow, E.

Ilchester, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Inglewood, L.

Pender, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Killearn, L.

Reay, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Davids, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Shannon, E.

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lucas, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stockton, E.

Lyell, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strange, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L [Lord Chancellor.]

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Manchester, D.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Middleton, L.

Wade of Charlton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.57 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 143:
Before Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF THE BROADCASTLNG (RESTRICTIONS ON 'THE HOLDING OF LICENCES) ORDER 1991
(".—(1) The Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991 is amended as follows—
(2) In section 12 subsection (3) for "two" there is substituted "three".
(3) In section 13 subsection (1) for "hold a licence" there is substituted "hold more than one other licence".
(4) In section 13 subsection (1) for "holder of a licence" there is substituted "holder of more than one other licence".
(5) In section 13 subsection (2)(a) for "for which the service" there is substituted "for which a service".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 143 stands in my name and is grouped with Amendment No. 156 which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I trust that the noble Baroness will speak to her amendment and I shall speak only to mine.
At the heart of the Bill is a correct philosophy that in the world of today's technology and competition we need powerful British companies which can compete internationally. Therefore, certain restrictions imposed on television companies as regards licensing and on other media companies as regards cross ownership have rightly been lifted. My amendment addresses the issue of local radio stations being treated unfairly, or asymmetrically at the very least, in this respect.
The restrictions on local radio stations having more than one FM station have not been lifted.
Members of the Committee will remember that there is a restriction on local radio stations not owning more than one FM station. That was not in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and nor is it in this Act. But that was put in place by an order and because it was an order, my amendment refers to that order.
The situation is very simple. An independent local radio station may have an FM station and an AM station. Since those independent stations were able to have two wavelengths, the Gold station has been transmitted on AM and current news and so on transmitted on FM. In the spirit of the Broadcasting Bill, it would be quite right to allow radio stations to be able to bid for two FM wavelengths. That will enhance the quality of transmission of the programme and it is quite clear that AM is a technology which is less preferred than FM by many transmitters. That seems to me to be a straightforward argument. We wish to be able to allow our radio stations to have two FM wavelengths.
It may be said that having one radio station with two FM transmitters could restrict competition and that we would not have diversity. It is almost a well known result in many of these industries that if different owners have the same kind of channel, there is a great deal more uniformity of service rather than rivalry. If you do not believe me, go to Heathrow Airport and you will find that flights to the United States leave more or less at the same time whether it is British Airways, United Airlines or American Airlines. That is how people tend to behave. You would think that they would provide diversity because there is competition, but instead they provide identical services. Therefore, if we want to have diversity, it is better to have a producer of the size and range that can produce diversity.
This is a straightforward amendment. I hope that the Minister will not find much objection to it. Perhaps I may add briefly that across the country many independent radio broadcasters are in favour of this amendment. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Amendment No. 156 is grouped with this amendment and I wish to speak now to that amendment.
516
Amendment No. 156 addresses one of the particular issues where I believe this Bill could be improved. My amendment is placed with the specific intention of ensuring that three of the objectives of government policy are supported: first, by encouraging greater diversity of broadcast output—in other words, consumer choice; secondly, by deregulating the restrictions on the media industry; and, thirdly, by ensuring the commercial strength and success of our much valued media industry.
Currently, an independent radio station is restricted from applying for a licence for more than one station on the same waveband in the same geographical area. This amendment aims to allow independent radio stations to apply to the Radio Authority for more than one licence on one waveband in any licensed area. That will offer local radio stations the opportunity to move their popular AM Gold music stations onto the better quality FM frequency.
For the benefit of Members of the Committee who are not quite sure what "Gold" means, it refers to what I would call easy listening muzak which one hears in hotels and shops but which in fact is extremely popular. Gold stations are currently listened to for something like 17 million hours per week. That sounds a great deal. That may mean that 17 million people listen to it for one hour per week but it is more likely that, for example, 4 million people listen to it for 4.5 hours per week.
Gold music output is currently listened to for that amount of time and the majority of that output is on the AM frequency which, as we have said before, is notorious for its poor quality. With the advent of digital audio broadcasting—DAB—the AM frequency will disappear—at least, it will not disappear but it will be even more sub-standard. Therefore, it is important for millions of listeners that the quality of output of those popular stations should be improved.
The restrictions which prevent that at present are contained in the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991. Some may say that giving existing companies greater access to FM frequencies may reduce diversity of output. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. For example, two different companies running two FM stations may have very similar output in a particular geographical area with both aiming for the same most lucrative advertising market. However, if the same company owns two FM licences, by commercial definition it will aim for different audiences and a different advertising market through significantly different programming, thereby creating diversity.
As regards deregulating the media industry, the Government have achieved much in allowing greater cross-media ownership. However, they may have overlooked the need to ensure that each specific media sector is allowed an equal amount of freedom. If this Bill passes into law unchanged, a local radio station could own a greater "share of voice", as it is called, by purchasing a local newspaper, but would be prohibited from obtaining a similar percentage of "share of voice" by expanding in its own sector. Surely it should not be more difficult for a company to expand within its current media sector than to diversify outside its core

517
expertise. From my understanding of the radio industry, very few radio companies have any interest in developing into local press barons.
The popular Gold music stations are in direct competition with the BBC's Radio 2. Radio 2 is on an FM frequency and therefore has, I believe, an unfair competitive advantage over local radio stations which must broadcast on an AM frequency.
As regards the commercial strength and success of our valued media industry, I believe that the majority of the radio industry is not interested in diversifying into the print media. It is interested in excelling in the industry in which it has the greatest expertise; namely, radio broadcasting. That in turn should be encouraged by the Government. Giving independent local radio companies the same commercial freedom as other media operations will create greater choice and better quality of radio broadcasting to consumers. I hope that the Government will consider that issue as it would add to the improvements which the Bill brings to the media industry.
The Earl of Onslow: I was approached by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, who cannot be present today, to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I was extremely willing to do so until I saw all the Members of the Opposition Front Bench putting their names to it. I thought that they wanted to ban me from speaking on the matter and therefore I did not add my name to it. However, I support them in principle, especially the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
It seems to me that the Government are worried about a monopoly situation, and they are right because we should worry about a monopoly situation. But surely such a situation should be dealt with either by the radio regulator or by the monopolies commission. Capital Radio gave me a sandwich lunch and a drink of water, because I was dying of thirst, when explaining this matter to me. If Capital Radio wished to buy half of the FM frequencies available in London, that would obviously be monopolistic. But all the independent radio stations have said that they do not wish these restrictions to be placed upon them. I did not understand until it was all explained to me but FM radio produces a far higher quality of music transmission. Whether it is that disgusting noise which sometimes one's children will listen to or whether it is Brahms, is relatively immaterial. However, it seems to me to be right that, provided that it is non-monopolistic and non-area dominating, people should he allowed to have two or three stations. After all, if the Evening Standard were to take over Capital Radio, it would actually have a far more monopolistic access to news and media ownership over London than would be the case if Capital Radio were to have a second FM channel.
I am suggesting that the monopolistic tendencies are obviously real. I recognise the fact that everyone, from the Venetians through to Adam Smith, wants a monopoly because it is a licence to print money and that it is the duty of regulators to stop that happening. But it seems to me that a blanket ban is not the correct way to do it. It would be much better to approach the
518
monopolistic angle which, I believe, is the only angle which has any truth or value. As I said, it could be done by the regulator rather than by a blanket ban. That is why I support not only my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but also the Opposition Front Bench on the issue.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that at the heart of the matter is the question of monopoly and how one handles monopolistic tendencies. For my part, I do not know what the other Opposition Front Bench will say on the amendment. Indeed, the noble Earl should not give a blanket assertion about the Opposition because, from these Benches, we have given most careful consideration to the matter. I did not get a glass of water from Capital Radio; indeed, I gave them a cup of tea.
We considered the pros and cons of the matter most carefully and came to the conclusion that the danger of a monopoly was such that the amendment should not be accepted. I believe that it is fair to say that it is supported by some of the most successful and powerful groups of independent local radio stations in the country. If the amendment were accepted, my fear is that such groups would become even more powerful. Of course I wish them every success, but I do not wish to see them become so powerful that they reduce the plurality of ownership of independent local radio stations.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like briefly to take up that exact point. I, too, was worried about that aspect. That is why, over my lovely glass of water which I enjoyed in the headquarters of Capital Radio, I pressed those concerned very strongly. They told me that the smaller London radio stations agreed with the relaxation of the ban on dual ownership. Therefore, it is not fair to say that it is a matter only for big radio stations. It was only when I had been persuaded on that point that I was prepared to speak in favour of the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: As a former chairman of the Radio Authority, perhaps I may offer a few words of comment on the amendment. I have a natural sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but, unfortunately, the amendment would not achieve the desired effect. I believe it is true to say that the radio companies would like, as the noble Lord says, to put their "gold" output (their easy-listening output) on to FM because it has a better transmission quality. It does not, I fear, improve the music at all; but it does improve the quality of the transmission and, therefore, of the reception.
However, if that is what radio companies wish to do, the amendment would not achieve that aim. I say that because there are no spare FM channels at present. Moreover, even if there were, it would certainly not make sense that existing holders of licences should have a prescriptive right to receive them. Therefore, in most cases, the amendment would not necessarily mean that people who wished to transfer their gold service to FM would be able to do so. Indeed, as the noble Lord,

519
Lord Thomson of Monifieth suggested, it would enable stations to take over other stations and thereby reduce the plurality and diversity which the Radio Authority as the regulator is meant to ensure.
The noble Earl said that it should he a matter either for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or for the regulator. It is indeed a matter for the regulator. When I was chairman of the Radio Authority, one of the tasks that we sought constantly to undertake was to ensure that, in the issue of licences, diversity of ownership and plurality in local conditions was maintained. That is what is at issue. The amendment would not allow people to move their gold format on to FM; it would enable powerful, big radio stations to take over small ones in the same area.
I have one further point to make. The noble Baroness mentioned the implications of DAB—digital audio broadcasting. I believe that there is a contrary argument here. If people were allowed to achieve two analogue FM frequencies in the same area, it is possible that they would cease to have much interest in pursuing digital audio broadcasting which is what, I believe, we are all inclined and intending to do. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and with every sympathy for what he is trying to achieve, I must suggest that the amendment would not achieve the desired effect. Instead, it would remove a good deal of the diversity and plurality from local broadcasting.
Lord Colwyn: We are having a most interesting debate. I am sympathetic to the thoughts behind the amendments. Newspapers and new radio players can find much to encourage their aspirations in the Bill, but perhaps it does less than it should to help those who wish to concentrate their skills and investment in radio only. There is no good reason to have rules which entirely close the door on a radio company owning more than one service on a single waveband in a single geographical area. I believe that the Radio Authority should at least have to consider proposals on their merits rather than ruling them out completely.
Schedule 2 to the Bill allows for the inclusion of two of a station's services on a multiplex, where available capacity allows, and for influential local newspapers to own local radio services. It seems inconsistent for the Bill to condone the merger of a leading local newspaper with a leading local radio station in the same geographical area, albeit subject to public interest criteria, when the expansion of radio interests beyond a single FM and a single AM service in the same area is prohibited.
It seems especially unfair when that restriction does not apply where there are only a few, if any, competing commercial radio services. Under current Radio Authority proposals I believe that the restriction is confined to highly competitive markets where many stations vie for revenue and listenership. It is worth thinking about again. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give the matter serious consideration.
Lord Inglewood: As we have heard, radio companies are currently restricted to controlling one FM and one AM station in each local licence area under the so-called
520
"overlapping areas" rule. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, comprehensively explained his argument as to why broadcasters should be allowed to run up to four radio stations, two on each waveband, in areas which overlap to a significant extent. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain would simply dispense altogether with the overlapping areas rule.
Perhaps I should first explain that the Government intend to revise the restrictions on secondary holdings, many of which are also contained in the 1991 order. The scope of those changes is substantial. I anticipate that we shall revoke the 1991 order in its entirety and replace it with a new one. I shall have more to say on this at Report stage. But, as I made clear at Second Reading, we do not plan to change the existing restrictions on the use of the AM and FM wavebands. The Radio Authority, which advises the Government on how best to promote a thriving plural and diverse independent radio sector, supports that view. I believe that we ought to think hard before rejecting its advice.
The companies lobbying for change are largely those which originally held franchises to simulcast their radio services on both FM and AM but were later allowed to split their services to provide different formats on each waveband. Typically, as was explained by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, such companies offer complementary services—one on FM, based on current hits and a so-called "gold" service on AM, based on hits from the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. Given the scarcity of FM channels, that splitting has represented both an efficient use of the scarce public resource of the spectrum and a broadening of choice.
The main arguments for reform are, as we have heard, that popular "gold" formats, broadcast on AM, would be able to provide better reception for listeners if they were switched to the FM waveband, and that the growth of successful companies should not be restricted. But let us just look a little more closely at the current position. In the metropolitan areas of Britain there are typically two or three companies in operation; in London there are more than a dozen. But across shire England and the non-metropolitan areas of Wales and Scotland there is often only one local independent radio licence-holding company which operates on both the AM and FM frequencies.
Across the country, then, the position in local radio is that there is often a single monopoly or heavily dominant player. This derives to a considerable extent from the Radio Authority's remit to promote diversity in the radio services available in a particular area. When it does advertise a further FM licence in a franchise area, it for that reason tends not to relate to a popular hits format, and the successful applicant for the further FM licence accordingly is unlikely to acquire a major share of the market, or in effect to compete directly for most purposes with the dominant station. Moving a popular current AM station onto an FM channel is not the only thing a strong player might do if the rule were relaxed. I refer to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Chalfont. Indeed, the opportunity of bidding for new FM licences, or challenging renewals of existing ones,

521
is much less frequent than that of simply taking over an existing competitor, with the result that, for example, separate news reporting facilities would be closed down, thereby diminishing local diversity of voice.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we must focus here on voice. Diversity of service is guaranteed by the Radio Authority agreeing the differing formats applying to different FM licences. What we are aiming to ensure is a diversity of voice. Moreover, what may be reasonable in the crowded, diverse context of London radio is less obviously right elsewhere, where a relaxation of the one FM rule might simply consolidate the position of a monopolist or near-monopolist and prevent the development of a healthy diversity. My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the Evening Standard acquiring a radio station. Of course the Evening Standard would have to pass the public interest test before it could acquire Capital Radio, if it wished to acquire it.
The Earl of Onslow: However, it is not banned by law from so doing. That is the point I am making. I should hope that everything could be considered on a public interest basis rather than being banned by law. That is the difference and it is exactly what my noble friend has highlighted.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for elaborating that point. Because of the Radio Authority's important remit to secure variety in local radio formats, the market remains artificially structured, albeit far less regulated than the corresponding television one. Arguably, that means that there is still a need for checks on the further growth of dominant players in a particular area. If the existing rule is overturned, such groups would be able to buy their only significant competitors in their locality. In addition, new entrants to the radio market who seek to provide different services would be forced onto the inferior AM waveband, diminishing their effectiveness as competitors with existing companies and reducing the prospect of greater diversity.
We should also not forget that the Government are already providing the larger radio companies with substantial opportunities to grow. Last July an order increased from 20 to 35 the number of licences that any one company may own. That limit is removed entirely by the Bill. During the Second Reading debate I made clear that the Government are as yet unpersuaded by proposals to abandon the overlapping areas rule. That remains the case. If these amendments were to be accepted we believe, like the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Chalfont, that they could threaten plurality at local level, undermine competition in the provision of services, and inhibit the promotion of diversity. It is for those reasons that we are opposed to these amendments.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for informing me of the technological details of this matter. I remain convinced that there is confusion here as
522
regards the notion of monopoly and competition. If we consider, for example, the larger metropolitan areas where—as the Minister said—there are a number of competing radio stations, those areas are referred to as the A and B types of area. In that case, if an existing large producer acquired another station that would not necessarily reduce competition because much competition already exists. If, however, there are areas in which there is only one dominant producer and that dominant producer acquires another FM channel, that again in my view does not reduce competition. The technology of radio is such that one can always move the dial and obtain a broadcast from the next area. It is not as if one is confined to listening to the station in one's local area.
I could understand anxieties about a monopoly situation if there were no substitute easily available, or if the substitute were costly. If I may say so to the Government, we are discussing an old fashioned view of monopoly and competition. If they had read their Professor Hayek carefully, they would be reassured that it is not difficult to have competition provided there are substitutes available. There will not be dominance because people can always turn the dial and turn to a station in another area. That has been the case in the computer industry where IBM was a large player but it faced competition from small minnows. Diversity is not the issue either because, as I pointed out, if there are several players they tend to offer the same kind of broadcasts. They all offer "gold" broadcasts. Therefore, the situation is contrary to what the Minister thinks it is and it is contrary, somehow, to common sense. Common sense is wrong in this respect. I urge the Minister to think about this matter and I am grateful to him for saying that he will return to it on Report. In the light of that good discussion—
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, I shall now confess to a frightful piece of peeking. In looking over the shoulder of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I see that he has an alternative reply. Everyone will say that it is unfair to do that and I admit that is cheating, but I cannot resist it all the same. His alternative reply states that in view of the feeling expressed in the House he will go away and—
Baroness Trumpington: This is quite intolerable, even from one of my noble friends. I ask my noble friend to sit down.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not see that it is intolerable. Where in the Standing Orders does it state that one should not quote from a brief? Let me just finish the point I am making. The only noble Lords who have spoken on the Government side are two who have done so on behalf of the Radio Authority. I am not asking the Government to agree to the amendment. I am simply asking the Minister perhaps to choose the second of the alternative replies in front of him.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I really must protest at my noble friend's attitude in looking over and reading from

523
the Minister's brief. This is contrary to the normal good manners and standards of this Chamber. I hope that he will now apologise.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Desai, had finished his remarks but he was interrupted in the middle of his speech.
Lord Desai: An interesting discussion is taking place. Therefore I shall try to find out what the discussion comprises before I do anything further with my amendment.
Lord Inglewood: There are all kinds of things that I have notes on—that applies to what we are discussing today and on previous occasions when we sat in Committee on this Bill—which I deemed not appropriate to mention. Whatever the noble Earl may have thought that I had written in my notes, what I said was what I meant to say.
Baroness O'Cathain: Like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, worried me because he said that if the aim of the amendment was to put "gold" on FM, that would not be achieved. Obviously I shall have to reconsider that matter. I understood the noble Lord to say—I do not know whether I understood him correctly—that that is because of the limitation on the number of FM hands, or at least space on the FM band. Obviously I shall have to look at that matter again.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who suggested that the authority should consider proposals on their merits and not condemn them outright. When my noble friend the Minister spoke he raised my hopes because he said that he intended to revise the restrictions and to revoke the 1991 order in its entirety. However, he then stated that, on the advice of the Radio Authority, there would be no change to the AM and FM wavebands. That does not encourage me at all.
People are talking about competition and monopoly. The reality is that there is already competition. If there were not an increase in competition, with a greater number of FM bands being given to independent radio stations, there would be a greater monopoly by the BBC which, I remind my noble friend the Minister, has four FM wavebands in each geographical area. We are looking for competition in the independent radio sector, which competes with the BBC, although not for advertising. Perhaps I did not make that point clear.
I reiterate that if the radio company were allowed two hands, that would provide greater diversity. The second FM band would not compete with another news station or current hits stations but with an easy listening station.
Therefore, the market is not the monopoly that many Members of the Committee seem to think it is. The dominant player in any area is always the BBC. I shall withdraw the amendment and look forward to hearing what will he said at Report stage, when I shall probably return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: The Minister should remember that small radio stations, no matter how cuddly and lovely, will not survive. If there is to be new technology, one has to build up a few major players. Radio does not have highly capitalised companies. Even in companies such as Capital Radio the capitalisation is about £400 million.
We ask that the spirit of the other part of the Bill he extended to radio. Have confidence and courage and one will be all right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 144:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
COMMUNITY SERVICE LICENCES
(".—(1) Section 84(2)(a) of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After "restricted service")" insert "or—
(iv) for a defined locality and operated for the benefit of the community, or a particular section of the community, by a non-profit distributing body (a "community service").".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 144 and the following amendment deal with the future of community radio, a matter on which we had some discussion in relation to amendments moved last Tuesday. We may wish to return to the issue at Report stage, but in view of the pressure on time I shall not move the amendments.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 146:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
(".—(1) Section 20 of the 1990 Act (Duration and renewal of channel 3 licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for "four" there is substituted "five".
(3) Subsection (3) is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 146 is an important one. It is a significant piece in what might be described as a jigsaw of amendments that we shall discuss today. Taken together they seek to reshape the financial arrangements between Channel 4 and ITV, between the ITV companies and the ITC in terms of the renewal of their licences, and between the large ITV companies and the small ITV companies. The issues hang closely together, and it is a pity that the groupings do not allow us to discuss the whole area at the same time.
Suffice it to say at this stage, however, that one of the anomalies of the disastrous 1990 Act was that the timetables within that Act did not synchronise with each other. Under the Act the Channel 4 funding formula, which we shall consider later, can he reviewed and ended from January 1998. However, under that same Act the licences of the ITV companies cannot be reviewed and adjusted until January 1999 at the earliest. There is a glaring gap of a year in which the ITV companies could lose their subsidies from Channel 4

525
without any chance of relief from the terms of their licences from the ITC. For some of the ITV companies that is critical.
The solution appears to be simple. It is to move forward by one year from 1st January 1999 to 1st January 1998 the earliest time when the new ITV licences could start. That involves bringing the specified date forward by five years from the end of the licence period—2003—instead of the four years that are specified in the 1990 Act.
This is perhaps a deceptively straightforward amendment. By accepting it, the Committee will simply correct one of several anomalies of time which exist between the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the new Broadcasting Bill.
Whatever the outcome of the Channel 4 argument later in the proceedings on the Bill, this should be a commonsense and uncontroversial amendment to establish consistent review dates within the new legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I must first declare an interest as a director of the Channel 3 company HTV.
There is little that one need add after that admirable introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He rightly described the situation as a jigsaw. The companies which have the unenviable task under the bidding arrangements of looking 10 years ahead and forecasting a range of changing circumstances have to consider all kinds of things and bring the totality together to form a judgment about their bids. One of those elements is clearly the Channel 4 rebate. We shall debate that later and I do not want to anticipate that debate. However, some of the money coming to the companies has proved even more important than was realised when the Bill was originally drafted. Certainly, for those companies with relatively high bids it makes a significant contribution to income.
If part of the prospectus on which the bidding process was based is changed, it is right that the whole should he taken together. If a private sector organisation put forward a prospectus and suddenly changed the rules it would be subject to great criticism. Here we have a situation where it may be that, as a result of the review, the financial position of the companies will be substantially altered, perhaps in 1998, but because of the absurd anomaly in the original timing of the events there is no opportunity for them to have the contract reviewed in parallel with the change, whatever it may be.
All that is suggested in the amendment is that those two elements should be brought together. There is no attempt to suggest what the outcome of the review should be or to impose a solution. The purpose is merely to ensure that if a change arises in one part of the package a balancing change can be made at that time in another part of the package to provide a fair situation for all the companies involved. The case is overwhelming and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I too would like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson
526
of Monifieth. Inasmuch as the Bill as a whole seeks to provide a sensible framework for the future of British television, the amendment can only be regarded as extremely welcome. These are uncertain times for independent television. If the Government adhere to the timetable for re-evaluating Channel 4's finances, as I profoundly hope they will, then 1998 threatens even greater uncertainty.
My interventions on these issues of broadcasting policy are fired by a desire to maintain quality television. However, 12 months of limbo will do nothing for confidence in the industry at any level—from the boardroom to the studio floor. Moreover, tomorrow's critics have an uncanny knack of blaming today's legislators. I am told that good lawyers loathe anomalies. The Minister has a reputation for being a very good lawyer. I commend the amendment to him and rest my case.
Lord Donoughue: From this side we totally support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. It seems sensible and practical and I cannot see what the Government would have against adopting it.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, explained the purpose of his amendment as being a means of providing Channel 3 companies with greater certainty of income levels in the light of expected changes to the Channel 4 funding formula. As already noted, we shall discuss the formula later this evening. I do not wish to pre-empt that debate by going into detail now. However, there are certain objections in principle to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, proposes.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 was absolutely clear as to the duration of the Channel 4 funding formula which it set in place. It made clear that no order providing for different payment thresholds should be made before the end of 1997, as has been explained. The Act was also clear on the duration of the Channel 3 licences. They should continue in force for 10 years, with application for renewal no earlier than four years before the date of expiry.
In bringing forward our proposals to amend the 1990 Act formula, we have made clear that we do not think it right to change the rules applying to the flow of payments between Channel 3 and Channel 4 before 1997. To do that would be unfair. It seems to us that by the same token Channel 3 companies cannot have any specific expectation of arrangements applying after that date. It follows that there is no case for re-opening the timescale for licence renewal as set out in the 1990 Act.
However, there are more general arguments against the proposal to bring forward renewal of Channel 3 licences to five rather than four years ahead of their expiry date. At only halfway through the licence period, the ITC would be less able to make a fully informed assessment of the licensee's performance to date. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, himself who made that point during the Committee stage of what became the 1990 Act.
If licence renewal four years in advance of renewal leaves the ITC a short time in terms of assessing the quality of the licensee, leaving only five years of performance and removing the ITC's power to defer

527
consideration of the application seems to me significantly to erode the ITC's ability to assess the renewal of the licence properly.
As I mentioned, the amendment also proposes removing the ITC's discretion to defer considering an application for a licence renewal to a more suitable date. With the renewal of 16 Channel 3 licences to consider and with a variety of market interests affecting different regions, it is only prudent to permit the regulator the flexibility to assess the application at the most sensible time. For those reasons, we oppose the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I find that a deeply disappointing and in some ways rather baffling reply. In this major Broadcasting Bill we have probably the last piece of broadcasting legislation this century on such a scale. With it we have the chance to make a fresh start and put right the anomalies of the 1990 Act. Although that Act occurred under this Government, it was in a different mood. There is a fairly general feeling around, not entirely on this side of the Committee, that the 1990 Act has turned out in practice to be pretty disastrous. The bidding system for television contracts left grotesque anomalies between one regional area of commercial television and another.
We greatly welcome the noble Lord's presence at the Dispatch Box but he might have sought to ensure that we try to put right in the Bill some of the more glaring anomalies of the 1990 Act rather than stand on the arguments put forward during proceedings on that Act. They were poor arguments at the time and this is a chance to put matters right. I find astonishing the Minister's resistance to this simple example of at least getting two timescales to coincide with each other and enabling two parts of an integral commercial television system to be dealt with on an even footing. However, this is not the time to pursue such matters. There are many others related to them with which we have to deal tonight. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to say that I entirely agree with every word he said. So far as I am concerned, the 1990 Act is nothing to be proud of. My noble friend has been broadminded, and I hope that he will undertake at least to look carefully again at the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, does not say what he has just said without the backing of a great deal of experience and much thought.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. We shall certainly wish to return to the matter on Report when we shall be able to take all the interrelated issues as a whole depending on the outcome of matters later this evening. In withdrawing the amendment, I give notice that we shall return to it on Report.
Lord Inglewood: In the light of those remarks, I wish to assure the Committee that we shall pay considerable attention to what Members of the Committee said. They bring with them a considerable corpus of experience and expertise. We shall think carefully and reflect on what has been said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 146A:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES: LICENSING PROCEDURE
(". After section 45 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Non-domestic satellite services: licensing procedure.
5A. Section 44(4)(b) shall apply to a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service as it applies to a licence to provide a domestic satellite service.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the shortcomings of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and seeks to rectify them. The amendment would add a new paragraph under Section 45 of the 1990 Act bringing non-domestic satellite services into line with the provisions of the 1990 Act covering the BBC and Channel 3 licensees. It creates a fairer competitive playing field by setting similar standards for the commissioning of programmes from independent producers. Under Section 16 of the 1990 Act Channel 3 licensees are required to broadcast a range and diversity of independent productions for not less than 25 per cent. of the total allocated time. Section 186 extended that requirement to the BBC. Section 44(4)(b), to which the amendment specifically refers, extends that provision also to domestic satellite services. In a nutshell, what is missing from the 1990 Act is non-domestic satellite service providers. As such, BSkyB is exempt from the requirements of the 1990 Act.
BSkyB is covered by the 1989 European directive Television without Frontiers, which is currently being renegotiated, I gather. That directive requires 50 per cent. of the material to be of European origin and just 10 per cent. from independent producers. However, the directive does not cover sport. Amendment No. 146A is not specifically related to sports.
The definition of what is an independent production is covered by another order, the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991. I apologise for referring to specific pieces of legislation which are complex, but the issue is simple. It takes into account and changes the 1990 Act to cover non-domestic satellite services.
Under the 1991 order, independent producers must use their own facilities, not those of the broadcaster to whom they are selling their programmes. The broadcaster is not allowed to own more than 15 per cent. of shares of the independent producer. I suggest that this amendment would bring about a fairness that does not exist under the 1990 Act, nor under this Bill. There was an oversight in the 1990 Act. Domestic licensees—the BBC, Channel 3 and domestic satellite services—were covered quite specifically by the Act. The requirement was that 25 per cent. of their productions must come from independent producers.
The amendment must be acceptable, on grounds not only of competition but of equity. It must be in line with the declared policy of the Government on independent productions and the interests of diversity and high standards as introduced under the Bill.
Viscount Astor: This amendment concerns me slightly. As the noble Baroness quite rightly said, it amends the 1990 Act as regards non-domestic satellite services.
It should be remembered that the 1990 Act passed through this place before we had those satellite services. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, regards the 1990 Act as at the very least disappointing. However, the Act tried to look forward. In many ways it did so rather well, but it did not foresee what would happen in some areas.
There is a difference between non-domestic and domestic satellite services. The amendment would mean a non-domestic satellite service having to contain various European programmes and being subject to the independent productions order. That might be absolutely fine for BBC, ITV or Channel 4. But satellite broadcasters relay specialist programmes. They relay films, for example, and programmes in minority languages. They are highly specialist in the material they broadcast and are different from domestic services. We ought to think carefully before imposing restrictions on the material that could be broadcast. I believe that we all want the maximum opportunity to receive the programmes we want, or to turn them off, and not to have them restricted in this way. I understand the noble Baroness's concerns about the independent productions order and other matters. However, I am not sure that they should apply in these cases.
Lord McNally: It is interesting to hear a debate such as this. It reminds us just how quickly circumstances in broadcasting change. During the passing of the 1990 Act and thereafter, I was an adviser to the ITV Association. I therefore remember some of the current thinking about satellite broadcasting. It was a leap into the unknown on the part of those investing; namely, Mr. Murdoch and BSB. At that stage Members on all sides of this Chamber thought that in order to invite the courage needed to invest in satellite broadcasting, it was necessary to give the broadcasters a pretty free hand. For Mr. Murdoch to take on BSB to give us Sky broadcasting was in the circumstances, as has been acknowledged in this debate, a piece of commercial courage.
There comes a time, however, when commercial courage has been rewarded enough. There is no doubt that the strength and power of satellite broadcasting today and as we see it in the future demands of that service some of the responsibility and contribution to the overall benefit of broadcasting that terrestrial suppliers undertake. Ministers could well indicate that the period of grace for satellite broadcasting remaining outside some of the broader responsibilities is coming to an end. They could give fair warning to satellite
530
broadcasters that we intend, either by this amendment or by other means, to bring them into the family of responsible broadcasters.
Viscount Chelmsford: Perhaps I did not do sufficient homework, but I had assumed that BSkyB, as a UK company, was a domestic satellite service. Perhaps someone will correct me.
I do not see how a UK Act can possibly control services that may come to us from France, Germany, Holland, or other countries not within our jurisdiction. I therefore do not see how the amendment could be made to work.
Lord Donoughue: In particular reference to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, we need to focus on the basic principles. We are dealing with the need to encourage independent production and the need to support European production. The decision to exclude these particular satellites was not made on the principle that they are exempt from those imperatives; it was simply a matter of historical chance that they were not taken into account.
I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Now is the time to correct an anomaly. We do not mind that it was an anomaly; we do not mind that a particular non-domestic satellite producer has benefited greatly. That was an award for enterprise. However, that is over now, and we need consistency.
This amendment produces that consistency and the Act ought to contain it. It ought not to prolong a quite illogical exemption that runs contrary to the main imperatives that have to be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously. This is in no way a party issue; there is concern and support on many sides. It is not personally against any particular broadcaster. I should certainly be prepared to divide the House on this matter at another time.
The Earl of Stockton: I agree with Members on the other side of the Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, among others, will remember, during the Committee stage of the 1990 Act we were very close to introducing a threshold of penetration, at which time non-domestic satellite companies would come under the aegis of that legislation. It was agreed by those involved that a limit should be set by statute to reward enterprise, courage and ingenuity in setting up the system. For reasons beyond the control of this place, and certainly beyond my control, that was not to be.
As a consequence, instead of having a non-domestic satellite company outside the control of the Act and a domestic satellite company within the control of the Act, within a matter of days the two had merged. Indeed, discussions on that merger were continuing even as the Committee stage was held in this place.
Therefore the amendment is entirely reasonable. The penetration threshold of 14 per cent.—the number of households—discussed at that time and agreed by

531
executives of some of the principal companies has now been well surpassed. Now is the moment to bring the companies within the terms of the legislation.
Lord Desai: To respond to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, as the Minister may remember, I moved a similar amendment earlier, to bring about a level playing field, as we call it.
Once Sky had taken over BSB, the domestic spectrum had been sold to foreign broadcasters. Sky was transmitted to domestic receivers via Luxembourg. The domestic/non-domestic distinction in the 1990 Act has been overtaken by technology and by mergers. The amendment moved by my noble friend is therefore entirely appropriate to the present day.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful for your Lordships' concern about this matter, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who clearly spelt out the reasoning and effect of her amendment. Her desire to promote the European independent production sector, and the UK industry in particular, in the context of European programming content is admirable. However, I am not convinced that the requirements she seeks to impose are either practical or desirable.
We listened carefully to what has been said this afternoon and I should like to reflect on that. However, I shall explain what we see as the general position in relation to satellite broadcasting.
Both terrestrial and satellite channels are already hound by the terms of the 1989 broadcasting directive to secure, wherever practicable, 10 per cent. of their output from producers independent of broadcasters. Given the number of hours broadcast by the satellite channels, that is already a significant requirement. To seek to more than double that requirement by means of this amendment would not be in the interests of the broadcasting industry, especially when significant amounts of independent production for sports, news and game shows are excluded as qualifying towards the European quota.
I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about establishing a level playing field for the competition between BSkyB and the terrestrial channels. I fully understand what I imagine to be the thoughts behind his intervention. But the products of traditional terrestrial broadcasters and satellite broadcasters are not the same. The first and most important requirement for a new entrant satellite broadcaster is to establish the financial viability of his operation. Without access to terrestrial frequencies, that broadcaster needs to start from scratch to win access to the millions of homes which the terrestrial commercial broadcasters automatically reach with both their programme material and their advertising in support of it.
BSkyB is a good example of a much more developed and diverse broadcaster than many others. It is now able to expand and the company has introduced a number of new channels, such as the History Channel. Others, such as the documentary based Discovery Channel, also use significant amounts of European and independent
532
production content. Looking across the complete range of BSkyB channels, I am pleased to note that they seem comfortably to exceed the European broadcasting directive quota of 10 per cent. for independent European production.
We must not forget, however, that although BSkyB is the biggest satellite broadcaster it is not the only one. Satellite broadcasting is a growth area. At the end of 1992 there were some 42 channels. Today there are over 60. Some of the 42 are no longer in business. It is a high cost, high risk business which as yet attracts a total viewing audience of only 8.7 per cent. It is also a highly consumer-led industry, catering for specialised tastes. It needs to research its potential audiences very carefully. For some thematic channels, especially nostalgia movies, soaps or sport, the question of independent production quite simply does not arise. For others, such as those eight catering for non-European language populations, 25 per cent. would be an onerous and, indeed, impossible requirement.
We are comfortable with the existing obligations in the 1989 broadcasting directive precisely because they allow for a diversity of channels, and recognise the problems of new entrants, particularly where commercial and cost considerations are concerned. The flexibility allowed for in the current broadcasting directive has encouraged companies such as Turner Broadcasting to establish a European base in the United Kingdom. I would also like to think it plays a part in encouraging potential developments such as the one announced today of a £225 million international film and television studios and theme park to be opened by Warner Brothers and MAI at Hillingdon. Ten per cent. of independent programme content, where practicable on individual channels, in this rapidly expanding sector can only be good news for United Kingdom and European production companies.
I have taken a little time trying to explain the context of the satellite broadcasting industry as we see it. We believe that there is a real risk that if one imposes too high a threshold of the kind proposed in the amendment it may fail to draw broadcasters. That will be to the detriment of potential independent producers in this country and production of television material in Britain.
We must try to ensure that there is sufficient diversity of transmitters—if I can call them that—of television material that will create a market for the material produced in the United Kingdom. We are anxious not to put hurdles and barriers in the way of that happening in the form of driving away potential broadcasters who may use that material.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward lucidly this afternoon by Members of the Committee and hope that, in turn, the Committee will consider carefully the points I have put forward in order to explain my standpoint at this Dispatch Box.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: First, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate and the Minister for the detailed and considered way in which he responded to the amendment. However, I should like to comment upon one or two points that were made.

533
I feel that we sometimes tend to apply a higher threshold on our producers of television programmes than we apply to non-domestic providers. When we talk about small companies, it is worth looking at the annual turnover of some of our regional television companies, because this Act applies to them. I do not believe that equity comes into the equation. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that the amendment would restrict choice; that satellite is more specialised. That is not the intention of the amendment and I do not believe that would be the result if the Minister accepted it.
I heard the Minister's response and am not absolutely convinced by it. Before I conclude, I should like to refer specifically to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, who focused sharply on what the amendment means. At the moment we are discussing BSkyB, but the amendment is not aimed at BSkyB; it is aimed at non-domestic satellite services in the belief that when the Bill becomes an Act it may put us ahead of the game for once, which certainly was not the case in 1989. But the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, is absolutely right that Section 45 of the 1990 Act deals with the licensing of non-domestic satellite services. Section 44 deals with domestic satellite services. The difference between the two is that, whereas Section 44 requires the 25 per cent. from independent producers and the European origin content, Section 45 specifically does not. The amendment would bring Section 45 into line with Section 44 of the Act.
I shall reflect on what the Minister said and read Hansard carefully. I felt that there were some positive messages coming through. I may come back to the matter on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146ZA not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to restrictions on holding of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 146B to 150A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 151 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 151B and 151C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 152 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 152A to 152E not moved.]
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 80, line 1, at end insert ("relevant").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 153, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 154 and 157 to 161. Part III of Schedule 2 lists those services which are licensed by the commission and which are thus subject to various restrictions. The list is basically one of programme providers. However, paragraph 1(2)(f) extends the list to include local delivery services. In general the Bill recognises the difference between a programme provider and a delivery operator. Its restrictions as to the number of licences held and to audience share are aimed at programme providers, not at delivery operators. That recognises the interests of the
534
delivery operator which are to transmit material for as many different programme providers as possible. His competitors are rival delivery operators. He has no interest in preventing programme providers from broadcasting. It therefore came as a surprise to cable companies, whose trade is that of delivery operators, to find that, under paragraph 1(2)(f), they are included in the restrictive provisions. I understand that in discussions with the ITC they were reminded that they had editorial control of local advertising and also foreign non-European programmes delivered by them. I am told that they have in fact a statutory responsibility to vet such local advertising and that the only foreign programmes are from a Russian channel called Moskvar. It is arguable that those editorial responsibilities are so de minimis that the Government could delete paragraph 1(2)(f) entirely. Indeed, that would make everything very much simpler. However, the cable companies decided to ask for a more modest solution. Their association approached me to seek an amendment which would limit the effect of paragraph 1(2)(f) only to those situations where the cable companies act as programme providers. The amendments are drafted to achieve that.
At this point it is best for me to advise the Committee that I am a director of EURIM and that the CCA is a member, as are others from different parts of the broadcasting and communications world. However, I do not work for any cable interest; nor do I personally take any money from any party. I am moving the amendment because I was asked to and because it seems to me a reasonable thing to do, and not for any other reason.
The wording of Amendment No. 154, the principal amendment, may look complex; it is actually quite simple. It restricts the effect of paragraph 1(2)(f) to circumstances where the companies act as programme providers, using the definition for the licensed service set out on page 66, line 14, of the Bill. It uses the Government's own definition. I should add that without the amendment the industry will find itself double-counting audience time, once in respect of the programme concerned and again for the local delivery operator. Should the amendment be accepted, the other amendments in my name fall logically into place, including the deletion of references to the local delivery services on page 90, lines 38 and 51, in order to remove cable . companies from cross-media ownership restrictions.
In local delivery services the true competitors of the cable companies are MTL, the BBC's transmission arm, SES Astra and, perhaps sometime in the future, British Telecom. None is subject to restrictions about licences, audience share or ownership. My amendments seek to return the cable companies to the same position, a position which they have historically enjoyed. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend's amendments, Amendments Nos. 153 and 154, seek to meet the concerns of the cable industry about how audience shares are attributed to their services. I recognise that holders of local delivery licences usually transmit

535
programmes which are provided for them by other broadcasters as part of the programme service. As my noble friend pointed out, they are normally only held accountable for the content of any advertisements and any foreign satellite programmes they may relay which are not otherwise licensed for broadcasting in the United Kingdom. My noble friend's amendments seek to ensure that it is only these programmes which are included in the audience share attributed to the local delivery licence.
It has not been our intention that programme services provided to a local delivery service by another channel which holds a UK licence should count towards the cable service's audience share. In our view the drafting of paragraph 3(1)(a) of Part III of the schedule ensures that audience time attributable to a service would be produced,
"by ascertaining, in relation to every person who in that period watched any programme included in that service, the total amount of time he spent in that period watching programmes so included".
The wording means that if a programme is delivered as part of a licensable programme service, regardless of whether it is delivered by cable, satellite or terrestrial television, the watching of it will be included against that programme service and not against the local delivery service or, as the case may be, satellite service. In our view there is no question that a programme provided via, say, Channel 3 which is received through a local delivery service would count towards both the Channel 3 service and the cable service. If it is a Channel 3 service it will only count against that service regardless of the means of delivery. I hope that that reassures my noble friend and meets his point.
Perhaps I may talk briefly about the practice. The ITC is likely to use statistics provided for it by the Broadcasting Audience Research Board—BARB—which already provides viewing figures for the industry. These are gathered by means of a panel consisting of some 4,700 households spread geographically across the UK. The viewing of programmes by all members of the household over the age of four is recorded electronically by means of a so-called people meter, regardless of the means of delivery used. The figures provided for the viewing of BBC1, for example, reflect viewing by those who receive the signal through terrestrial as well as through local delivery service. Although in practice BARB is able to say what percentage of viewing of BBC1 was in cable and satellite homes, it would not be able to identify what viewing of that channel was attributable to each local delivery service.
We conclude that the amendments are not necessary as viewing of licensable programme services and other television channels which are delivered through cable will not be counted against that local delivery service. In fact, the effect of my noble friend's amendments would not be quite the one that I think he intends. In strict terms it would mean that the only programmes delivered through a local delivery service which could he counted towards audience share would be those for which cable companies were deemed to have editorial responsibility; namely, satellite services which were not licensed in the UK but were relayed by means of cable and the cable service's own advertisements. The result
536
would be that those people who chose to watch services like BBC, ITV or Sky but received them through cable would have to he discounted from the total television audience. That, in turn, would distort the overall picture and lead to the disappearance of audience share statistics for those programme services, such as, for example, Live TV, which are delivered exclusively through cable.
I appreciate my noble friend's wish to ensure that local delivery services are not subject to unnecessary regulation as they are essentially a means of delivery rather than a broadcasting service in their own right. However, to exclude them from the 15 per cent. audience share threshold altogether would open up a damaging loophole in our policy. As we believe the amendments are not necessary to protect the interests of local delivery licence holders—I hope I have reassured my noble friend about that—and as we believe that they do not achieve the objective that is intended, I ask my noble friend if he will consider not pursuing them.
Viscount Chelmsford: I thank the Minister for his reply, which was a long and detailed response on double counting. That was a side issue to my amendment, which was effectively asking the Government to look at delivery operators rather than service providers. I still hope that we may find some way to exclude cable companies from the restrictions that are put on service providers. I shall study what the Minister said. It may well be that I shall want to come hack to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 80, line 39, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: This part of the Bill deals with multiplexes. At present we suggest that it provides for an in-built potential monopoly situation if one person bids and receives licences for all three. At the moment, in the first stage of development of digital television and radio, six multiplexes will be available. One of those will go to the BBC, one to the independent companies such as ITV, including Channel 4 and S4C, and half to Channel 5, leaving three-and-a-half multiplexes.
We suggest that enables one person to develop immediately a monopoly situation. Against the background that we want pluralism and diversity, we suggest that the Bill as it stands is flawed. The amendment will reduce the number of multiplexes not from three to one but from three to two because we do not want to discourage digital television getting off the ground.
There is another factor. We are not yet clear about the strategic importance of multiplexes within broadcasting in this new digital age. We believe that we know the direction in which it is going but we arc not absolutely sure. The Government's proposals in the White Paper did not refer to three multiplexes being able to go to one purchaser. In fact, the Government probably

537
had it right originally in the White Paper when they spoke about establishing a maximum below three. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness who has clearly set out her concerns and explained why she is proposing that the maximum number of television multiplex licences that one person might hold at one time be reduced from three to two. The launch of digital terrestrial television will carry with it significant long-term investment. There will be six multiplexes initially and more may become available, perhaps with more restrictive coverage. Our original proposals were, as the noble Baroness said, to restrict companies to the ownership of two television multiplexes, ensuring thereby competition between at least three companies. However, consultation produced significant feedback from the industry that it would be necessary to allow companies to reap the maximum possible economies of scale from rolling out infrastructure from more than one multiplex. Many in the industry also argued that companies would only consider entering the market if they could see a prospect of controlling three licences. Indeed, many actually argued for a monopoly.
A higher ownership threshold would also allow multiplexes to develop a sufficient base of subscription television to enable them to make a reasonable return on their investment. We have taken these arguments on board. The revised limit of three multiplexes helps to make digital terrestrial television a better business proposition while continuing to ensure that there is some competition in provision to the benefit of broadcasters.
There is one point I should like to emphasise. There is no requirement under our proposals that there be only two providers altogether. However, our proposals allow the ITC the flexibility to bundle multiplexes in a way that might best result in the successful launch of digital terrestrial television. We have also taken powers in paragraph 5(3), which will allow the Government to respond to future developments in the market and to amend the position should that prove sensible, particularly as more multiplexes come on stream.
I am sure that we are in agreement on both sides of the Committee that it is important to ensure that digital terrestrial television is given every opportunity to succeed. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will now understand the thinking behind the change that we effected between the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I appreciate what the Minister says. We want to see digital television get off the ground. One must bear in mind that one multiplex can provide between two and 10 programmes. The Bill as it stands will put multiplexes out for licence and there will be criteria which the ITC will apply such as the area covered, the timetable, programme variety and fair competition. We have difficulty reconciling fair competition, on the one hand, with a company having a potential monopoly on the other, bearing in mind that licences for programmes are automatically awarded and do not have to meet a criteria as such in the Bill as it
538
stands. We believe that there is a danger here of a monopoly developing and that this amendment would avoid that. I heard what the Minister said and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): If Amendment No. 156A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 156C to 161ZG.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 88, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 93 and insert—
("Restrictions on links between newspaper proprietors and licence holders
2.—(1) A person who is the holder of a licence to provide a national or local service specified in sub-paragraph (2) below may not run, or become a participant in a body corporate which runs, a local or national newspaper—

(a) without the consent of the relevant authority, or

(b) if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that the running of the newspaper by the person who holds the licence or the participation (as the case may be) in question may be expected to operate against the public interest.

(1A) A person who runs a local or national newspaper may not become the holder of a licence to provide a national or local service specified in sub-paragraph (2) below or a participant in a body corporate which holds such a licence—

(a) without the consent of the relevant authority, or

(b) if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that the holding of the licence by the person who runs the newspaper or the participation (as the case may be) in question may be expected to operate against the public interest.

(1B) In any case—

(a) where—

(i) a person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies runs or is a participant in a body corporate which runs a local or national newspaper, or

(ii) a person to whom sub-paragraph (1A) above applies holds a licence to provide a national or local service specified in sub-paragraph (2) below or is a participant in a body corporate which holds such a licence; and

(b) there is an increase in any of the following—

(i) the level of that person's participation in that body corporate;

(ii) the aggregate market share of the newspapers in question;

(iii) the aggregate audience time attributable to the services in question (determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of Part III of this Schedule),

the relevant authority may refer that increase to the Monopolies and Mergers commission for investigation.
(1C) A reference may not be made under sub-paragraph (1B) above more than 3 months after the relevant authority first knew of the increase in question (or ought to have know from information available to it), but such a reference shall be made in anticipation of an increase within paragraph (b)(i) of that sub-paragraph if the participator makes a written request to the relevant authority for such a reference.
(1D) For the purposes of this paragraph the market share of a newspaper shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State which shall be laid in draft and approved by resolution of each house of Parliament before being made.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to the two amendments grouped with it, Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B, because they go together.
These amendments deal with the arrangements for newspaper owners to seek ownership of television companies. They deal with what is now popularly called the "20 per cent. rule". In these amendments I am seeking to remove that rule and I shall explain why in a moment or two.
Currently, under Schedule 2 of the 1990 Act there is the general rule that newspaper companies of whatever size should not have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a terrestrial television broadcaster or radio station. The new Bill changes that to reflect changing circumstances. We all recognise and accept that. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I am perhaps less starry-eyed than some who believe that by encouraging greater cross-media ownership and larger units in the media field we are going to create world-class companies and compete with the Warner Brothers and the Disneys of the global economy. I believe that there is a good deal of exaggeration about that. Nevertheless, circumstances have changed and we accept that.
National or local newspaper owners who want to own a terrestrial television or radio licence are now simply to be subject to a case-by-case public interest inquiry by the ITC, but only where the newspaper group in question has a newspaper market share of under 20 per cent. That does not seem to be logical and forms the objection of principle which I and other Members of the Committee have as regards Schedule 2, paragraphs 4 and 5 on pages 89 to 92 of the Bill. They use arbitrary limits to prohibit participation in markets which ought to he open to all unless—and I emphasise this—the public interest is adversely affected by any particular participation.
The Bill as it stands provides that any national newspaper group with more than 20 per cent. of the market cannot have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a Channel 3 licence, a Channel 5 licence or a radio licence, but any other newspaper can. According to my sense of fairness, it does not make sense that a national newspaper group with, say, 19 per cent. of the market may fully own such a licence, subject to the public interest test, whereas a group with a 21 per cent. market share must he banned absolutely from owning it, regardless of its good or bad effect on the public interest. Equally, it is nonsense to suggest that a participation level of 19 per cent. by one larger newspaper group may be allowed but that a group with a level of 21 per cent. should be prohibited absolutely. I do not see how one could regard such a system as anything other than arbitrary. It is difficult to see how the public interest can be adequately served by such a system.
We all know what we are talking about in practical terms. Only Mirror Group Newspapers and News International are affected by the prohibition in the 20 per cent. rule as they are the only newspaper groups with more than 20 per cent. of the national newspaper market. All other newspaper companies are free to
540
invest heavily in mainstream television, subject to the Bill's public interest test. Just two companies are being treated unequally. I hope the fact that I have tabled this and similar amendments will enable us to create a fairer situation all round. This is not a vendetta against Mr. Murdoch and all his works.
Returning to the specifics of the amendments, the first seeks to leave out the provisions which introduce the arbitrary 20 per cent. barrier, together with attendant definitions, and instead to make all licence holders and newspaper owners subject to a public interest inquiry. The requirement is that the ITC should first look at the situation and decide whether there should he a full MMC inquiry or whether it is plain that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the level of cross-media ownership in question. So where newspapers and television are involved, ownership changes would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the public interest and would be decided on their merits. It may be expected that where the level of participation is very low, the ITC will consent so that an MMC inquiry will not be required. Bringing all the players in the market within the public interest test will undoubtedly increase the level of the protection for the public interest, but it will also allow the industry to operate more fairly.
I can deal briefly with the second of my amendments. It is a technical amendment which seeks to replace the definition of "newspaper proprietor" although it is not intended to change the meaning from what is in the Bill at present.
The third amendment would allow participants or would-be participants to ask for clearance in advance so that they may know where they stand before investing large amounts of money in the business. Unlike the Government, I believe that the ITC should he required to come to a decision within a specified time. I have proposed a period of one month. I am not dogmatic about that, but I propose that there should be a time limit which provides just enough time to determine whether there is something which needs investigation. If investigation is needed, the matter is to he referred to the MMC within the one month allowed. The MMC will have three months to make its inquiry unless the Secretary of State allows an extension of time. I do not believe that the Government's attitude of allowing the ITC unlimited time to make its inquiry can be justified on any grounds.
The amendment also replaces some of the provisions in the Bill which provide for public interest inquiries. The replacement is necessary not because I disagree with the broad thrust of this part of the schedule, but because in my view the provisions are too narrow. I want to widen the scope of the inquiry to all players in the market and to have those inquiries carried out by the MMC.
On that point, perhaps I may deal with a slightly wider matter than the 20 per cent. rule and advise the Minister that I am concerned that the Government should make arrangements to have the public interest tests applied in the most rigorous and effective way. We were happy to hear the Minister confirm on Second

541
Reading that the Bill would be subordinate to the Fair Trading Act and the normal workings of the Office of Fair Trading. However, the fact of the matter is that there is some confusion about the provisions in this sphere in both the television and advertising industries as well as among the general public. There is a feeling that the audience share limits proposed in the Bill imply a potentially higher level of ownership than is likely under the competitive rules of the OFT. In moving Amendment No. 156A, I have dealt with a slightly wider point, but I should like to press the Government for further reassurance that anti-competitive positions will not be permitted.
In conclusion, the amendments would broaden the use of the public interest test for cross-ownership and, in doing so, would treat all companies equally and on a case-by-case basis. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in this amendment. It seems to me that it makes perfect sense in a very fluid series of interlocking media industries to say that the public interest should be the primary criterion—in fact, the only criterion—by which such matters are judged.
We are now moving from broadcasting to narrowcasting. We are moving from being providers of newspapers to being providers of data bases which may or may not be supplied down cables or wires or on surplus frequencies in the multiplex. The situation is such that the previous definitions with which we have been working will no longer be applicable in a far more immediate future than I suspect many of us are prepared to grasp. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment meets exactly the repeated concerns of your Lordships in these discussions by a very simple, and I think elegant, formula.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend has just made a rather convincing argument for an amendment; but I am not sure that his argument is relevant to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. This amendment is not about new technology or anything like that. It is simply about ownership. It seeks to amend the ownership schedule which deals with the 20 per cent. rule. I am sure that all of us consider that we do not want large concentrations of ownership in either the broadcasting industry or the newspaper industry; nor do we want an overlap of such a high concentration as to cause us concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in effect asked, "Why 20 per cent?" The answer is, "Why not?" because 20 per cent. is the percentage that we have lived with, as the noble Lord explained during the 1990 Act. Therefore, I do not accept the noble Lord's argument about unfairness arising to those with a market share of 21.1 per cent. as opposed to 19.9 per cent. It may be said that that is unfair but everybody, whatever side of the divide they are on, knows what the rules are. I do not think that it is sustainable to argue that there should not be a percentage rule because of that.
542
The Bill rightly says that broadcasting is special in this country. Broadcasting is not like any other industry. It has an influence on our society and nation which is out of due proportion to perhaps any other industry. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that. Therefore, in drawing up the Bill I think that the Government were right to say that there must be some restrictions on what is a fair percentage. I think that the Government got it exactly right with 20 per cent. because that will stop undue concentrations of newspaper ownership affecting television. It will allow plenty of people to operate in the market. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I do not think that his amendment is right and I hope that my noble friend will resist it. I am sure that he will have a convincing argument for doing so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: At a previous stage in this Committee, I referred to my interest in News International and News Corporation. If any noble Lord would like me to recite those interests again, I am happy to do so. They did not arise because of my membership of this House; I had them long before I became a Member of your Lordships' House.
I should like to support the amendment which I think provides a fair and sensible arrangement. Some things about News International have been forgotten. First, it has no regional newspapers, and so when one says that it has an undue proportion of readership of newspapers in this country, that is untrue. It is in fact in a small minority. Again, it has no consumer magazines which are widely read by all manner of people. News International has only 40 per cent. of Sky. It is a minority shareholder. It may be that Mr. Murdoch is an active 40 per cent. shareholder, or representative of that shareholding, and that is no doubt to the benefit of BSkyB, but it has only 4 per cent. of this country's TV audience. So it can hardly be said to be a monopoly, or that it should be restrained from competing, for example, with the BBC which has 44 per cent. of the country's viewing audience.
I do not want to labour those points, but it is clear that the Bill as framed is unfair to anyone who happens to be concerned with News International or News Corp. On reflection, perhaps the Government will consider accepting the amendment.
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may ask a general question in relation to the amendment. It relates to the relationship of the Bill to the Fair Trading Act. Why do we need conditions to be laid down in the Bill? Why cannot we just trust the Fair Trading Act to take care of the matter? There are concentrations of ownership. We have a mechanism under which the Office of Fair Trading can proceed. I ask the question out of curiosity, because I am somewhat confused. Why do we need to lay down these limits?
Lord Colwyn: I regret that I find the whole issue of the 20 per cent. rule bizarre and difficult to understand. For a start, I believe it to be unnecessary. A public interest test has already been expressly, although perhaps not perfectly, drafted into the Bill with the issue of cross-ownership between newspapers and broadcasters. It

543
is clear that that would suffice whatever the size of the newspapers involved. Why is the 20 per cent. rule there if a public interest test operates already? Its existence is artificial. I hope that this afternoon we shall not become part of a commercial battle.
Noble Lords opposite will try to change the 20 per cent. to a 25 per cent. rule in their Amendment No. 156E. Conveniently, the Mirror Group would then be excluded from its application. The reasons for any proposed change are not clear. Could it be that News International already has satellite TV so it deserves to be treated roughly? But the Mirror Group already has cable TV with its subtle and intellectually challenging news bunny. As far as I am aware, the Mirror Group is, and always has been, free to enter the satellite world as well.
The 20 per cent. rule business is a nonsense. I ask the Committee to look at its implications. Just two companies are affected by it as it stands at present—the Mirror Group and News International. It is the ownership of popular newspapers that they have in common that causes them to deserve this stigma.
If the 20 per cent. rule becomes the 25 per cent. rule, News International only is affected because of its ownership of the Sun. In fact, any owner of the Sun would be caught because of its circulation. Effectively, we should be punishing the Sun for being too good. It may not be my cup of tea; it may not be that of Members of the Committee. So its circulation figures are not our fault, but nor are they the fault of the owners. They are, I am afraid, the fault of the readers.
Successful circulation figures would thus keep News International out of mainstream TV which all other newspapers can get into. Perhaps the Mirror Group has thought of that too. It cannot make sense for a newspaper group to have to get its circulation figures down below a threshold to avoid this absurd success penalty. Unless steps are taken to get a newspaper's market share down to below 20 per cent., one can still buy only 20 per cent. of one ITV company. It is all very different if one has 19 per cent. That is about the total market share of every British national broadsheet paper—dailies and Sundays—put together.
If one has 19 per cent. one can buy TV companies up to an overall audience share of 15 per cent. I am not sure whether that is in line with the Government's views on plurality. But let us remember that it is no longer a share of one company; it is a share of the total television audience. That makes a huge difference.
One percentage point more and one has the automatic imposition of these strict limits slapped upon one. One percentage point less and one can have a substantial newspaper and television business.
There are many companies with huge media interests which will not come within the 20 per cent. rule, because the combination of media which they own happens not to offend that rule. Pearson or the Daily Mail, to name but two, are excellent and successful companies, but just because their interests are spread around all the different sectors of the great media market far more widely than News International—magazines, regional newspapers, terrestrial channels, and cable
544
radio—they are not subject to these whimsical and arbitrary rules. They will be subject only to the public interest test just like everyone else.
Even the live TV news bunny would find it hard to smile if the 20 per cent. rule disappears. It is unnecessary, unfair and inefficient. I hope that my noble friend will consider the amendments carefully. They would treat everyone equally and allow the MMC to apply a public interest test. At the same time, I hope that when the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, come up, we shall reject them.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: As I have not had an opportunity previously to take part in debates on the Bill, I have to declare a direct interest in the matter as one of the six independent national directors of Times Newspapers which is a subsidiary of News International. In that role, my responsibilities relate to five titles only—The Times and the Sunday Times and the three educational and literary supplements. I suspect that were they to be produced by the BBC they would be described as an example of public service publishing. Yet the circulation of those five papers, for example, contributes towards the market share that rules out, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, News International from certain capabilities in the broadcasting field.
I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said that these matters can be left to the ordinary processes of fair trading, the MMC, and all of that. I strongly oppose the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He seemed to say that we should perpetuate controls and restrictions. He did not quite come to the rationing of newspaper readership into the indefinite future.
At later stages, if there is an opportunity, I might refer to an extensive piece of research conducted in 1994, I think, by Arthur Andersen, which had a sample of 30,000 for some parts of the survey. It looked at the average time devoted by people to watching television, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers. That is a single market for information, news, entertainment and so forth.
The conclusion was that watching television occupied 60 per cent. of the average weekly time devoted to those activities; listening to radio accounted for 28.5 per cent; newspapers, in total, took 9 per cent.; and magazines a mere 2 per cent. We are becoming too excited about the modest role played by newspapers—dominance, press barons and all that stuff—which reflects the old party political knock-about which I was so glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, scrupulously avoid.
As I said in my original remarks, my contribution to this debate relates to my experience during the past six or seven years as an independent director of Times Newspapers. The Times is run wholly separately and independently under its editor and the hoard has no regulation. The job of an independent director is to ensure that the editorial process is wholly removed from proprietorial pressure. The same applies to the Sunday Times and the three supplements under their editors.

545
I have not mentioned the Sun. Ownership of the Sun alone would put any newspaper publishing company beyond the pale, according to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, because the Sun, over which I have no influence or control, has more than a 20 per cent. share of the national readership. Indeed, the Daily Mirror titles have more than a 20 per cent. share. I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
Lord Inglewood: The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as he fairly said in his opening remarks, taken together would alter fundamentally the way in which we intend to regulate cross-holdings between newspapers and broadcasters. They would remove the market share limits which we intend to set for both national and local newspapers, and for broadcasters investing in newspapers. Instead, regulation would be reliant upon the application of the public interest test alone. Under these proposals, it would he for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to determine whether a proposal was in the public interest. The revised public interest test would apply not just to the control of broadcasters by newspaper groups and vice versa, but also to participation by way of minority shareholdings.
With the agreement of the Committee, I wish to explain the Government's position and to comment on some of the points arising from the noble Lord's amendment. I wish to deal first with the removal of the newspaper market share thresholds. The current rules prevent any national newspaper group from owning more than a 20 per cent. stake in holders of licences to provide a Channel 3 service, a Channel 5 service, a domestic satellite service and national radio services. These restrictions will be relaxed in the Bill but the core concept at the heart of our policy allowing greater cross-holdings between media is that those who enjoy a position of dominance in the national newspaper market—we believe that this is a distinct phenomenon from local newspaper markets—should not also be allowed to become dominant broadcasters and vice versa. Uniting the leading sources of the national news agenda with the most potent sources for influencing opinion through broadcasting, carries the risk of concentrating too much power in the hands of one organisation. The proposed 20 per cent. market share threshold for national newspapers will continue to prevent those exceeding the threshold from controlling licences to provide a Channel 3 service, a Channel 5 service, a domestic satellite service and national or local radio services. The 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. thresholds for regional and local newspapers will prevent the most dominant newspaper groups from controlling broadcasters operating in the same region. They do not, however, prevent them from entering the television or radio market altogether.
I do not believe that it would be right to allow newspaper acquisitions of broadcasters to be entirely dependent on the judgment of the broadcasting regulators and the MMC. There must as a matter of public policy, which it is right for Parliament to decide,
546
be a cut-off point above which a newspaper group is simply too big to be allowed to become one of the more powerful broadcasters as well. Similarly, it must be right that large regional newspaper groups should not be able to secure a more dominant position in a particular region through ownership of the regional Channel 3 service, or local radio licences, without Parliament setting an appropriate threshold.
I am not persuaded, therefore, that it is right for us to abandon the market thresholds for newspapers and simply to rely on the public interest test. Clear thresholds provide a measure of certainty for the industry, which the simple reliance on a public interest test would remove. They will also insulate the regulators from special pleading and other pressures that may be brought to bear on them if there is no threshold.
On the public interest itself, the Government concluded, after consultation, that it was right for the broadcasting regulators to retain their role in determining whether a company should become a licence holder. Both the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have a considerable understanding of the media industry. We concluded that they would best be able to judge where the public interest lies in protecting plurality and diversity, which is at the heart of the test we propose. We would expect that, in applying the other elements of the test, which involve economic considerations, the broadcasting regulators will consult the Office of Fair Trading. We have not made this a requirement in drafting the test because we understand that in practice, the ITC, the Radio Authority and the OFT keep in touch with one another on matters of policy involving broadcasting and economic considerations. We did not therefore need to compel them to do what is already their standard practice.
I am also concerned that these amendments would extend the public interest test to participation by way of minority shareholdings. In the Government's view, this would only add bureaucracy and reduce transparency. If there is a case for applying the public interest test to participation, and I am not persuaded that there is, there is little point in applying it to stakes below the level at which shareholders might be regarded as being able to exert a material influence. We intend to bring forward revised proposals for regulating secondary holdings, but these will be based on absolute limits and will not involve a public interest test.
I should also add that the noble Lord's amendment envisages a number of circumstances in which a group's holdings in newspapers and broadcasters could be referred to the MMC for consideration; namely, if it increases its levels of participation, its aggregate share of the newspaper market, or its aggregate share of audience time. This would mean that even where a company had acquired a licence or a newspaper it would still face the continuing uncertainty of having to satisfy the public interest test as its circulation or audience levels rise. That would undermine the ability of media companies to plan their business. The test proposed in the Bill is intended to be a one-off test, applied on the

547
acquisition of a newspaper or broadcaster, not one which can be applied continually as and when market shares increase.
We do not see that the sole authority which the noble Lord proposes for the MMC in applying the public interest test is desirable. We consider that the ITC and the Radio Authority are better able to judge matters of plurality and diversity in broadcasting, which are central to the objectives of this Bill and to the separate broadcasting industry ownership regime. The formal involvement of the MMC in this process would, in the Government's view, serve only to complicate the regulatory structure through the addition of another regulatory body in the process of determining whether a newspaper group should be allowed to become a licence holder.
I wish to turn to a point raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson; that is, that media ownership regulation in no way inhibits the normal operation of competition legislation. That is absolutely clear. In responding to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, we believe that, first, we have competition legislation which is intended to regulate competition and is based on economic considerations of what is involved in a commercial sense. In addition—and I have made this point on a number of occasions in this Chamber—we believe that the media are so important, because of their effects on the way in which people in this country obtain information and the relationship between the media and democracy and so forth, that it is appropriate to have a different set of rules which overlie the generally applied competition policy rules for the reasons I have just described.
Should a merger between a newspaper group and a broadcaster fall to be considered under competition legislation then, of course, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading and, where appropriate, the MMC will have a role in determining whether that merger should proceed. But in such a case, the OFT and MMC would primarily be concerned with the economic consequences of the proposal and not with questions of plurality and diversity.
The amendment also provides the Secretary of State with powers to determine the method by which newspaper market share is to be calculated. In bringing forward this Bill we have made it clear how we think newspaper market share should be calculated by including the method on the face of the Bill. I see no advantage in leaving this to be determined by order. On the contrary, I can envisage that winners and losers would be constantly lobbying the Secretary of State to change the method of calculation for the benefit of their newspaper business. I think it is better that such rules for calculation remain on the face of the Bill.
In this rather long contribution to the debate I have endeavoured to set out the Government's stall. It is important to have an upper threshold beyond which the most dominant newspaper groups should be prevented from also becoming dominant broadcasters, while at the same time remaining free to develop broadcasting
548
interests in emerging markets. It is right that Parliament should set that threshold rather than leaving it for the regulators to determine.
The ITC and the Radio Authority are best placed to consider matters of pluralism and diversity which are at the heart of the public interest test and, where appropriate, they will consult the OFT on economic considerations. We see no need to have the formal involvement of the MMC in applying the public interest test. But where a merger falls to be considered under normal competition legislation, the MMC will continue to consider medium mergers where appropriate.
The noble Lord's amendments would effectively remove the distinctive role which the ITC and the Radio Authority play in policing ownership in the broadcasting industry and the distinctive system of controls which recognises the uniqueness of that industry.
6 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I listened with great interest to what he said. His government is the champion of deregulation, the market knows best and free competition. Why, then, does he propose to shackle one of the most successful competitors in the country instead of leaving it to carry on in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and leaving it to the public interest? Why should he also shackle the Daily Mirror? That is an unreasonable point of view too.
Lord Inglewood: I was endeavouring to explain to the Committee that we believe it right, when dealing with the media, to take into account the fact that the media are unlike any other industry. As I said, they play such an important part in our lives in respect of providing information and as an important element in the background to our democracy. As I explained, against that background, so far as the business and economic aspects of those industries are concerned, we believe that the general rules, as practised right across the board in respect of competition policy, should apply.
However, as I also said—it is entirely consistent with the Government's position and, I believe, equally consistent with the generality of the policies advocated by the parties on the Benches opposite—we believe that the media cannot simply be left to find their own level in a marketplace which is regulated by competition policy alone because of the implications for everybody in society that I described. That is the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
I have tried to explain the position from which the Government have come, in order to reach the proposals that are contained in the Bill. In giving that exposition, I very much hope that I have clarified the position and, needless to say, equally hope to have convinced all those who expressed dissent or doubt about some aspects of the policy.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am, like other Members of the Committee, very grateful for the way in which the Minister so fully and carefully explained government policy. It sets out the whole background to the issues that I raised. He gave a detailed account and

549
raised a number of matters to which I had not previously given thought. In deciding whether or not to carry the arguments further at a later stage in the Bill, I shall certainly want to study carefully what he said.
The noble Lord mentioned the local situation. I deliberately did not apply myself to that. I think, from what he said, that I totally agree with him about the considerations that affect a regional newspaper owner acquiring a dominant position in a region or television company. Effective action has to be taken to prevent that.
On the national newspaper scene there are wider considerations. I fully take the points made about the problem which arises whenever a percentage is established; namely, that some people are on the right side and some people on the wrong side of it. But the national newspaper scene is, in a sense, one with a small number of very substantial newspaper groupings. It still seems to me rather unfair that, because of the percentage rule, two of them should be absolutely debarred. For that reason I felt that a rigorous public interest test, through the ITC and the Radio Authority in the first place and then through the OFT and MMC, might be the better way to proceed.
I shall think carefully about the Minister's comments. I profoundly agreed with one remark when he almost seemed to say that whatever happened, there would be any amount of special pleading from other interests. My goodness, after some weeks of this Bill, we are all aware of that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 156C:
Page 88, line 38, leave out ("national").
The noble Lord said: We have now entered the Schedule 2 world of ceilings of 15 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent. and 50 per cent.; of shares of audience time; of advertising and circulation; of the national, regional and local; and of point systems beyond my capacity to calculate. I was tempted first to move an amendment to the effect that any errors of ceilings, shares or points by either side in this debate should tactfully not be referred to by the other side. On that basis I hope that we can proceed.
I do not believe that I have any interest to declare, since I have no outside earnings from the Mirror or anywhere else. But a typical modern journalist—the Committee will know what I mean by that—took the trouble to telephone me and assert that I had tabled these amendments because five years ago I worked for the then proprietor of the Mirror (though he had nothing to do with the present Mirror and I never worked for the Mirror under that or this management). So I mention that because the minds of many journalists are occupied with such conspiracy fantasies.
The amendments in my name follow from the general points made by my noble friend Lord Thomson in Amendment No. 156A. He argued against the percentage ceilings and sought to rely on the public
550
interest test. I do not go so far. As I said before, we understand the Minister's concern and the fact that broadcasting is different. I refer him again to my earlier amendments strengthening the public interest obligation. We shall come back to that because the stronger the public interest obligation, the less agitated we need to be about various ceilings. In my amendments I seek to loosen the ceilings. Above all, I am concerned with the discrimination, mentioned by others, against one group; namely, the Mirror group.
By picking on the arbitrary threshold of 20 per cent. and using the single market determinant of national share, the Bills ends up discriminating against the Mirror. In principle, though it is in fact theoretical, it also discriminates against News International. But that is not discrimination that has any practical effect because News International is not banned from entering television. It already has a giant television business. I understand that it probably does not wish to expand into terrestrial because it would soon hit the 15 per cent. ceiling limiting its growth in satellite.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Is the Mirror in any way banned from entering satellite television?
Lord Donoughue: I said from entering terrestrial television.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: But the noble Lord also said that a combination of the two was unsatisfactory.
Lord Donoughue: We know that the Mirror Group is not banned from entering satellite. It has other constraints on entering satellite, but that is not what I mentioned. We are discussing terrestrial and loosening the cross-media ownership rules in relation to terrestrial and especially ITV Channel 3. I am talking about that. The amendment bans the Mirror Group from entering that.
It is also arbitrary to treat national newspapers as one sector separate from local newspapers. I can see the practical effect because the moment the two are treated differently the Mirror Group, looking at the national share, is above 20 per cent. I do not believe that it is necessary or logical to separate the two. In fact, they compete with one another in the same sector. If they were treated as one newspaper sector as national and regional television, for audience share, is treated as one sector, the Mirror Group would have less than 15 per cent. of the total.
The Bill liberates other newspaper groups—United News and Associated. If the purpose is liberation, why not liberate the Mirror Group? Why should that one group, among newspapers the largest supporter of the Labour Party, be shackled? That is the main thrust of my approach. I do not think it correct that we should support a Bill which discriminates against one group.
I ask the Minister whether the Government are confident that their proposals in relation to the Mirror Group would survive legal challenge? The removal of restrictions on cross-media ownership among newspapers does not apply to the Mirror; in fact both the Mirror and News International continue to be affected. I have said why I think News International and Sky are

551
in a different category. I ask the Minister whether he is aware—I suspect he is—that it is senior Queen's Counsel opinion that the restrictions on the Mirror in the Bill constitute interference with the Mirror Group's rights to freedom of expression under Article 10(1) of the European convention of rights. Legally, to justify the Government's discrimination under the convention it would have to be shown that the proposed restriction advances "a pressing social need" in what is called "a proportionate manner"; otherwise, such discrimination is not allowed or justified in a democratic society.
When Article 10 is read together with Article 14 of the convention, such discrimination seems again to be unlawful in that it constitutes what is there described as arbitrary discrimination. Given the arbitrary mechanical mechanism imposed, given the lack of pressing social need, which is the justification required by the convention, and given the severe practical impact on the business health of the Mirror Group, I suspect that the Government will have difficulty in justifying that discrimination under the convention. That is particularly so because under the convention special care is specifically required when assessing the justification of those particular restrictions on Opposition media. I believe that the Government are in even greater difficulties in that regard. I see no justification for such constraints and suggest that there are serious grounds for legal challenge under the convention.
In that context, I suggest that the Government should look seriously at what I propose. I suggest either that they should not proceed with the 20 per cent. provision until they are absolutely confident that they will not be challenged legally or that they adopt my amendment to raise the ceiling to 25 per cent. which would let in the Mirror Group and therefore not activate the legal challenge.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Why would it enable the Mirror Group to make a legal challenge under the European convention but not Sky and News International?
Lord Donoughue: I sympathise with what the noble Lord says. I suspect that News International might have grounds for challenge but at present it would not benefit from the extra thrust in the convention dealing with Opposition media since News International has for some time not come into that category. It had an excellent newspaper in that category—Today—but chose to close it. In what I am saying I am certainly not opposing News International. I am sure that it will wish to look at the matter and if it succeeds I wish it all luck.
Specifically, Amendment No. 156C, which seeks to leave out the word "national", would remove the artificial distinction between the prices of national and local newspapers. It would require the national market share to be judged against the total circulation of all national and local newspapers sold or distributed free of charge. That is the practical market definition which would be best and which would leave the Mirror Group within the ceilings to expand into Channel 3.
Amendments Nos. 156E and 156G, which I wish to take with this amendment, lift the ceiling from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., thus removing the
552
discrimination. Taken with the national change, that would leave the Mirror Group comfortably within the ceiling and might conceivably bring in News International too. That is quite acceptable to me, as it is to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. These measures would be arbitrary and unfair, as he described. As my noble friend mentioned in referring to learned counsel's briefing, they are susceptible to legal challenge under the proportionality and non-discriminatory effect of the human rights provisions of the European convention.
My noble friend mentioned the problems of Opposition newspapers. It is interesting that learned counsel says that it is likely that the Department of National Heritage has not given consideration to those anxieties. If there is a very powerful case to be made in support of the Bill and against my noble friend's amendment, the Government need to answer the points made by my noble friend concerning the opinion of learned counsel on these matters. What the Bill proposes is susceptible to legal challenge under the European convention rules. If the amendment is not agreed, it seems important that the Government should justify in precise terms their rejection of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Desai: I return to a point I made earlier to which the noble Lord did not give a reply. I wish to continue to question him. It is obvious now that a 20 per cent. limit is arbitrary, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. If the ceiling is raised to 25 per cent., it helps one organisation but not another. Clearly, the Government believe that the media are so special that their competition policy needs extra help and an extra belt and braces arrangement which is not needed elsewhere. The Government may be happy for one to eat dangerous food which harms one's health but the media require special attention.
I would like to know why the figure of 20 per cent. has been chosen. Why do the Government feel that above 20 per cent. there is scope for arbitrary power and great domination while that is not the case below 20 per cent.? Without any particular bias to anybody, I suggest that the Government should think of a combined measure of all-media ownership—newspaper and television—either in terms of readership or the amount of time spent by people watching television or whatever.
We need some sort of overall measure which would cover not just newspapers, television and radio but also whatever other media one can think of. We should look at market power in that way. We could then say that competition policy requires us not to have too much concentration from that point of view. If we take 20 per cent. from one medium and use it to restrict ownership in another, I believe that we will run into rather arbitrary thresholds which have no economic logic whatever.
The Earl of Stockton: Following on from what the noble Lord said, can my noble friend the Minister say

553
why 25 per cent. should apply? It is another arbitrary figure which may have been chosen for reasons of mathematical ingenuity or, indeed, for personal taste in popular literature, and so on. I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Stevens is in his place, but unhappy to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, is not present in the Chamber. However, there is a possibility that their great new media empire will grow to that larger size. Indeed, there are other newspaper proprietors who have proved in the past that they can be successful and there are other television proprietors who, equally, might wish to buy newspapers. What is the magic of any of these numbers, other than pulling something out of the air? Are we in the business of legislating by pulling numbers out of the air? I trust not.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps I may point out that the Minister admitted that we are discussing an absolutely one-off percentage. The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hollick, may be immensely successful in their merger and the percentage of the Express Group rise to 22 per cent. or 23 per cent. If it has managed to get into the television business in the meantime, it will be there; it will not be debarred. This is an extraordinarily arbitrarily method of dealing with such problems.
Lord Inglewood: We are now dealing with a technical matter, and I should like to respond to the noble Lord's point. I should make it clear that the one-off application of the test relates to the public interest test as we have defined it, not to the thresholds. If groups are below the threshold and are potentially capable of coming together in terms of mergers which involve newspapers, it is necessary to satisfy the additional public interest test. It is a one-off test. If, subsequently, the proportion of the national newspaper market obtained by the particular newspaper in question were to rise above the threshold, that would trigger off the consequences.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps the Minister can further clarify the matter. Would it mean that, after the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hollick, have been outstandingly successful and the Express Group has gone beyond the 20 per cent. barrier, they would then need to divest themselves of either a newspaper or of their television holdings?
Lord Inglewood: That is correct. If they breach the mathematical test in such a way, that would be the case. In order to merge at all after the Bill has become enacted, it will be necessary to satisfy the public interest test to which I referred because of the involvement of a national newspaper. As I said, that is a one-off test. Thereafter, there is still the question of remaining below the threshold, whatever that might be. That will depend upon what Members of this and another place decide.
Perhaps I may now respond to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for approaching the matter from an essentially enumerative perspective, although I wish that he had told us to which amendments he was speaking
554
as he did so. The amendment seeks fundamentally to change the entire basis of our system of cross-media ownership controls, by comparing like with patently unlike. In our view, it is quite ludicrous to suggest that the Sun is equivalent to the Keswick Reminder. For those Members of the Committee opposite, I should point out that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and probably the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be able to tell them about the latter, which is a local newspaper.
Of course, it is true that in market terms there is an overlap between national newspapers and those which are primarily local or regional. But, as I have consistently said throughout our debates on this schedule, we are not concerned in broadcasting legislation to regulate the operation of markets as such, particularly markets in newspapers. That is a matter for competition policy. Broadcasting legislation has, rightly, only sought to regulate newspapers seeking to buy into broadcasting. Newspaper markets and advertising markets are regulated under the normal operation of competition law, as I have already said. What concerns us in this context is the interaction between publications and broadcasters which play a key role in determining and debating the national news agenda. The local and regional newspapers pay little or no part in that process. Quite simply, I cannot accept that we should include them in the threshold calculations because to do so is self-evidently absurd, as I have already intimated.
Whatever the configuration of the media markets, there are substantially distinct national and sub-national news agendas, and plurality and diversity are separately desirable in each. Carlton and Central between them carry the ITV network to approximately 28 per cent. of TV homes. That ITV network is a major commentator on the national news for those viewers—viewers who form part of a national population where the Mirror Group has around 22 per cent. of national newspaper circulation. Similarly, the Mail Group has just under 68 per cent. of local circulation in the South West. It is equally undesirable for that group to have control of the West Country regional Channel 3 franchise. Similarly, again, the Guardian Media Group holds 27.8 per cent. of the newspaper market in the Manchester area. At that more local level it is wrong for them to own the dominant local radio station in Manchester. That is because democracy and public affairs operate at different levels—national, regional and local—and it is important that the citizen has some choice of independent sources of information. It is for those reasons that I am not persuaded of the merits of Amendment No. 156C.
I move on to deal with Amendments Nos. 156E and 156G. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to certain specific provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have not taken specific legal advice on those points, but it is not intended that the provisions we introduce will discriminate. We have explained the social policy and thrust behind them and arc confident that they are defensible.
I am aware of counsel's opinion to which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred. If Members of the Committee would like us to form a considered

555
opinion on that advice, the first condition that would have to be met would be the provision of a copy of such an opinion. I leave that thought with those concerned.
Whatever else can be said about our proposals, I should point out that we are not proposing a regime which is arbitrary—and I use that word in the sense that it is capricious. Our regime is inherently not arbitrary because the rules will be set in place and it will be possible for all those who wish to do so to ascertain the current position.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made it quite clear that his amendment which seeks to increase the newspaper market share threshold from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. is intended to address a wrong that he perceives in the exclusion of the Mirror Group from controlling licences to provide Channels 3 and 5 and radio services. As Members of the Committee will know, the Bill currently prevents any national newspaper group from owning more than a 20 per cent. stake in the holders of such licences.
With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may to a slight extent go over some of the remarks that I made previously. The position that we have adopted in allowing greater cross holdings between media is that those who enjoy a position of dominance in the national newspaper market should not also be allowed to become dominant broadcasters, and vice versa. As I explained, uniting these two sources for influencing opinion carries the risk of concentrating too much power in the hands of one organisation.
The 20 per cent. market share threshold was set after careful consideration of conditions in the market. It was not devised—and I must emphasise this point—because of its impact on any particular group or groups. Therefore, our proposals do not single out the Mirror Group. The latter are caught by provisions not because of who they are, but because of their ability to influence opinion. The group, in terms of its ability to reach the public, is the second largest national newspaper group in the United Kingdom after News International. The position we start from is that we are talking about national newspapers in this context. I want to be sure that the Committee is clear about that. That is our starting point in the consideration of these matters.
As I have already explained, media ownership regulation is about protecting the public interest in pluralism and diversity. The regime we propose seeks to ensure that we shall continue to enjoy the provision of news, information and entertainment from a wide variety of sources. It does not seek to regulate competition in the overall media marketplace because the ordinary mechanisms for securing fair competition—for which the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading are responsible—apply to the media just as they do to other industries.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said that the figure of 25 per cent. is used for the purposes of regulating competition in markets. However, the point here is that we are not talking about regulating competition. The basis of the separate broadcast licence regulation system is precisely that, in broadcasting,
556
levels lower than 25 per cent. of market share can affect plurality and diversity if they are allowed to control other sources of influence, whether within a particular medium or across the media as a whole. This is the approach which we have adopted throughout the Bill with a 15 per cent. audience share for the powerful broadcasting media and 20 per cent. circulation for the influential local and national newspapers; these being the levels that we believe represent the current tolerable levels of concentration.
Despite the 20 per cent. threshold, the Mirror Group will still be free to expand into cable, as it has already done, and to enter the satellite market, as indeed it is free to do now. It can do this either by setting up new businesses or by taking stakes in existing businesses. It is also free to establish itself as a programme provider through the independent production sector and to acquire stakes of less than 20 per cent. in those broadcasters it is forbidden to control. The Bill also—as we discussed at some length on a previous occasion—will create a new opportunity for the group in digital terrestrial television broadcasting.
The Government believe that the 20 per cent. threshold is right and have not been persuaded by any of the arguments which have been advanced so plausibly for raising it to 25 per cent.—or for that matter setting it at any other level. It would in our view be wrong to raise the threshold merely to benefit one particular media group. If any one group thinks that it is essential for it to be allowed into Channel 3, it is open to it to devise a strategy that will bring it below the 20 per cent. threshold. After all, is Paris worth the Mass? I hope that I have explained clearly and comprehensively the basis of our position in this regard and why we disagree with those on the Benches opposite in this matter.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, replies, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to answer one question. He said that the Government have imposed an arbitrary threshold. Does he not accept that any threshold by its nature h8 to be arbitrary? That is the nature of thresholds. What matters is that that threshold is based on good sense and sound logic, which I believe the 20 per cent. threshold is. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 156G which seeks to raise the threshold from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. is exactly the opposite of sound logic because it would include one dominant newspaper chain and exclude another dominant newspaper chain. Is that not even more arbitrary and even more unfair—in his words—than the Government's position? The noble Lord must reply to those points to enable his amendment to make any sense.
Lord Donoughue: All the figures are arbitrary, but the 20 per cent. was chosen arbitrarily by the Government. I have heard nothing to explain that other than that it is a mechanism which happens to exclude two newspaper groups. However, one of those already has a strong presence in television but the other one does not. Therefore the impact is differential in that sense. I listened to the Minister's reply but I still did not detect

557
any basis for this discrimination. I understood that if an organisation does not pass the 20 per cent. threshold it is excluded from the measure. However, I did not hear an argument for maintaining this discrimination.
I heard that the Minister had not taken legal advice. I do not propose to let him see the legal judgment because, as he will be aware, something like one-third of Members of another place comprise lawyers. We in this place are led by lawyers in all directions. Therefore I feel it is prudent on my part to generate as much business for the trade as possible. I suggest to the Minister that by the time we reach Report stage he and the department should have taken their own legal advice. I hope he will then tell us whether what I believe to be true is the case; namely, that what he has mentioned is legally unsustainable. That is of great significance. If it is legally unsustainable, we should not be spending parliamentary time enacting a measure which will be shown, after a long and expensive process, to have no legal basis. It is important for us to make sure that what we are doing is proper. My amendments should be grouped logically together. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is as solicitous for the interests of lawyers as he is for the Mirror Group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 156DA:
Page 89, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below").
The noble Lord said: I propose, with the Committee's indulgence, to speak also to Amendment No. 156GD which is grouped with Amendment No. 156DA. Amendment No. 156GD seeks to insert the following new subsection:
"Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) shall not apply to prevent any newspaper proprietor controlling a body corporate which holds any licence unless a reference of that newspaper proprietor's control of that licence holder has been made under paragraph 9 below and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has found that that control operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest".
Some of this argument repeats what we have discussed on previous issues. I was rather disappointed by the Minister's bearing this afternoon. I hope that he will not be off colour for too long. I remind him that in last Thursday's debate—at cols. 349 to 350 of Hansard—he described his standpoint as deregulatory. There was a splendid purple passage where he urged the importance of stability and consistency in regulation, not least to encourage continued investment. We are expecting billions of pounds to be shovelled into this fast moving industry. We are confronted with a cable, satellite and digital revolution. The Minister talks of stability; but this is a second effort in barely five years of Parliament to regulate such a rapidly changing industry. I look at this complex and, for me, largely incomprehensible Bill and I cannot help wondering what would have happened to the first Industrial Revolution if well-meaning
558
politicians had spun and respun a comparable web of restriction around developments in textiles, coal mining, iron and steel, shipbuilding, canals, railways, roadways and the rest of it.
This group of amendments seeks to remove another 20 per cent. arbitrary restriction—this time not as regards the circulation of newspapers but the ownership by a newspaper of a satellite; namely, BSkyB. It is part of the deregulatory feature of this Bill that it would now allow satellite and cable companies to control Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, which in turn are free to move into satellite broadcasting, as the Minister has explained. That gives a welcome green light to cross-media or cross-sectoral growth so that companies can take advantage of internal and external economies in developing a structure which we cannot at the moment even begin to predict. Yet once again BSkyB is cast as the Cinderella at the feast. It is to be excluded from the general rejoicing. In Schedule 2, in the provisions relating to restrictions on proprietors of newspapers, a new formula is conjured up which deliberately excludes BSkyB from that otherwise welcome liberalising process.
Under that formula a satellite company can control a commercial terrestrial television company, but it may not do so if it is more than 20 per cent. owned by a newspaper company with more than 20 per cent. of the total national newspaper circulation. It could do so if it was owned by a duff company which does not have a large circulation. News International, alas, since taking over the ailing Sun and the threatened Times, has built up their circulations. News International is guilty of building up a total diversified newspaper circulation in excess of 20 per cent. of the national circulation. That is naughty. The mathematical application of the rule concerning 20 per cent. control and more than 20 per cent. of newspaper circulation succeeds in singling out Sky for punishment.
I argue that both of the 20 per cent. rules collapse on close examination. News International owns more than 20 per cent. of Sky. Indeed, it owns 40 per cent. However, that 40 per cent. does not give News International a controlling interest. There are two reasons for that, which the Minister can verify. First, Stock Exchange rules require that a company is capable of operating independently of any shareholder owning 30 per cent. or more of the voting rights. Secondly, the board of BSkyB numbers 18 directors, of whom only five are News International appointees. Therefore, the 20 per cent. control by News International is a phantom. It is frightening Ministers needlessly when there are many other things for them to be frightened of.
In the same way the 20 per cent. control of national newspaper circulation has already been exposed to a good deal of criticism by the Committee, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Desai and Lord Donoughue. We are not faced with News International as a unique mixed-media giant. Together with Carlton, Granada, Pearson, the Daily Mail, or the proposed United News/MAI merger, it is one of a number of strong, powerful, mixed-media companies. The Mirror Group has other titles. It is naughty that its circulation is now 22 per cent. or 23 per cent. of total

559
circulation, but it is allowed to have part of Scottish Television, a bit of cable channel and to become involved in satellite television if that takes its fancy.
I return to the study which I mentioned earlier, towards which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as a fellow professional economist, will be more sympathetic. The survey, by Arthur Andersen, sought to measure the influence of companies on public opinion. Instead of trying to compare the BBC's 40 per cent. share of television viewing and the Sun's 40 per cent. of newspaper readership, it drew on a whole range of sources relating to viewing and readership. It assessed the degree of concentration of attention by calculating for each of the media companies—Carlton, Granada and so on—the total amount of time that viewers, listeners and readers devoted respectively to its television programmes, radio broadcasts and newspapers.
Towering above all other influential forces in our society was the BBC. Of audience attention and the time people devoted to these activities, 44 per cent. was controlled by the fearsome BBC. Second was Carlton, that monstrous mixed-media corporation, with 6.9 per cent. of audience attention. Channel 4, another public interest company, had 6.2 per cent. Poor News International, with its newspapers and television stations, was sixth with a paltry 3.4 per cent. of audience attention. That is a degree of influence which has Ministers and former Ministers cowering in their tents for fear of the takeover of opinion by those powerful companies.
The success of News International in building up newspapers that attract growing readership, and launching, with enormous courage, risk and enterprise, the satellite television stations, has been turned against their creator by excluding it from more than a 20 per cent. share of Channel 3 or Channel 5 licences. Why should Sky's success be curbed simply because a minority shareholder also owns and runs a successful newspaper? I hesitate to say in front of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that it is a company which has contributed much to the multiplication of channels, including newspaper facilities. It is treated less favourably, even in my opinion grossly unfairly, in regard to terrestrial television. Channel 3 and Channel 5 companies can exploit BSkyB's pioneering enterprise by entering satellite broadcasting but BSkyB is not free to become involved in terrestrial television.
If we recall that the pretext for all that discrimination is to guard against undue influence, we need to remind ourselves that consumer protection and positive programme requirements are already in operation and are designed to protect the public against undue influence. The argument behind the amendments is that there is no need for that discrimination in the form of the 20 per cent. restrictions. The amendments seek to bring broadcasting more fully within the general framework of monopoly law and practice on which we rely elsewhere to maintain the vigour of competition. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. As was said earlier, the broadcasting and newspaper industries are unique. They have a significant influence on life in this country.
The noble Lord approached his argument as though BSkyB and News International were somehow being excluded from this vast new growing industry. However, the share price of BSkyB shows that the company is worth over £ 6 billion. That is rather more than the individual ITV companies put together. News International has a circulation of 36 per cent. of national readership. The companies are huge and they are dominant in their industries in this country.
To go back one stage, the White Paper which was published earlier this year stated that the eventual goal should be overall market shares. That was welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, supports the logic and thrust of that. News International protested because it saw even that as a restriction on its growth. It should still be our goal in the long term, but in order for the industry to reach that point, we must allow everyone to grow and compete on a level playing field. That means allowing some of the smaller players in the industry the ability not immediately to be swallowed up. We must allow them the ability to control, to grow and to merge within their sector and with others so that they can then compete successfully with the vast organisations that exist.
I am not against those vast organisations, I admire them enormously. BSkyB is a wonderful British company, a leader in its field and it is hugely successful. I admire everything it has done. However, because it is so dominant we must not forget one of the reasons for its dominance. Under the 1990 Act the ITV companies were precluded from competing with it. That is an important reason. We are simply trying to give the companies an opportunity to catch up before they compete; otherwise, they will be swallowed up.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am surprised to hear the noble Viscount running down the Observer with which he was associated for so long. He suggested that because its circulation was small it had no influence. I thought it was supposed to have a great influence, particularly under Mr. J. L. Garvin.
Have not the Government so far made a total muddle and mess of all the regulations, counter regulations, slip holes and arbitrary numbers? You can get underneath them or you cannot, and if you cannot, then this, that or the other happens. Would it be wise to examine all the implications again thoroughly before Report stage? Perhaps the Government can take on board the demonstration by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that what may be done could be in contravention of European law by which we are bound. Would not the Government be wise to go away, try to understand some of the comments made in the Committee stage so far, think again and consider their position more carefully?
Lord Desai: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and wish to respond to what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said. He is on the

561
right lines; we need a measurement of the market, of market power, and of market share. But given that the different media interact and that there are cross-influences, we need a common measure of market power across the different sectors.
I have raised this issue before. We should consider how the 1990 Act got the domestic and non-domestic distinction totally wrong within three weeks of the passing of the Act. We are about to see tremendous technological change in the industry; we know that. We are about to enshrine in print proposals from 1995 which are likely to be out of date before 1996 has gone. I put this to the Minister. Suppose we want to restrict the influence of certain big barons on political opinion, for whatever reason. I imagine that the Minister would say that if people own news channels, in terms of news channel percentages and newspaper percentages, that is political influence and therefore we should do something about it. There may perhaps be logic in that. However, one would not want to put all television and newspapers together and say that 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of that is a meaningful figure when there is already a competition policy. I must emphasise that there is a competition policy. People will not be able to gobble up smaller producers just like that. The noble Viscount need not fear that, given that we have the MMC and the OFT. Therefore, I do not see the logic of having another competition policy. I am still not convinced by the sincere arguments of the noble Viscount showing that somehow the media are peculiar and that we must be more careful with them than with any other commodity. I am not persuaded of that.
Lord Inglewood: I begin my remarks with the obvious point that the noble Lords, Lord Harris, and Lord Wyatt, do not agree with our policy. That is the fundamental division between us.
I wish to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about finding a way of measuring the impact of the media. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about measuring influence solely through time shows how wise the Government have been in the Bill in not attempting to suggest a common currency. It does not underscore the credibility of his proposal that his approach to the problem suggests that BSkyB has less influence than Capital Radio. We have at least found one currency of which the noble Lord seems to approve.
I wish to go to the heart of the debate because I do not wish to go over our general policy. I have explained what it is, some Members of the Committee accept it and others clearly do not. As it stands, the Bill will also prevent newspaper groups having 20 per cent. or more of national market share from exerting an influence over Channel 3, Channel 5 and radio licence holders through cable and satellite companies in which they have an interest above 20 per cent. Even if one disagrees with the approach which the Government adopt, it must follow that if there is a market share threshold, one must ensure that the Government's intentions cannot be circumvented by newspaper companies using companies
562
in which they have major shareholdings from controlling such licences. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would remove that restriction from the Bill.
We must be clear about one point which was touched on earlier in the debate. We are not saying that News International controls Sky. We say that News International has such a large share in it that it should not be allowed, through Sky, to acquire control in leading broadcasters on top of its national newspaper dominance. It seems to me that that is a relatively simple and straightforward proposition to grasp.
However, at the same time, the debate has illustrated another important point. It is that if any organisation which has above the 20 per cent. newspaper threshold wishes to become involved in television, a great deal can be done if it is not a company acquiring Channel 3 licences or a Channel 5 company. In the case of BSkyB, it is a large company and a large proportion of its shares are exchanged on the Stock Exchange. There are plenty of ways in for those excluded from the Channel 3 and Channel 5 sectors of the market, and if a company wishes to go in that direction it can play a big part.
I conclude not by rehearsing the arguments again but by making two points. In bringing forward our proposals we have endeavoured to work out a scheme which we believe will deliver the policy aspirations which we have in the world as it is. I suspect that it is always tempting for professional economists to reduce their arguments towards abstraction because that is the nature of their trade. I sense that I have been hearing from one or two Members of the Committee this evening an analysis which provides enormous intellectual coherence in a purely abstract sense. However, it does not measure up to the realities of the world, as it is out there at the moment.
We have endeavoured to bring forward a series of suggestions which provide a proper balance between a number of conflicting goods which come into conflict with each other when considering such matters. I wish to emphasise one point before I sit down. It was suggested that in this area, in one way or another, the Government were cowering in their tent. I am not cowering in any tent. The Government are coming forward with these proposals which they are endeavouring to present to the Committee and to the country in as clear a manner as possible, in order to try to take a positive step in response to the technological changes affecting the media. Thus, on the one hand, the changes can be driven forward and at the same time the public interest is properly protected.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I do not wish to prolong this absorbing debate very much longer. I urge the Minister and his friends to bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Donoughue and others: the 1990 Broadcasting Act has not survived the dramatic changes that are still going forward. This very detailed kind of regulation is brittle. It is liable either to prevent fruitful and important developments or to give way under stress and strain.

563
I was much encouraged by the debate on these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Desai, on the Labour Benches, and some Members on the Cross-Benches, all spoke about whether this provision is arbitrary and whether 20 per cent. is the right kind of arbitrariness to go for. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, before Report there must be some way of putting to the test, in a perfectly open spirit of inquiry, not the abstract view of the economists, but the view of Members of this Committee on the great issue of which way we should lean. Should we lean towards restriction and detailed control; or should we be a little more laid back and trust leading established institutions such as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading to play their proven role?
We are being very noble. We are not dividing the Committee and marching through the Lobby. However, it would be valuable if, on Report, we could find between us some way of presenting that choice in some part of the Bill. In that way we could test the blinkered, tunnel vision of the Government's spokesman against the more confident, optimistic, forward-looking and dynamic view represented in all parts of the other side of the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156E to 156EB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 156F had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 156G to 156GH not moved.]
[AmendmentNo.156H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 161B not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Variation of regional Channel 3 licence following change of control]:
[Amendment No. 161C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 161D:
Page 55, line 43, leave out ("referred to in section 14(1)") and insert ("or
(d) the quality of range of programme originating from each regional service area and offered for inclusion in the nationwide system of services,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 169B and 171A grouped with it. Again, I declare an interest as a director of HTV.
During an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, pointed out that sometimes the grouping of amendments and the order in which we take debates is not exactly helpful. We now come to a very important series of four debates on regional broadcasting. Had I had the choice, I think I would have taken them in reverse order. It is not entirely rational to start with the contribution to the nationwide system, follow it with a debate about the relevant period and then touch on what constitutes a significant reduction,
564
before debating the crucial and important issues of editorial control, where programmes are produced and who produces them.
However, faced with this difficulty, I say one general word about the importance of regional broadcasting. Last night, speaking at the Royal Television Society dinner in honour of David Glencross, John Birt said that regional programming is surely the singular achievement of ITV. That is a judgment with which I agree. My company, HTV, is responsible for two quite separate regional areas and provides very different services to each.
For Wales, regional broadcasting is of absolutely crucial importance. In Wales, HTV provides a national service to its viewers which records, reflects, questions, reveals and celebrates all aspects of Welsh life. Of all the television channels available in Wales, it is the most watched. Its news programmes, for example, regularly attract a greater number of viewers than any other channel. The programmes that the company produces include drama, documentaries, sport, music, arts, entertainment, current affairs, education, community programming and religion. At least 95 per cent. of HTV's regional programming is produced in Wales. The same could be said about other regional companies. I use this example only to illustrate the importance of regional broadcasting.
I am therefore pleased that Clause 63 of the Bill recognises that new licence conditions may need to be imposed to maintain the standards of the regional Channel 3 service when control of either the licence holder or the body providing programmes for the service is changed.
However, I am concerned that, as presently drafted, the clause does not protect the level of service currently provided. It is important to emphasise that the two are not necessarily the same. In most cases the regional broadcasters provide a service that is significantly better and greater than that demanded of them by the licence conditions. We need to consider whether we can strengthen the provisions in the Bill in any way. A number of attempts are being made in this grouping and in those that follow to do just that.
This amendment deals with a matter that is clearly considered relevant. The Government refer to it in Clause 63(3)(c), which relates to the quality or range of programmes included in the nationwide system of services known as Channel 3. The balance is provided by programmes that are acquired or commissioned for transmission across the whole of the United Kingdom.
At the present time all regional broadcasters are able to offer programmes to the Channel 3 network for commission and subsequent transmission throughout the United Kingdom. The existing provision ensures that the Channel 3 network carries programmes which are properly representative of the geographical diversity of the United Kingdom. I welcome the attempt by Clause 63(3) to strengthen the Independent Television Commission's ability to ensure that programmes from all parts of the country continue to be offered to the Channel 3 network and to monitor the supply of programmes to that network. But we must consider one or two problems in that connection.
One could make an interesting speech and write an interesting book about the factors that help to decide exactly what is included in network broadcasting and how decisions are taken by the powers that be to put specific programmes onto the network. Clearly large companies have a considerable influence in deciding what share of the network is taken by their companies. But it is also true that if we do not have good quality programmes produced by the right kind of staff in the regions, with the necessary skills and experience to make programmes that are attractive not just in the regions but throughout the country, we shall not have the opportunity to share in the national network.
There is a danger that the situation could arise where we are down to two or three large companies producing the bulk of their production in London, the Midlands or elsewhere. The chance of obtaining good regional programmes is then reduced because the scale of the production facility, the numbers of people involved, and so forth, have been whittled down in the regions and concentrated in the centre. The object of the clause is to strengthen the ability of the Independent Television Commission to protect that aspect of regionality as part of a package of measures to protect the great achievement of ITV in its contribution of regional programmes to television. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, earlier I was reminded of a definition of economists; that they are men trained to predict the past. Broadcasting legislators, too, are men and women skilled at predicting the past. We always seem to be behind the game. I suspect that in this Broadcasting Bill we shall find ourselves behind the game, such is the rapid change in technology and the structure of companies.
I do not know whether it is a sign of the times that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, left by one door and the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, came in another. I do not know whether they are pairing to cover the Bill and that that is a sign of what we will see in the future in the new arrangements. Knowing both of them, though only vaguely, I am sure that their marriage was not arranged by one of the computers that puts together compatibles.
I want to remind the Committee that, despite all the changes and the number of times that the legislators have got behind the game in relation to broadcasting, one stroke of genius has stood out over the years, right back to 1950; that is, the setting up of commercial television on a regional basis. That has been a massive triumph and one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out (and attention was drawn to it last night at the Royal Television Society) is an enduring achievement. Those of us who want to see that achievement retained see Clause 63 as an iron pole in terms of the ITV network. The dangers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of the ITV system with 15 companies gradually concentrating into three big groupings, all of them based in London, is a danger to that regional strength in which we take pride.
566
My background is from the North West and I was proud to grow up in Granada-land. It is very much in my mind, as I see the developments in television, what a privilege it was to live in Granada-land in the 1950s and 1960s and have a regional television company that had social interests, quality and regional pride. In talking about Granada this evening, I realise that I must sound a little like the character in the Victoria Wood sketch who talks about the gritty realism of the North and the softness of the South. After a long diatribe he finally confesses that he lives in Woking. I am afraid that at present I live in the gritty north of Hertfordshire, but have many business, political, social and family ties with the North West that make me feel concerned to retain those regional strengths.
I happened to be in Liverpool on the day it was announced that Granada was moving the broadcasting of its successful morning programme from Albert Dock in Liverpool to London. The feeling was akin to that aroused by the closure of a large factory. Liverpudlians felt that they had lost to London a major national programme which gave identity to the region and to the City of Liverpool.
I understand the problems. Twin forces are at work. On the one hand the ITV companies say that they must increase in size to be able to play nationally and globally and must acquire critical mass. At the same time, there is no doubt that the bean counters are within the walls and testing each little bit of regional initiative against its cost-effectiveness. All I would say to those people in the ITV companies who are fighting against the bean counters is: "Clause 63, however strong it eventually ends up, is intended to help you. If we do not accept it I fear that, just as we have discovered in other parts of broadcasting where our good intentions are pre-empted by the realities, so the regional strengths of ITV—not only the small companies, but also the big companies—will be gnawed at by the realists, the cost-accounting bean counters, who do not see the strength and value that the commitment to regionalism has given over the years".
Perhaps I may relate an anecdote which applies to Granada, but could apply to any of the other big regional companies. A colleague in this Chamber who had a long tradition in and experience of broadcasting said, "In the past I have defended Granada right down the line when it was under assault from Rank and when it was under-bid at the time of the licence renewals. I am not sure that I would go to the wall for it today".
I remind the big companies within ITV that if they lose the commitment and the support which regionalism has given them, they may be losing more than they yet know. I warned Granada that I would be mentioning it and so, quite rightly, it sent me a great bundle of facts and figures about its regional commitment. I respect that. But the worry of many colleagues is what I would call the body language of the ITV companies. That body language sees the regional commitment not as an

567
opportunity for them to exploit talent but as a burden that has to be carried and got round. That is what makes me want to see a strong Clause 63 survive in the Bill.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The debate on regionalism in this series of amendments echoes a similar debate we had on the BBC Charter in which we spoke of the importance of regional production in terms of the region itself and also in terms of inter-regional broadcasting within the UK and within the wider European context.
It gives me pleasure to support the amendment for the reasons already set out and for a few others. Regional television looks at least two ways. It reflects regional culture. I have always lived on the borders of HTV-land, Granada-land and almost into RTE-land. I have been able to get different regional and national messages from different areas. There is the creation of employment within regions. There is the creation also of centres of regional journalism, drama and cultural activity. The region is able to express its identity and contribute to a broader cultural picture. If that sounds like last night's guest list revisited, perhaps I may refer back to the RTS dinner and to the excellent and distinguished speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. At the dinner we were celebrating not only the work of David Glencross but the particular regional strengths of the ITV system.
What concerns me is that, as a result of the Bill and the changes in ownership which are now taking place, we may well see a reversal. ITV was clearly more regional in its accents and its culture than the BBC which relied on its heavily centralised network channels with opt-outs. However, after the assurances given by the BBC centrally as a result of pressure and our debates on the Charter, we may well see a BBC which is more decentralised while the ITV Channel 3 system becomes more centralised. It is for us to voice those concerns.
When we raise issues we are not being critical of the ITV network centre or the work of the ITC as a regulator. Our concern is that we have a cultural remit in this area. We need to ensure that when changes of ownership take place they do not result in disenfranchising regional populations from having their own internal cultural life reflected and from having the communication between regions which is an important part of national, international and inter-regional life.
The Wales-based company HTV has made its own distinctive contribution to the network but has also been rooted within its region through a network of offices which enable it to report on its region and to contribute that reporting not only to the whole of Wales but beyond. For all those reasons I press on the Government the importance of maintaining the distinctive regional identity of ITV at a time when there is a great danger that ownership concentration may undermine the very distinctiveness which the Channel 3 system has so far maintained.
Lord Prys-Davies: Those of us who see the existence, the strength and the vitality of regional broadcasting as being good are grateful to the Government for Clause 63. But we believe there is need for more safeguards. I trust that the Minister will listen
568
sympathetically to our arguments. I shall say no more in support of the amendment because it is the first of a group dealing with regional broadcasting. I hope very much that the Minister will listen sympathetically to the arguments in support of the amendment and succeeding amendments. If they are acceptable to the Government that will be a clear message that the Government place value on regional broadcasting.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I support the amendments. The difficulty every Member of the Committee has had in speaking to them is that it is like dealing with a jigsaw puzzle. One amendment overlaps another so it is difficult to compartmentalise the debates.
There is no doubt that the requirement on Channel 3 companies to regionalise under the previous legislation helped considerably with the quality of broadcasting and with the regional input. The Bill allows for larger concentrations of ownership. We are told that that is necessary to ensure that our companies can compete. We are also seeing a concentration of ownership anyway. I suggest that it is essential to have within the Bill protection for regional programming for our television companies.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to Granada-land. I remember Granada-land very well. I am very proud of it, as I come from that part of the world. I also remember Granada's nervousness when it was coming up to its licence review. There had been complaints that Granada was not dealing with regional programming in the way that it should. That is one of the reasons why the Liverpool studio, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred, was opened.
Under the 1990 Act the ITC was given quite wide-ranging powers to ensure protection for regional programming. It carried out those duties well. I suggest that more powers should be available to the ITC to protect regionalisation of programming. We are pleased to support the amendments.
Lord Inglewood: There is near universal agreement around the Chamber about the aims we are attempting to implement. We in government are at one with the remarks made about regional broadcasting. We endeavour to recognise that while there will be change—it is inevitable and desirable—there is need at the same time to ensure that we entrench all the best qualities of regional broadcasting and, where we can, enhance them. In doing that we must avoid becoming so focused on protection that we end up entrenching the status quo and therefore do not enable the best of regional broadcasting to go forward with the changes we are talking about in the generality of the Bill.
I wish to emphasise that the proposals in Clause 63 include a power to protect existing levels of achievement at the time a licence changes hands. It is not a question of carrying forward the existing licence conditions. It is a matter of being able to protect existing levels of achievement.
I am pleased that the clause has been so widely welcomed. We shall consider carefully the suggestions that have been made for improvement, as we shall

569
throughout this group of clauses. I hope that that gives reassurance to noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who moved the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not intend to press this amendment at this stage in the light of what has been, said. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As I pointed out, in a sense we have taken this matter in reverse order. I believe that we are coming to some even more significant amendments. We wish to consider the collectivity of the debate at the end and, perhaps at Report stage, decide whether anything further needs to be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 162:
age 55, line 45, at beginning insert ("during the relevant period").
The noble Lord said: As has been said by quite a number of speakers, this is a series of linked amendments. An area of overlap does exist. I welcome Clause 63 and support its objectives. My aim in submitting these amendments to the Committee is to help the clause achieve its purpose of ensuring that ITV's unique regional television service is maintained in terms of quality and quantity for viewers throughout the United Kingdom no matter—and this is a very important qualification—what change in control of the licence holder takes place.
These amendments are therefore intended to help Clause 63 fulfil its objectives. I believe that Members of the Committee may find these amendments of appeal to them. They do not stand in the way of progress or of allowing the media industry to be internationally competitive or of introducing digital television and the rest of it. Therefore, I can see no reason why the small regional companies cannot continue to provide a bespoke service in Britain in tandem with the creation of the larger media groups.
As a native of the north of Scotland, I am acquainted with beautiful scenery. I am well acquainted with travellers who frequently ask directions of me and others. There is the well known tale of the Highlander who, when asked how to reach a particular destination replied, "If I were you, I would not start from this point". I am rather like that as regards this series of amendments. It is difficult to guide the Committee through the labyrinthine progress of them all.
In considering Amendments Nos. 162, 169 and 169A before we consider Amendments Nos. 163 and 165, we are being asked to consider the efficacy of the mechanism of achieving an objective before we consider the central principle which the mechanism seeks to establish. Therefore, at the heart of the amendments which I have tabled is the principle that there should be no loss of regional programme service to viewers in the event of a change of licence ownership or control; that the benchmark should be the actual service enjoyed by viewers rather than a licence minimum. Furthermore, regional programming should be comprehensively defined.
Amendments Nos. 162, 169, 169A and 172 deal with the mechanism to achieve that. Amendments Nos. 162, 169 and 172 were designed, at least by me, to be read together. The grouping has come out somewhat differently, but I am attempting to give such guidance to the Committee through a rather difficult minefield of amendments, as it is open to me.
As well as offering precision and measurability, Amendment No. 172, which is at the tail end, crucially seeks to be fair to all parties who may be involved in a change of ownership control. If the benchmark is to be the level of existing services rather than a licence minimum it is therefore crucial that there is a fair definition of existing services. The underlying principle behind Amendments Nos. 162 and 172 is thus to ensure fairness to all parties who may be involved in a potential change of ownership. Therefore, the amendments set a time frame for the benchmark service to be evaluated. A definition based on a snapshot period—for instance, just before a change of control—could enable the incumbent licence holder to raise the level of regional programming to an unrealistic level in the short term in order to deter a potential takeover. Such an action would be unfair and, I believe, anti-competitive. Both the ITV companies and the ITC keep detailed records of the service throughout the year. Statistics are kept each quarter and then aggregated to analyse a year's performance along with the monitoring of programme quality.
By defining the relevant period as covering 12 months, the ITC is better able to judge the level of service that should continue following a change of licence control. While I agree with the sentiment behind Amendment No. 169A, I believe that Amendments Nos. 169 and 172, as I have been explaining, offer greater clarity and that the element of fairness, which is introduced in Amendment No. 172, is essential. The amendments are somewhat complicated. I have done what I can to explain the basis of why they are before the Committee. I plead with the Committee to give them wholehearted support. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: As my name is associated with other distinguished Members of the Committee, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in his amendments. I can well understand his problem when one looks at 21 amendments surrounding this one clause and the groupings. He has explained the matter with great clarity, as one would expect of him.
I believe that everyone agrees that the standard, quality and quantity of the regional television services is currently very high. I share the real fear that new owners may be drawn in and could damage the ethos and the culture of these regional services which have a very strong community connection. I very much welcome this clause. As we study it tonight with care, our efforts will pale into insignificance compared to the toothcomb study of the clause when it eventually becomes part of an Act. I am sure that those outside will be looking carefully to see what loopholes have been left open. If we are to try to ensure that this clause achieves perfection, or near perfection, it must be both

571
clear and draw a proper balance between mandatory duties and the discretionary powers of the commission to control the new owners.
As regards Amendment No. 162 and the others grouped with it, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, described the purpose of introducing them into the Bill with the term "a relevant period of time" as a benchmark when considering the performance of existing licensees and how best that must be maintained or improved by a new owner. The noble Lord suggested a period of 12 months for judgment on how the existing licensee had performed. I believe that that is a reasonable period when one considers that the commission has up-to-date figures month by month of the performance of all the companies. These figures are readily available. I am sure that a balanced benchmark is a fair reflection and would not lead to false hopes.
The Bill as currently drafted considers the relevant period of time to be immediate and, as the noble Lord has explained, that could lead to unhappy consequences. I support the noble Lord and his group of amendments and I hope that my noble friend will look on them with his normal kindness and courtesy.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The first thing to say about the clause is how much we welcome it. I congratulate the Government, and particularly some members of the Government, on having included it in the Bill because it is an important bulwark for the essential character of the ITV system. In this world of take-over frenzy, it is important that we have such provisions, so we welcome the clause but we are always ready to be helpful to the Government and we offer some suggestions of how to make a good clause even better. That is the main thrust of the amendments.
I never quite understand the groupings in your Lordships' House. I believe that there is normally some wording at the top of the groupings list to the effect that if noble Lords do not like the groupings, they can please themselves to some extent. I think that I shall please myself. It might be for the convenience of the Committee and the Minister if all the amendments to Clause 63 were discussed en bloc because they all provide methods of strengthening the clause.
Regionalism in commercial television is the essential distinctive element of ITV as compared with the BBC. I hope that the noble Lord who spoke earlier with pessimism is wrong in believing that ITV will become so centralist that the BBC will seem the more regional. I think that the distinctive regional character of ITV is one of its greatest qualities and needs to be protected and preserved.
Before turning to the individual amendments, perhaps I may say that there is a rather glib view in certain quarters of ITV these days that the great thing to do is to have companies of world-class size within which one can still maintain the regional character of ITV. That has to be watched vigilantly. Perhaps I may refer to the part of Scotland that I know best. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I should like to refer to Grampian Television in Aberdeen. It is sometimes said that it does not matter who owns Grampian because it will still be a perfectly good Scottish regional company. After all,
572
the Aberdeen Press and Journal, which is a very good regional newspaper, was owned by my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for many years. Indeed, he ran it more recently from Toronto and it still remained a good north-east of Scotland newspaper.
However, the analogy between newspaper ownership and television company ownership is a false one. The position certainly needs to be watched carefully. You can produce a good regional newspaper only by having the editor, his top management team, the reporters and all the panoply of a good newspaper actually in the region. You cannot do it by having those chaps in Toronto. When it comes to television, one can fiddle around and send a team with their cameras from London or Manchester in an aeroplane and make programmes about the region in the region. However, those programmes will not have an essentially regional character because they will not have been made by people whose roots are in the region. That is the important difference between maintaining the essentially regional character of a television company and maintaining the essentially regional character of a newspaper which may be owned by someone far away.
Taken together, the amendments seek to provide additional safeguards. As has been pointed out, by and large the regional companies are so proud of their regional programming that they do a good deal more than is required of them under the licence. If there is a takeover bid, the level of regional programming that is provided should be a benchmark, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. I think that that benchmark should be judged over 12 months. That is a reasonable period. Other amendments provide that the senior management responsible for the programmes should be present in the region. Those are the main elements in the amendments. Having done so well with the clause, we hope that the Government will be sympathetic to improving it, but I await the Minister's speech with interest.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall not take up the time of the Committee, but should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said about the characteristics of Grampian Television and the advantages of its smallness and concentration on the area where I, too, live. The important point about a company such as Grampian is that it is able to be about not only Aberdeen, where it is mainly based, but also about Inverness and Dundee. Grampian Television is highly valued by the people who live in our area. I do not have the figures with me, but people in the area watch it in preference to anything else. They are extremely interested in it.
Grampian Television has written to me to say how strongly it welcomes Clause 63. I have studied the clause and the proposed amendments. I shall be interested to hear whether my noble friend feels that the amendments improve Clause 63 from the point of view of a small company. I am not sure that they do, particularly in view of what has been said about the need not to freeze things so that we cannot move on in the future. The position does not have to remain as it was at a given moment or over a given period of time. I shall

573
be interested to hear what my noble friend says on that. It is important that Clause 63 stays intact. I shall be interested to hear further discussion and what my noble friend says about whether the amendments would improve the clause.
Lord Donoughue: The subject of regionalism is central to the Bill. So as far as we are concerned, it is one of its most important aspects. It has been a decisive characteristic of our ITV from the beginning and one of its proudest characteristics. What the Government have drafted in Clause 63 is pretty good and they should be congratulated on that. We are talking only about refinements.
With the permission of the Committee, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 169A, 163A and 164A because our approach was totally to support the more general amendments on regionalism and those amendments are three detailed tightenings of the provisions. We saw them as all falling within the same grouping. I am intrigued to find the amendments distributed among three different groupings between which there are very few differences.
First, Amendment No. 169A would improve the existing provisions because it is slightly worrying that under subsection (6) the ITC is prevented from imposing new requirements after a merger which would follow logically and helpfully from it unless they operated immediately before the change of control. That is an unhelpful restraint on the ITC. It prevents regional improvements, such as occurred after Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television merged in 1993.
Amendment No. 163A refers to "significant" reductions on the regional side. That is repeated in an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, which we are prepared to accept. We do not like the flexibility to make "significant" reductions.
Amendment No. 164A refers to maintaining regional production programmes. Those amendments provide specific tweaks to reinforce the regional aspect. I propose to move them all across the various groupings in which they have been curiously distributed.
Lord Hooson: I rise briefly to mention that under its licensing obligation HTV Wales has to provide ten and three-quarter hours of regional programmes, 95 per cent. of which are produced in Wales. Clause 63 is clearly an important safeguard, but I do not think that it is strong enough.
When the regional companies were set up originally they took cognisance of the wide views expressed in another place and in this place before the hours, and so on, were agreed. What is needed is guaranteed protection. My criticism of Clause 63 as drafted is that the areas of discretion are too wide. All lawyers know, for example, the phrase, "significant reduction". How many times have I argued in court the meaning of "significant"? I have heard different interpretations depending upon the context. The word "significant" should disappear. I am in favour of this group of amendments. It would have the effect of strengthening
574
Clause 63 which is such an important safeguard for regional television, which has been ITV's crowning achievement.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that these were good clauses and asked whether we were prepared to accept improvements to them. The answer is that we are. I have listened with great care and interest to the points that have been raised. I am not clear as to which clauses we are talking and to which we are not talking, and which we shall deal with after dinner. We are most sympathetic to the thrust of what has been said. We are concerned that in a number of instances the drafting might not meet the case, but I do not want to labour that point.
We must put ourselves in the ITC's shoes. It must be given some discretion to respond to circumstances, otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, clever lawyers will get round the matter. We want to give the ITC sufficient flexibility so that it can catch the wheeling and dodging that we suspect will inevitably go on. It is for that reason that we have reservations about such things as the definition of "relevant period", "making a programme", and so on, because there is a risk that we may introduce into this regime elements which are over-rigid. At the end of the day we want regional health and growth and not atrophy. We accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that predators too, may be studying these clauses carefully, and we do not want to give them any comfort.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on his amendment, we are concerned that it may give the ITC excessive powers to impose more onerous conditions even when they are not agreed by the parties concerned and not currently being achieved.
We are concerned about the implications of the definition of "relevant period" as it has been inserted into the Bill, because it could have certain unfortunate consequences.
We agree that the matter should be approached from the perspective of not describing in legal terms what might be called the "relevant period", although it would normally be a year, with some leeway where the immediately previous level is significantly different from the norm of the whole year. We should like to talk to the ITC about that, because we want to ensure that we achieve what I think we agree we all want to achieve in looking at the drafting of this clause. I hope that in that hurried way I have given the Committee a clear indication of our response to the proposed amendments. We intend to take them away, think about them carefully, and discuss them with the ITC, with a view, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to taking on board those which we believe to be an improvement to our version of the story.
Lord Kirkhill: I thank the Minister for his courteous and comprehensive reply to what has been a wide-ranging discussion over a number of amendments. The amendments which, so far as I understand have been spoken to, are Amendments Nos. 162, 169, 169A and 172, but we have spilled over into numerous other amendments because they are in part or in whole linked.

575
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, should mark carefully and note what the Minister has just said about the relevant period, so I do not need to add to that. I say to the Minister that when we come to Amendment No. 165, which we might do fairly soon, because we have already spoken to it, what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has just said is surely the relevant core of any argument that any of the rest of us might make. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume, and in moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Environmental Technology and Service Companies
7.55 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will develop a coherent strategy to help promote British environmental technology and service companies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the debate I declare that I am an unpaid member of the political advisory committee of the Environmental Industries Commission which contains members of all parties and both Houses. The commission is the new trade association of the UK's environmental technology and services industry. It was launched in April 1995 and has already gained a membership of over 100 member companies.
The party to which I belong has policies set out strongly in Agenda for Sustainability and other documents for achieving the objects mentioned in the Question. I am aware that the Labour Party proclaims the same commitment in its new document Leading the Future: Environmental Technology, Green Growth, and the Stakeholder Economy. We shall no doubt hear from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on the subject.
Although we are all full of good intentions, there is a problem with what is actually being done by the Government. This country is missing out on a great opportunity. The Government are failing to compete. The world market for environmental technologies is dominated by Germany, Japan and the US whose governments have recognised the importance of the new industry to jobs, profits and trade balances, and have developed supportive policies. They employ a range of schemes, notably on R&D funding, export promotion, investment incentives and regulation to promote their domestic environmental technology companies. In contrast, the UK Government have relatively few schemes, as we shall see, to help ensure that British environmental companies compete in a growing market.
It is now recognised that the worldwide environmental technology and services industry (ETS) will provide one of the biggest ever opportunities for enterprise and technical innovation the industrial world has yet seen. The OECD's October 1994 meeting of experts reached a consensus that the best estimate is that the world market is currently worth 250 billion dollars. Furthermore, the ETS markets are likely to increase significantly in the future. There are only a few other business sectors, notably information technology, which are expanding at the same rate. It is predicted that the environmental industry worldwide will be worth 600 billion dollars by 2000. Clearly, the potential size of the environmental business opportunity is very substantial. In comparison, the aerospace industry is some 180 billion dollars in size worldwide, and the chemical industry, 500 billion dollars.
Mainstream industry is very concerned about the cost implications of environmental protection. But costs are not the whole picture. Indeed, savings are just as prominent and important a part of what environmental protection brings. Mainstream business can make substantial financial savings from pollution prevention. A host of recent waste minimisation projects, such as the Aire and Calder project, have proved that costs can be cut and competitiveness improved through waste reduction and recycling, reduced material use and energy efficiency. The projects' initiatives incurred short payback periods and produced considerable financial savings.
Pollution costs money. One authoritative study, cited by a recent CBI report, estimated that the full cost for Britain of water, air and noise pollution is more than £22 billion, which is equivalent to 6 per cent. of gross national product.
The crucial question is: which countries' environmental industries are succeeding in winning the lion's share of new ETS markets and why? There are three possible criteria; patents, trade surpluses and job creation. Germany, the US and Japan are dominating the ETS industry with shares of 29 per cent., 22 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively of the world's patents. They also dominate world trade with trade surpluses, according to OECD figures, of 10 billion dollars, 4 billion dollars and 3 billion dollars respectively. In contrast, the UK had a trade surplus of 500 million dollars. The US, German and Japanese industries have created very large numbers of jobs. Some 1,800,000 were employed in the US in 1995, 700,000 in Germany, and 600,000 in Japan. In contrast, the UK has 100,000 jobs in the ETS sector. That is not good enough.
British companies have identified three crucial areas where the UK Government have failed to act and which constitute the main barriers to growth. The first is inadequate R&D support for ETS entrepreneurs; the second is environmental laws inadequately enforced; and the third a lack of tax investment incentives for mainstream industry. Certainly many far-sighted policy makers—notably the Germans, the Americans and the Japanese—are responding to such concerns from the environmental industry. The OECD in particular

577
supports serious government involvement in the promotion of ETS companies. It argues, for example, that government funding for R&D in this area is,
"the type of Government subsidy which is relatively more beneficial in economic terms and less actionable in terms of trade counter measures".
As regards Japan's physical incentives for ETS investment, the OECD concluded that,
"such assistance constituted a useful incentive and did not create significant trade distortions".
The role of government is crucial to success. The world ETS market leaders—Germany, Japan and the US—certainly understand that and have developed very extensive support programmes.
A major international report from the Environmental Industries Commission, entitled Government Policies as the Catalyst for the British Environmental Industry, reveals that the US Government provided 4 billion dollars in 1994 for environmental technology R&D whereas the UK Government provided less than £50 million. The same applies to the Germans and the Japanese. The US Government have even developed a comprehensive national strategy across all relevant agencies because,
"America's principal trade competitors, Germany and Japan, have already positioned themselves to support environmental technology innovation and capture a leading share of this global market. The United States now has a limited window of opportunity either to strengthen its own presence in this market, or be left behind".
Why are we not following suit? Indeed, given our natural adaptiveness to such an industry, why are we not in the lead?
The Environmental Industries Commission, a new organisation representing over 100 environmental technology and service companies, makes a number of recommendations. It urges a national strategy for promoting the British environmental industry. It also calls for regulation to encourage innovation. I know that that goes slightly against the Government's philosophy but it is true. It has been proved time and time again that in this field regulation encourages innovation. Regulation has helped our competitors to gain an outstanding lead.
Technology diffusion to mainstream industry must be encouraged. The UK Government could provide a 100 per cent. first-year tax allowance for the acquisition of innovative environmental technologies. Exports must be vigorously encouraged. The UK Government should urgently develop a strategy to co-ordinate and extend DTI export initiatives. Leading member companies in the Environmental Industries Commission have begun consulting on a draft National Export Strategy. A supportive R&D policy is now vital. Investors generally regard the ETS market as risky and uncertain and so tend not to back environmental technologies until late in the development phase.
The UK Government must increase funding. The level of support to British ETS companies must be comparable to that provided by the UK's major competitors. ETS-related R&D must be made a central mission of the research councils. We have great opportunities. We have the kind of industry which takes
578
easily to environmental protection and improvement. We also have a hard core of companies which are working extremely hard in that field and which need encouragement. I look forward to hearing not only what the Government think they are doing about all this but how they intend to improve and increase their efforts.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this important debate. I congratulate the Environmental Industries Commission, of which he is a member. He has shared his detailed knowledge of the problem and its many implications. The world is becoming more polluted; indeed, it is probably being polluted faster than the fishing stocks are being reduced.
The Environment Act 1995 established clear rules on the liability that we must assume to clean up the mess created by sometimes negligent and at times innocent industries. That applies in particular to degraded land and disused industrial property. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, agreed that the UK was strong in engineering solutions to the problem and I should like to give an example.
Perhaps one of the most exciting and profitable areas involves human and animal waste and its disposal and conversion to useful use. It is a worldwide problem. I have spoken previously of the biotechna method of alginate bacteria, biological degradation, using blue-green, and now a new strain of red, algae to convert such waste by photosynthesis into animal feed with methane biproducts which in turn can provide some energy to drive the system.
The research needed to develop the particular strains of bacteria is typical of the work that can be aided by the ETI and the DTI together. The power of those bacteria is truly remarkable. Their application to third world countries which have a large night soil problem in the poorer country areas is vitally important. Different strains of the bacteria can be bred to ingest and remove from solution otherwise unpleasant and toxic materials including herbicides, pesticides and hydrocarbon residues. I am particularly anxious to promote such a method, with my keen ambition to support organic farming. To combine organic farming in third world countries with the proper removal of human and animal waste would be an enormous advantage. That might possibly be of interest to the ODA.
From that, it may also be thought reasonable that if those bacteria can consume herbicides and pesticides, they can also be bred to consume petrochemicals. Indeed, in their progress through the ring, they have destroyed the plastic pipes through which they are pumped.
The other activity in which we have particular strength is in cleaning up soiled properties and mining remains where there are large metal detections. Here, biotechnology offers exciting prospects. A UK company is also working on that potential activity with a machine called the Graessna, which is particularly effective.
I have used that remarkable tale to illustrate not only examples of the need but also the opportunity that is presented to the DTI. The programme "Biotechnology

579
means Business" is apt, indeed. We have the opportunity to be world leaders in the science. The ETI and the DTI need to co-operate fully to exploit the chance.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing this important topic for debate. My interest in the overall topic was aroused when serving under the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, on Sub-Committee III of the European Communities Committee, concerned with the environment. I certainly had my eyes opened to the kinds of solutions to which companies can contribute when I went with the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and others on a visit to eastern Europe. It was a fascinating trip.
I must also express my gratitude to the noble Lord. Lord Gregson, who is not present this evening. He stimulated my interest by inviting me, like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to participate in the efforts of the commission that he established—the Environmental Industries Commission. I too am a member of its political committee. That seems a strange hat for me to wear, but I am pleased to do so because it is a very important subject.
My interest in the question of fuel and the environment was strongly aroused about 20 years ago when working with the university in Nottingham. I discovered that the authorities of the city had achieved a good deal of district heating by burning civic rubbish. It seemed to me that that was a very forward looking approach by the Nottingham Council. I became intrigued with the whole issue of the environment when I agreed to support, through the Croucher Foundation in Hong Kong, of which I am chairman, a project to use solar panels in the construction of a hotel on mainland China. I was very impressed by the success of that venture and by the way in which it spared environmental demands for that hotel in that area of China.
More recently I have become interested in the way in which environmental industries are becoming involved with the production of power. Noble Lords do not need me to remind them of the remarkable efforts being made in this country and elsewhere on renewable energy resources. I noticed recently some work which first started a year or two ago in the University of Northumbria where they have been pushing ahead with photovoltaics, which is a way of converting solar energy into electricity. I gather that the potential resource for that form of technology in this country would be 360 TWhs. Our annual consumption of electricity as a country is 270 TWhs. That is a system which could certainly make a very big contribution to our electricity production.
There is only one problem. The sun does not shine all the time in Britain. But in some countries it does shine and if we can develop that technology, it might be an enormous gift to countries such as Oman, which I used to visit a good deal in a medical setting. Oman has wonderful sunshine and desperately needs a successor to oil in the production of electricity. I shall try to ensure that His Majesty the Sultan of Oman hears about that wonderful work in the University of Northumbria.
580
Our anxiety about carbon dioxide production led us to become involved in the Rio de Janeiro Conference on the environment. We are anxious to get our carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels by the end of the century. We could do that. I gather that the Government's aim involves trying to obtain 1,500 megawatts of electricity from renewable fuels by the end of the century. We have come quite a way and have reached 626 megawatts so far.
How have we done that? Industrial developments have been taking place in this country and the rest of the world. The DTI has been busy encouraging wind power, hydro-electrics, the use of waste—I mentioned the use of waste in Nottingham, but they also have ways of getting sewage gas and landfill gas into energy production—and the use of energy crops from forestry waste, and such like.
I am also very conscious of the enormous number of environmental industries that have developed as a result of the problems of waste disposal. I first became interested in waste disposal when on holiday in the United States where my family has a small house. It is situated in a wood, which meant having to get rid of rubbish. One had to attend meetings of the Minute Men—shades of Boston in the 18th century—to discuss what to do about throwing rubbish onto the land. The first time that I went to throw rubbish away I saw an enormous hole in the ground into which we and our American colleagues were to throw our rubbish. An enormous number of gulls then dived into the hole and enjoyed the pickings. In the evenings they used to sit on the little lakes around that wooded area. It was clear why sometimes one had tummy troubles after swimming in the lakes. One could see the gulls going straight from the pit and resting on the lake. The consequences medically were obvious.
A few years ago I bumped into a man whom I should like to mention for the record. His name is Philip Moore. My full title is Lord Butterfield of Stechford, which tells noble Lords that I am a Birmingham boy. Just outside Birmingham Philip Moore had built a remarkable municipal waste disposal unit. It was a very large tower. Waste was put into it which settled. Moore was able to separate out the metals. He was able to separate out a good deal of plastic and other waste which he turned into little plastic pellets for use on the roads and as fuel. The only problem was that the fuel tended to release quite toxic smoke into the atmosphere which rather damped down the whole project.
I was sad to hear that Philip Moore was probably going to America, but I am happy to hear that he is now back in this country and is working with Mr. Bellingham, a Member of Parliament in another place. He is making great progress in developing his system, which he hopes to be able to export. Of course, that is something that we must do. However, exporting to America is becoming progressively more difficult because, as has been pointed out, the Americans have gone ahead so quickly, recognising the possibility of developments here.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave the House the figures, which are really dramatic. Germany has 29 per cent. of the world trade in these fields;

581
America has 22 per cent.; and Japan has 12 per cent. We are down to a small percentage. It has been pointed out by the commission on which I am now serving that there is an interesting correlation between trade balances and the amount of work taking place in those fields. Germany has a very high balance of trade, while we are far behind.
As a physician, what has intrigued me about the whole of this development is that it really could draw on the inventive abilities and lateral thinking abilities of scientists and applied scientists in this country. I cannot help feeling that, in a way, environmental industries could be very similar to the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, referred to biotechnology, which is very important because we are strong in that sphere.
I can see great possibilities for encouraging that entire development by appointing a director of research and development in environmental industries, just as the NHS has recently done. Of course, our NHS has a big lead over other countries, including America, Japan and Germany; we have had that lead a long time and a great deal of experience. The Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, refers to whether the Government:
"will develop a coherent strategy to help promote British environmental technology and service companies".
I believe that the establishment of a national director of research and development in this field would be a terrific stimulus and help to the young men and women who could make very significant contributions.
I have read the work of the Environmental Industries Commission and I have seen its proposals. I hope that the Government will read those proposals, which range from dealing with a national strategy to developing interest in research councils. I hope that they may help to produce a scheme which will promote the development of this potentially important growth industry in this country.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on getting this Question on the Order Paper. I know that he is a doughty fighter for the environment and I ask him not to be discouraged by the small number of noble Lords present. I am afraid that noble Lords are more easily tempted by the bright lights and delights of broadcasting. The environment is lower in profile but is no less important to our quality of life and to the economy.
I suspect strongly that the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in tabling this Question is to find out whether the Government believe in strategies. We know that they believe in markets and that power lies where the money is, but strategies are a different matter. Strategies involve working together with others in partnerships and partnerships seem to be something of a problem for the Government. I hope that we shall find out from the Minister this evening whether the Government believe in a strategy for the development of the British environmental industry or whether their
582
strategy is that they have no strategy. If there is to be a strategy, it is rather late. We have heard how, for some years, it has been recognised that the world wide environmental technology and services industry will provide a major business opportunity.
When launching the Environmental Industries Commission, to which the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Butterfield, referred, my noble friend Lord Gregson said that,
"there are significant world-wide opportunities to British suppliers of environmental technologies and services which bodes well for the future balance of payments as well as much needed job creation".
His thoughts were echoed by the right honourable Michael Heseltine who was President of the Board of Trade at the time. Only last week those thoughts were echoed by the right honourable John Gummer, Secretary of State for the Environment. Those thoughts have been further confirmed by noble Lords this evening.
My noble friend Lord Gregson went on to say that without a strong home market it is unlikely that those companies will develop and be able to compete on the world stage. That is the heart of the matter. The environmental industry is dependent on government policies. That is because in environmental matters individuals cannot act alone. Individuals cannot buy clean air, clean rivers or clean seas for themselves. They cannot monitor and regulate pollution. Those things can be achieved only by people working together. In the same way that none of us can take action by ourselves, a coherent strategy for the environment industry requires a partnership between government, business and local authorities.
The role of government in setting and encouraging high standards and seeing that they are maintained is no longer in doubt. The best of British industry is convinced of that and the Government are pushing against an open door. Recently the CBI produced a report called Efficiency Gains in which it said that,
"by examining the environmental impact of products, processes and services, most businesses can find new, practical ways of achieving business gains. The environment is not something to be treated separately, but forms part of a culture of quality, efficiency and innovation".
Our better firms know that in the long term, higher standards for energy efficiency, engine emissions, discharges to rivers and the sea can make British industry more competitive. They know also that their customers want environmentally friendly products and systems. Some firms have already acted. In 1991, B&Q launched a supplier environment audit programme to assess its suppliers' environmental awareness. Its suppliers are graded on a database and as standards for environmental regulations change, they will be able to identify any supplier which might represent a liability or an opportunity to its business.
Buckland Paper Mill carried out a waste reduction strategy which concentrated on water consumption. That was reduced by 77 per cent. with savings of over £0.5 million per year. Forte Hotels saved £180,000 in 1983 by installing a combined heat and power system in 60 hotels.

583
It is therefore clear that there is already a market for pollution abatement equipment and technologies to reduce the damaging effect of what is happening now. But companies are looking further. When considering new investments and processes they are looking for clean technology so that they do not create environmental problems in the first place. Moving on from that, the industry is looking for sustainable technologies. A committee of your Lordships' House emphasised that sustainable technology for future generations depends on action being taken now, led by the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, suggested a sustainable biodegradation system to clean up waste and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, told us about solar energy technology, energy from waste, from windpower and from crops.
So how are we measuring up to that business challenge? Noble Lords have told us how we are lagging behind Germany, the United States and Japan. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, told us that a recent survey carried out by the European Commission of all the patents issued in environmental technology showed that 63 per cent. were awarded to companies in Germany, Japan and the United States; but the United Kingdom only received 6 per cent.
A further indication of the present state of affairs can be illustrated by looking at the number of applications for awards for environmental achievement in the Queen's Awards to Industry. In April 1995, 140 awards were given for export, 17 for technology, but only six were for environmental achievement. Sadly, applications for environmental achievement awards have almost halved since 1993.
When asked for an explanation of the situation, nine out of 10 businesses in Britain said that central government action to promote higher standards was the main factor driving them to buy environmental technologies. Obviously, the best companies do not need government action, but the rest of them do. By putting together a coherent strategy not only will the Government be making the environment pleasanter for us and for our children, but they will also be encouraging a new source of business and employment. That is the kind of double whammy which is so beloved of the Tory advertisers.
The other partner which the Government must involve in their strategy is the local authority. The local perspective is important for many reasons. In 1992, the Earth Summit in Rio agreed an action plan called Agenda 21. Over two-thirds of that agenda cannot be delivered without the co-operation of local government, working in partnership with local businesses and communities. According to the OECD, a few large firms account for half the output of the environmental industry. The other half is composed of small firms.
Companies of that size and type can gain great benefit from a partnership with their local councils. Local government can act as both a demanding customer to encourage such small firms to improve their products and performance, and also provide them with access to information and advice. That is why Agenda 21 wants to encourage people and institutions to think globally and to act locally.
584
We are now entering an area where some of Labour's ideas on public and private sector partnership can be effective. Many Labour-controlled local authorities are trying to use the private finance initiative to overcome restrictions which are hindering councils trying to promote economic regeneration partnerships. We have also heard of further elements of the Government's strategy which will help to promote the industry. They could have a structured dialogue with the industry through the DTI. The research councils could be encouraged to ensure that they fully participate in innovative, environmental technologies, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield.
The Government could talk to the environmental industry about setting standards, both for industry generally and to verify the claims of the environmental industry itself. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, reminded us that the Government could encourage the development and use of clean and sustainable technologies by a tax policy, which encourages long-term investment by companies and which discourages pollution and resource depletion.
However, as I said at the start, the Government strategy may be not to have a strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that they may be concerned about making life too difficult for sloppy companies with low environmental standards and that they justify this by calling it deregulation. They may hope that the existing sector dialogues will produce some consensus which will offend the least number of people. But, inevitably, it will mean that standards will be low.
I remind the Minister that there will always be countries with lower standards to which such firms can move. In the long term the Government must encourage best practice and support firms to lift their standards. As the MSF Union recently put it:
"The old view that taking the environment into account would cost jobs is out of date. On the contrary, it is the organisations that close their eyes to this challenge which have most to lose".
I wait with interest to hear the Government's strategy.
8.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for taking the time and effort to introduce such an important debate. We certainly recognise that the scale of the opportunities for environmental goods and services, both domestically and overseas, is vast. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—being in possession, as I know he is today, of a Labour Party document on such matters which has been conveniently leaked to me before it is available for the rest of the world to see—would have taken the opportunity to tell us just exactly what the document contains. However, we shall doubtless have to wait for another opportunity before the noble Lord reveals the details of the document to us.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the world market for environmental goods and services is already bigger than a wide range of well-accepted international trading applications; for example, international aerospace or pharmaceutical sectors. The OECD has

585
estimated that by the year 2000 it will be bigger than either of those. While I cannot agree with the noble Lord's figure of 600 billion US dollars—the figure that I have is 300 billion US dollars—I must say that by anyone's reckoning it is a vast sum.
Our view is that the UK environmental industry is well placed to take advantage of those opportunities as it is competitive internationally and is also, potentially, a very successful exporter, building on past successes. Our exports accounted for just under 4 per cent. of the world market in 1992—that is something like 8 billion US dollars—and will grow to an estimated 4.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. by the year 2000. At that rate of growth, the UK could take some 28 billion US dollars of business in 15 years' time.
Those are colossal figures, but we cannot afford to be complacent. As in all other sectors, competition is fierce and, further, the markets themselves are in a state of flux with customers increasingly demanding—and I stress this point—co-ordinated solutions to their problems, requiring companies to bring together diverse expertise from engineering applications and design, manufacture and installation to consulting and finance.
I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont, Lord Butterfield and Lord Haskel, were concerned that we are failing to develop overseas markets. That is something of a misconception. UK firms are as active and as successful as their major overseas competitors. My department recently published, without difficulty, two successive booklets each giving 100 success stories of UK environmental companies overseas. They range from massive contracts by Anglia Water for a waste-water treatment plant in Wellington New Zealand to noise insulation in Japan, meters for the Swiss police and rotary kilns in the United States.
I recognise the fact that there is an extraordinarily wide range of technology and scientific expertise to be exploited. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam dealt correctly on what is probably the most interesting of them all. I have no doubt that there are quite remarkable applications that the expertise available in this country could be deployed in pursuing not only in the developed world but also—and this is probably just as important—in the underdeveloped world. I acknowledge the emphasis that my noble friend placed upon it, and similarly the emphasis that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, placed on the contributions which might be made as regards the expertise being developed in such places as the University of Northumbria, and elsewhere. That is clearly most important. I hope that the noble Lord will do all he can as the "sponsor Minister" for the north of England to bring to the attention of the wider world just what is going on in that part of the country.
I must tell your Lordships that it is not that we have a strategy to have no strategy; it is our clear belief that it is first and foremost for the industry itself to develop a strategy. I hope that my next comment will be taken in a positive sense. My department would be happy to facilitate this process, recognising as we do that the relatively young United Kingdom environmental industry is highly fragmented, having its roots in more traditional industries. It is for that reason that we set up
586
the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU)—I hope that I may be permitted to use that acronym—to increase awareness of the opportunities and to help United Kingdom companies exploit them.
Based in the DTI the unit works closely with other parts of government, individual firms, trade associations, chambers of commerce and other organisations. One of its first priorities was to commission a major report on the state and competitiveness of the United Kingdom environmental industry. It is this report—which I believe will be well known to your Lordships—which has probably provided many of the facts and figures which have been quoted. Unhappily, the report revealed a lack of co-ordination in the sector. Fragmentation made it difficult for the industry to respond to customer demands and in particular the trend towards integrated solutions to environmental problems.
Although some of our companies are world beaters—I am happy to acknowledge that—the report found that the United Kingdom industry's image overseas was not as high as it deserved while its profile at home was also, regrettably, understated. It also pointed to a lack of reference standards for performance and, for newer technologies in this rapidly developing industry, the absence of good demonstrators. The report stimulated a debate which confirmed the industry itself shared these concerns. JEMU is therefore helping industry address these issues. Working with industry and our embassies abroad, it has been publicising UK technologies and services and UK successes overseas. I wish to underline that our export services now treat environmental technology as a priority sector in nearly two-thirds of what we would consider to be our top 80 markets.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam that we recognise the importance of biotechnology—I hope he has understood that from my earlier remarks—but our programme, Biotechnology Means Business, will, we hope, help by ensuring that companies are fully aware of the new market opportunities around the world. We hope it will also stimulate the supply and demand sides by raising awareness.
JEMU has done much to raise awareness of the global opportunities in the United Kingdom. It has published overseas market opportunity briefs on some 57 countries. It has worked with the regulators to issue sector-by-sector reports on best available technology to help UK suppliers benchmark their performance and identify new opportunities. It has produced guides to successful exporting and to sources of public support among its many other activities. It is interesting that a report which has been published recently, sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in Washington DC states,
"Even France and the United Kingdom have a headstart in the global environmental market principally by virtue of their privatised water infrastructure which has given them an advantage in international privatisation projects".

587
I doubt whether the noble Lord sitting on the Opposition Front Bench ever thought it would be possible to pray in aid that economic change to secure such environmental improvement around the world. I am happy to provide him with a copy of the full report if he wishes to see it.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if I want to see that report would I have to read it in a secure environment, as we were discussing this afternoon?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I can promise the noble Lord it will be environmentally friendly. Overarching all the work that JEMU undertakes is the efforts we are making to help and encourage the industry to overcome the major problem of fragmentation. I cannot stress that too much. The industry comprises a high proportion of small companies. It is served by a multitude of trade associations and other bodies, many of which are unrepresentative, under-resourced and unable or unwilling to provide their members with the range of services which competitive industry demands. Prime responsibility for overcoming this lack of cohesion must inevitably rest with the industry itself; with the companies within it and its trade representatives.
I believe there are now some encouraging signs of industry tackling the problem. As I have stressed, we are anxious to facilitate the process. We recently published model trade association guidelines. We are also exploring with industry the development of a commercially based co-ordination group to strengthen the United Kingdom's ability to respond to demands for integrated packages by customers in the world markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, asked about a national R&D centre. This is one of the issues that we are discussing in the context of our work with the industry on an industry-led co-ordinating mechanism. These have been JEMU's priorities thus far; but we remain, as I have indicated with the example I have just used, in dialogue with the industry to explore what can be done to address the broad range of factors that influence competitiveness.
I appreciate that I have al limited time in which to respond to the debate and I regret if I omit some of the points that have been raised. However, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me specifically about tax allowances to aid technology diffusion. We already give 100 per cent. tax allowances to the environmental industry for the costs of research and development of new technology. However, capital allowances to the industrial purchasers of certain environmental equipment—which I think he might urge—would be contrary to our policy of maintaining a neutral tax regime with low rates of tax and special reliefs.
This has been an important debate. I hope that I have been able to respond to it in the time available to me as fully as your Lordships would wish. I stress in conclusion that as regards the DTI, it is not that we have a strategy to have no strategy; we believe it is for the industry to develop it itself. I wish to see carried forward a positive and constructive dialogue between the industry and the unit. I believe that there is considerable credit to be given to the industry thus far, not only in a
588
domestic but also in an international context. We are more than willing to work with the industry. It offers to us all a real opportunity not only in terms of commerce and exports around the world but also as a positive contribution to the cleaning up of the world when for too long too much has been despoiled.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until no earlier than five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.48 to 8.55 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 63.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 56, line 7, leave out ("a significant reduction in").
The noble Lord said: I spoke earlier to Amendment No. 163, which I linked with Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: In view of the procedure before the dinner break, I shall concentrate on one question.
I hope very much that the word "significant", or words "significant reduction", will be removed from the clause. If the word "significant" is to remain in the Bill I invite the Minister to identify the meaning which it is intended the word should have in the context of the Bill. It has many shades of meaning, and I should have thought that, if not tonight at least at Report stage, a definition would be useful both to the commission and to the broadcasters.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not wish to get involved in a debate about the exact meaning of the word "significant". I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, with all his legal expertise, had to say on the subject earlier. It would be interesting at some point to have some clarification.
I wish merely to observe that, unless I entirely misread the clause as it stands, the drafting of my amendment seems to be preferable to that of Amendment No. 163, which seems to make nonsense of the clause. If one takes out the words "a significant reduction in", and does nothing further, I am not sure that the provision makes sense. However, one can remove the word "significant" and the provision then has a real meaning.
Lord Inglewood: In the context of the amendment, we feel that the key point in the group of introductory words in subsection (4) is whether or not the regional character of the service is likely to be prejudiced. It seems to us that that should be the focus of the aspirations that we have as legislators. What we are not convinced of is the extra hurdle that the degree of reduction in any particular measured aspect of the service should itself be significant. It may fail to address

589
the core point. We are concerned about a reduction in regionality. We feel that it is important that we focus on it.
As I said in respect of the earlier amendments, we wish to consider all of them as a group in order to refine them. We are all trying to achieve the same end in the group.
Lord Kirkhill: In the light of the Minister's remarks and the points which he made earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163A not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 56, line 15, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: Again I wish merely to move the amendment formally.
Lord Crickhowell: We should not pass quite so quickly over this amendment. When we started the debate I indicated that in my view it is the most crucial and it would have been much better to have had a debate on it. I have some sympathy with what the Minister said about not trying to impose a set of definitions that are too restrictive or to tie the hands of the commission too far. However, we are not doing that. Clause 63(3) draws attention to three aspects of the provision which should concern the commission: the quality or range of regional programming; the quality or range of other programmes which contribute to the regional character of the service; and the quality or range of the programmes included in the nationwide system of services. In a sense, the amendment is an attempt to give definition to what we are talking about in regional programming.
Amendment No. 164B, in my name, refers to the degree of editorial control and the extent to which the service is managed by persons with sufficient knowledge of the area. That is fundamental. As has been observed during the debates we have had, knowledge of the area and production of programmes within the area are a fundamental factor in successful regional programming.
I understand that my noble friend will wish to go away and consider the amendments and that I shall not receive an answer from him tonight. However, I ask him to consider the amendment with special care. I believe that nothing is more important for the defence of the regional principle than that we protect the position of the people who produce programmes who have real regional knowledge and involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested that one can produce a programme by getting into a helicopter and flying a crew up from London to produce a programme which purports to be regional. However, it will not be regional in the real sense of the word unless it is produced by people who have knowledge of, sympathy with and understanding of the part of the country that they are portraying. That is what we must defend.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support Amendment No. 164B which also happens to be in my name and is grouped
590
with Amendment No. 164. We believe that it is important that editorial control of the regional programmes is located in the region. There are at least two reasons why we consider it to be important. First, there is the duty in subsection (4) to have:
"offices or studios situated within the area for which the service is provided".
That phrase is not as reassuring as it purports to be, unless the editorial control is also within the region. Secondly, if the regional broadcasting is not to be put at risk it seems to me that the editors and heads of programmes should be located at the point of contact with the people of the region. They should therefore be regarded as part of the local scene.
Amendment No. 164B can be distinguished from Amendment No. 164A because the former refers specifically to editorial control. If the Government are minded not to accept the amendment, then I should have thought that today or at Report stage we should be enlightened as to where editorial control will be located in the absence of a reference to any duty in the clause. Are we to assume that it is therefore to be left to the discretion of the new owner who may, by choice or otherwise, become intolerant of genuine diversity?
Lord Elis-Thomas: I have a problem with the amendment. I suspect that I am sometimes a bit of an old-fashioned liberal, therefore I flinch from putting a phrase such as "editorial control" on the face of legislation. Here we have the difficulty of deciding what is appropriate for legislation on the face of the Bill and what is appropriate for discussion with the ITC and the regulator. I can see where we are trying to go. The Minister has already indicated that he will talk to the ITC about the regional tranche of amendments. However, it is important to remember the principles that we brought out: that regional programming in music, current affairs and all the cultural output should continue to reflect the region from wherever the ownership or inward investment into a company may come. That is the issue to which we shall need to return; namely, how is it possible to maintain a framework in which regionalism is celebrated and where there is additional outside investment into the region through the new ownership of a regional company without undermining that regionality. I suspect that the balance lies somewhere between what the ITC does as a regulator and what is on the face of the Bill.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the Committee. This is obviously an important point and we have heard some helpful comments. Many of the difficulties relate to the core point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It seems to me that the "production" and "editing" that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, wishes to add to the criteria that the ITC must examine are both encompassed within the wider concept of "making" a programme, reductions in the local proportion of which are included in the criterion at subsection (4)(b) of Clause 63. It may be that there are loopholes in the definition or that there are ways through via the mechanisms of programme-making which need to be addressed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seeks in his amendment to close a loophole whereby some parts of the production process could be performed outside the licence region. I shall certainly ask

591
the ITC whether it would welcome some clarification or expansion of the concept of making a programme spelling out the position of particular component activities like production and editing. However, I rather doubt whether the idea of seeking to nail down where decisions are taken as opposed to where people are employed or processes carried out is practically enforceable, necessary or even directly relevant to regional character.
I see a similar problem in enforcing the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who seeks to have the ITC judge by whom editorial control is exercised and the extent to which managers of a company are knowledgeable of the region served. It is perhaps unreasonable to burden the ITC with criteria that are not readily measurable and may be subject to challenge. The point about managers of companies having knowledge seems to imply that a manager could never be brought in from outside. There are a series of difficult problems with which we must try to get to grips. However, I see that there may well be a point to address. I hope that the undertakings I have given to consult will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Kirkhill: When I moved the amendment I did not speak to it for reasons I have indicated. I thought that we covered the ground rather well earlier. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made the key point, and with success. I am now content to leave the Minister and his officials to consider all the comments made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 164A not moved.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164B:
Page 56, line 22, at end insert (", or
(d) the degree of editorial control exercised from within the area for which the service is provided and the extent to which the service is managed by persons with sufficient knowledge of that area,").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for what my noble friend had to say on this amendment. He identified possible difficulties. The company of which I am a director, which covers two regions, believes it a good idea not to have the people from our Bristol office and south west region trying to produce programmes in Wales, and vice versa. We find that editorial control has to be exercised by those who are involved. Although we have executives who cover both, and the general management of the company covers both, the production of programmes is in the hands of people who come from one or other region. That is the point I seek to identify. I should be grateful if my noble friend would discuss it with the ITC and consider it further before Report stage.
[Amendment No. 164B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 56, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again, I should be grateful for some explanation from the Minister. I find it very
592
difficult to reconcile the power in Clause 63(3) dealing with regional programmes and that in Clause 63(4) referring to the regional character of the service. The power in subsection (3) relates to the quality and range of programmes and is mandatory. The power in subsection (4) relates to proportionality and is not mandatory. Is that lack of consistency a mistake? If not, will the Minister explain why there should be two inconsistent approaches?
I am puzzled also by this possible situation. If the change of control leads to a marked reduction in the time given to the regional programme, is it intended that the commission shall not be under a duty to vary the licence, even though it can be demonstrated that it is prejudicial to the regional character of the service? That would be an extremely odd result.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I can respond to the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The way the provision has been drafted is deliberate. The matters referred to in subsection (3) are those which it is felt are inherently such that it would be appropriate for the commission to vary the licence as a result of them occurring; while those referred to in subsection (4), if in reality they are prejudicial in the manner referred to by the noble Lord, would lead to a variation in the relevant circumstances.
We do not feel that if, for example, there was a five-minute shift in time, that would be something which should automatically trigger the variation. We intended to ensure that the ITC, as the authority which deals with the matter, had sufficient flexibility to be able to respond in a common sense way to what happened. As I said in my remarks when we began to debate these amendments before the dinner break, we are not endeavouring to entrench the status quo; we are endeavouring to make sure that the regionality, as it is manifest in the Channel 3 services covered by this provision, remains. That is why we felt it appropriate to have a degree of discretion in this regard in order to enable the system as a whole to be sufficiently flexible to evolve as the world moves forward.
Having said that, I am proposing to take all these clauses away to look at them. While we are not necessarily convinced by Amendment No. 166, I shall take it away to discuss it with the ITC.
The Earl of Kinnoull: In relation to subsection (3), if the change appears to be prejudicial, then under the three circumstances listed the commission shall vary the licence. I understand that. In subsection (4) the word "If' appears again, which indicates that on both occasions the commission has the right to consider whether or not to proceed, but on both occasions the term is prejudicial. I do not understand why there is a difference because on both occasions the word "If" appears at the start of the subsections.
Lord Inglewood: I hope that I can answer my noble friend satisfactorily by saying that, by definition, what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was postulating was a change in regionality which does not jeopardise the

593
quality and range of regional programmes, otherwise subsection (3) would apply. The provision seeks to deal with a lesser range of potential mischief. It is important that we do not completely corset the existing arrangements and pickle them so that there is no scope for any kind of evolutionary change in the event of the ownership of the licence which is underpinning the service changing.
Lord Kirkhill: I indicated that I did not intend to say anything at this stage. However, in view of the contributions that have been made in Committee, I am tempted to make a few remarks.
The purpose of Amendment No. 166 is to replace the option to vary a licence with a duty to vary a licence. The Minister indicated earlier that he would consider all the points which have been made, but perhaps he might give consideration, as a matter of consistency within Clause 63, to the suggestion that subsection (4) should follow the example of subsection (3) where "shall" is used rather than "may". It is a point to which I am sure he will give consideration. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 169B not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 57, line 6, leave out from ("is") to end of line 8 and insert ("designed to be of particular interest to and to be first broadcast for—

(a) persons living within the area for which the service is provided (or any part of it), or

(b) in the case of a programme which is produced by or for a body holding the licence in respect of that service and one or two other bodies holding regional Channel 3 licences, persons living within that area and the area or areas for which services under those licences are provided' ").

The noble Lord said: I wish to make a number of remarks relative to Amendment No. 170. The term "regional programme" appeared widely in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and it has been used many times in debate. Everyone has a fair idea of what it means. Yet I suspect that we would probably all offer a slightly different definition. In fact, the whole of Clause 63 is about definitions. What we need to do, if we can, is attempt to define more carefully the question of what is or what is not a regional programme. The clause attempts a definition—I welcome that—but the definition is incomplete.
To find a definition of a regional programme, I turned to the ITC, which issued a very detailed description to TV companies in November 1992. Amendment No. 170 embraces the ITC's definition. As the clause stands, it defines a regional programme as being,
"of particular interest to persons living within the area for which the service is provided".
That could apply both to regional programmes, as in subsection (3)(a) of the clause, and to those described in subsection (3)(b)—those other programmes which contribute to the regional character of the service.
I come from an area where angling and hill climbing are very popular. Grampian Television has been mentioned once or twice today, not by me but by other
594
Members of the Committee. If I give the example of Grampian it is because I live there. If it were to acquire an angling programme from RTE in Ireland and one about hill climbing from NRK in Norway, those programmes might be of great interest to those of us who live in the North of Scotland but they would nevertheless not be regional programmes. My amendment, by emphasising that the programme is designed for local viewers and is normally to be first broadcast for those viewers, ensures that simple acquisitions from elsewhere are insufficient to qualify as regional programmes.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment allows for the ITC's willingness to accept a very limited number of co-productions among ITV companies as regional programmes in more than one area. For example, in Scotland there is a significantly different pattern of religious worship from that which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. In recognition of that, both Grampian and Scottish Television work together to produce weekly church services from the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopalian Church, the Free Church of Scotland and so on. The few but legitimate regional co-productions such as these create the need for the second part of this more complete definition; or at least that is my view. In the light of the Minister's co-operative stance in our earlier discussions, I hope that between now and the Report stage he will give some thought to my concept.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should point out that if Amendment No. 170 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 171.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 170 and 171. I listened to the earlier debate about Grampian. As someone who does not live in Scotland or come from it, I imagined that Grampian covers the whole of Scotland, Scotland being an entity. My noble friend Lord Dubs, who intended to speak on this issue but cannot be with us, said that his mind was finally made up on the thinking behind Amendment No. 171 when, while waiting to take the Skye ferry recently, he bought some petrol. He thought that it was very expensive and said to the petrol attendant, "This is very expensive petrol". The attendant replied, "But it is the same price as everywhere around here. What do you mean that it is expensive?" My noble friend said, "Yesterday I bought some in Glasgow". The attendant said, "Have you not heard of the North-South divide?"
I have a home in the West Country. Devon and Cornwall is covered by West Country TV. People in Devon call a "foreigner"—and that is me, from Cornwall—an "Emit". If one is in Cornwall people from Devon are called "Grockles". Therefore, one may feel that one is talking about a regional area, but one is not. There are individual identities within the region. That is why this Amendment No. 171 at first glance may seem a little nit-picking, but it is not. It is not just within the region but throughout it, as we see it.
Lord Inglewood: Having heard this debate I have concluded that if each of your Lordships were to

595
separately draft the clause we are debating each draft would be quite different. As I said in my earlier remarks, we shall consider all these matters with the ITC. We are certainly not convinced that the solution offered here by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will necessarily get to the heart of the issue as we want to. We believe that it is rigid. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness may in fact be treating a largely imaginary problem.
The reason for that is that the powers to impose new licence conditions in Clause 63—new Section 21A(3)(a) and (4)(a) to the 1990 Act—are designed to cover not just regional programmes as specified by the definition we are now considering, but also other programmes which contribute to the regional character of the service. If either or both of these are felt to be threatened in quality, range or quantity, then the ITC can impose new licence conditions. So to that extent it should not greatly matter whether a programme comes within the expressed definition of "regional".
As I said, we propose to discuss this matter with the ITC and to take into account the debate we have had this evening. It has considerable experience of enforcing licence conditions designed to preserve regional identity. I hope that that will reassure the Committee.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one matter. The statement that the commission put out in November 1992 was a fairly long one and, I imagine, it was issued to all licensees and companies involved. It very much covers the amendment which the noble Lord has moved. I hope that when my noble friend talks with the commission he will take into account the fact that it is already common knowledge what the definition was as they saw it. I hope that it will be expanded into the Bill and make it clearer.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to comment specifically on the document to which he referred. As I said, when we debate these matters with the ITC that will be done in the round and in a co-operative spirit, bearing in mind the debate that we have had here this evening.
Lord Kirkhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171, 171A and 172 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 57, line 25, at end insert ("("the adjusted amount")").
The noble Lord said: We now come to two funding debates, which may take a little time. I do not want to extend the time taken by the Committee, but the funding issue is of importance both to S4C and Channel 4. We shall come to that a little later, but not too late. The
596
funding issue is important because television is not only a producer and distributor of programmes, but also an economic activity in its own right. It is a major service industry. Indeed, it is one of the major service industries in the United Kingdom. The role of S4C as a service industry in Wales was described both on Second Reading and earlier in today's debate. I need emphasise only the importance of the authority's ability to be able to invest in programme-making in different centres of production throughout Wales and to be able to sell its product both nationally and internationally. It has production centres in Cardiff, Swansea and Caernafon—I declare an interest as a resident of the Royal Borough of Caernafon—which have created a system of media presentation within Wales which reflects those different communities with their linguistic and community diversity.
It is essential for the future development of the channel and for the maintenance of employment in that service industry of television in all its production centres in Wales that the funding of the channel should be adequate. There is a long history to the funding formula we are discussing. The Bill proposes to change the funding formula from one based on 3.2 per cent. of total advertising revenue to one based on the 1997 level of funding plus RPI with an unspecified amount—that is part of our difficulty—to cover the cost of digital transmission. It is argued that that gives the department and S4C stability for planning purposes. We accept that. I also accept that the existing formula on its current basis presents a public expenditure problem for the department and a certain insecurity in terms of planning for the channel. The problem is that total television revenues have consistently risen at a higher rate than RPI, and that pattern is projected to continue.
The problem that S4C has as an authority is that the formula on the face of the Bill leaves it with less funding than is produced by the existing formula at a time when it has additional expenditure, when the digital service becomes an added expense, and when other channels, such as Channel 4, will be benefiting from increased advertising revenue. The existence of Channel 4 in Wales, which we all welcome, is a matter for debate later. We welcome the proposals in the Bill to extend Channel 4 throughout the United Kingdom, but that may result in an advertising revenue problem for S4C.
The authority is seeking—I know that the matter has been discussed in detail with the department—to retain a link between the funding of the authority and commercial revenues so that the authority can benefit from the rise in terrestrial television advertising revenue. The proposal in this and the two linked amendments is that there should be an adjusted amount, which is the base funding plus RPI, but that the supplemental amount, the increase, should not be greater than 3.2 per cent. of total advertising revenue, thus keeping the current formula. The amendments propose a compromise between the existing formula and the position set out in the Bill.
The funding formula is to change in 1998. That will be the first year of digital transmission. .Although the formula gives the authority a more secure footing, as was indicated, it does not enable the authority to have a sufficient base to continue its level of production or to

597
be able to fund the additional cost of the digital service. I do not want to go back over the history of the formula. Briefly, it is this. In the early 1980s the formula under the Broadcasting Act 1981 required the IBA to fund what were described as the "reasonable outgoings" of S4C. It was also required to fund Channel 4. Funds for both were obtained from the fourth channel subscription, which was then a levy on the ITV companies. The position at that stage was negotiated by the IBA. The fourth channel subscription was set at 17 per cent. of total commercial revenue (NAR) for the previous year and was shared between Channel 4 and S4C on an 80 per cent./20 per cent. basis so that S4C then received 3.4 per cent.—that is, 20 per cent. of 17 per cent.—of the previous year's NAR, by agreement. I go back to that to indicate the complexity of the original formula that was set out in legislation.
The transmission costs were then paid by the IBA. That system worked well for S4C. Following the 1990 Act, the ITV contractors emphasised that the funding for S4C should come from a different source. At the same time, advertisers were calling for Channel 4 to sell its own airtime. That was introduced with the so-called safety net, to which we shall come later, for Channel 4.
In 1989, the Home Office, the department then responsible for broadcasting, discussed with S4C a different funding scheme, comprising a direct grant from government of 3.2 per cent. of the previous year's NAR which would have allowed S4C to keep the revenue from the sale of its own airtime, but it would have had to pay the transmitter cost out of that total sum. That became, in effect, the position in the 1990 Act.
The period 1989 to 1991 was not a buoyant one for NAR, but ever since there has been real growth. That is what has created the problem and why the Government have felt the need to cap the present funding formula. Our concern is that in the present legislation the proposal that from 1998 S4C funding should continue at the 1997 level in real terms with an RPI link, will mean that for the first time, which is why I have gone over the history, S4C's revenue will not be linked to the ITV Channel 4 commercial advertising revenue, but will be frozen in real terms.
It is important that the department reconsider that decision not to link the S4C funding to operational market forces in this area. It cannot have it both ways. Either S4C is granted further commercial flexibility if it is to be capped in that way, or it has to have its revenue linked to the market movement in the whole media sector that we are discussing.
S4C's own advertising revenue has been buoyant, but as I said earlier there may be competition in future years as Channel 4 becomes available in Wales. So the levelling off of income is coinciding with a period of additional costs because of the need to develop the digital channels. Those are not merely transmission costs. That is why I have proposed in the amendment one formula that maintains a link with the commercial market movement of revenue in terms of income, but also provides flexibility for the department in terms of the way it wishes to control public expenditure in this area.
I am not pressing this solution as the only one, but I should like assurances from the Minister when he responds that he will look again at the break that has been made between S4C's income and the relative movement of the market in this whole area. There should be particular financial provision for S4C at a period when analogue and digital are being broadcast together to ensure that the channel is not placed in an unfair situation in relation to what is happening in the development of the other broadcasters that we have been discussing during the Bill's progress. I beg to move.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I shall not detain the Committee too long because equally important amendments are down on the Marshalled List. We support the amendment because we feel that what the Government expect S4C to face in 1998 is a cutback in funding which, over the next three years, is projected to be £27 million potentially. Digital is coming on stream, and at the same time the Bill introduces and envisages a new relationship between S4C and Channel 4 which will mean that S4C will have to produce a great deal more of its own programmes to take up the availability of the channel space that it will have. We believe that during that time S4C needs some stability but clearly the Government do not wish to maintain the present formula. While the Minister's amendments are helpful and recognise the problem, they do not go far enough. Amendment No. 175 is in many ways a compromise. It will leave the ceiling at 3.2 per cent. but it could be less depending on the fortunes of the industry in regard to advertising revenue. If there is a downturn in advertising revenue, S4C will experience it, as will other commercial channels.
We believe that Amendment No. 175 is worthy of consideration as are the linked Amendments Nos. 178 and 179. I had intended to speak of the importance of the Welsh language service but in view of the hour I shall say only that I support the amendments.
Viscount Astor: Having looked at the amounts of money that S4C has managed to collect in recent years, I am concerned about the amendment. I understand that under the formula in 1993 it was £56 million; in 1994 it was £58 million; and in 1995 it was £64 million. That represents a percentage increase of 4.4 per cent. in 1993; 10.2 per cent. in 1994; and 14 per cent. in 1995. S4C has done pretty well. In fact, it has done a great deal better than most others; for example, the BBC under the percentage increase in the licence fee. It has had extremely generous treatment.
What worries me about the amendment is that it seeks to link the amount of guaranteed total revenue to a share of all the new channels which are coming on stream. It includes all advertising. I accept that the noble Lord's amendment provides a ceiling of 3.2 per cent., but bearing in mind that the whole pot is becoming much larger than I suspect the Government thought in 1990—and probably more than S4C then thought—I believe that the limit put on by the noble Lord's amendment is perhaps slightly over-egging the pudding. I am all for Channel 4 receiving funding but I wonder whether the Government's proposal is more sensible because it gives the Government an ability to choose the figure.

599
As the noble Lord said, this is a difficult area for the Department of National Heritage because if it gets its budget wrong—indeed, if it gets wrong the budget for total television advertising—it will suddenly find that all the money it had intended to spend on other parts of the department has gone on Channel 4. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that and the Government appreciate it. I wonder whether we should be hung up on the figure of 3.2 per cent. and I should be interested to hear my noble friend's comments. I believe that we must arrive at an equitable formula but I am not sure that this amendment achieves that.
Lord Geraint: I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. As a Welshman—and I am sure that many others will share my view—I believe that the S4C channel has been a success for the Welsh people, their nation and its language and culture. I am delighted that the Government and others have spent so much money on the channel. It is a worthy cause and I hope that more help will be given to our channel in Wales.
I wish to comment on Clause 64 and the proposed new subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 179. I am bemused by the preamble to the Bill. It refers to the financial effects of the Bill and states simply that Clause 64,
"revises the funding formula for the Welsh Fourth Channel".
There is no mention of whether this is a revision with the effect of making public expenditure savings. The fact is that while the current formula—I repeat, the current formula—does not produce certainty because it depends on the variability in advertising revenue it has produced growth in S4C's income in real terms. That is because advertising revenue has been climbing on a trend higher than the RPI.
It seems to me that there is some deliberate element of public expenditure reduction. The calculations supplied to me show that on current projections S4C will lose some £27 million cumulatively by the end of the century. That is not a very good prospect. It is not a small amount for an organisation facing the extra expenditure of digital broadcasting which goes beyond the additional costs for transmission.
I realise that the new firmula will not operate until 1998. But the effect of the cut is immediate in that year and cumulative thereafter. All public bodies have to keep their housekeeping in order. But the fact is that S4C's administrative overheads are low. The 1994 annual report states that over 90 per cent. of the channel's public funding is spent on programme services. That is a wonderful achievement in itself. I can understand how the Government would want certainty in a formula and to be certain that the new formula produces lower expenditure—and rightly so. But that treatment comes over as somewhat harsh for an organisation which has so many achievements to its name.
I hope that I express the mood of the Committee when I ask the Government to think again. I am sure that they will do so. There should be room for some transitional arrangements for the S4C channel to cushion the change over, say, the next five or 10 years, corresponding broadly to the period over which we expect analogue broadcasting to be phased out.
600
I make a final plea. I am sure that the noble Lord will support S4C's argument. To date, he has taken a realistic attitude of S4C, and rightly so. I am sure that he will continue to give that support to our Channel S4C.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not doubt that anyone who knows me can doubt my support for S4C and Welsh broadcasting. The name is almost engraved on my heart. I was Secretary of State at the time of the controversy that gave it birth and was intimately involved in the decisions that led to that happy event. Therefore, I want to see the company thrive and prosper. I am perfectly happy to hear arguments which say that the Government must be asked to pay a reasonable amount to meet the additional costs that may arise from the introduction of digital broadcasting and such things.
I do not believe that it does S4C any service to produce a formula which is indefensible. I have been around for rather a long time dealing with public expenditure issues. I know perfectly well what happens when a department's budget is wrecked by something which does not stand up to examination. I know what will be the attitude of the Treasury.
We have heard about demands for certainty. In the last year or two the Channel 3 television companies have not lived through a period of certainty but through a period when their share of advertising revenue has been falling because of the arrival of a successful new channel. We are in a period of unprecedented change and the arrival of new channels. It worries me that we are being asked to guarantee a formula which is related to total television revenue. A situation may arise in which, for example, Channel 3 or Channel 4 companies see falls in their share of total revenue but, apparently, a formula which guarantees a percentage for S4C. My worry about that is that far from safeguarding S4C, it will be so open to attack that certainty will be very quickly removed.
Therefore, I am not at all happy that the formula in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, actually gives S4C what it wants. I do not think that it will stand up to examination in five, six or seven years' time against the totality of the situation and the comparative position of other companies. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider very carefully the arguments that have been put forward for a sound formula to support S4C. But I express quite serious reservations as to whether the formula suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will do what he wants it to do. Indeed, I thought from his reaction to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Astor that he may understand that there are some weaknesses in the proposed formula which will need further consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall not repeat what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Geraint, except to say that broadly, I am in full agreement with their sentiments.
I propose to take a narrow approach to the new funding formula. The Government propose a new funding formula and there are siren voices from the department advising

601
S4C to abandon the existing formula and seek the shelter of a guaranteed sum. Basically, that is the message that has been given to S4C.
But the board and officers of S4C said, "Well, we would have to pay a very high price for that guarantee". That price will be substantially less income for S4C to develop its services at a time when they have to be developed. Therefore, its ability to compete with its competitors will be put in jeopardy.
Was it the Government's intention, by changing the formula, that S4C should receive significantly less funds in future? If that was not their intention but they are persuaded by the board of S4C that that will be the result, will they please reconsider the formula?
Lord Inglewood: Clause 64 aims to put S4C's funding on a reliable and predictable basis which will benefit both my department and S4C in their financial planning. The funding formula in the 1990 Act fixes the statutory payments made by my department to 3.2 per cent. of terrestrial national advertising revenue. The process of operating this formula is prone to significant fluctuations given the vagaries of the advertising market. Forecasts can vary from the actual amounts paid by several million pounds. This makes sensible planning of my department's PES provision very much more difficult. That was a point echoed by my noble friend and predecessor Lord Astor and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. If we get the forecasts wrong—and forecasting is not an exact science—we can unduly and unfairly affect the interests of those other organisations which depend upon the department for money.
The funding mechanism proposed in the Bill takes as its starting point the payment to be made to S4C at the beginning of 1997 under the current formula, and it will be uprated annually thereafter by the RPI. That will put S4C's funding on a similar basis to that of the BBC.
This funding will be guaranteed. It will be free from political interference. And we have moreover built in an additional protection. The clause includes a power to fund S4C over and above the statutory formula to reflect the additional costs arising from digital transmission. I hope that that provides some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Contrary to suggestions made in debate, the Bill's proposals have not been introduced simply as a means of cutting S4C's funding but as a means of making the whole financing process more predictable and reliable.
If we simply wanted to cut S4C's funding, the 1990 Act gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the percentage of total television revenues by order after 1997. That is not what this amendment is about.
The fulfilment of S4C's remit is not tied to any particular level of funding and the channel has other sources of money than the statutory payments. The Bill will enable S4C to widen its commercial activities. In that respect, as I indicated, we are looking to bring forward amendments to enable S4C to undertake additional commercial activities beyond its statutory function. I hope that that will reassure both the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Geraint.
602
However, having said that, I must have regard to the element of S4C's funding which comes from the taxpayer. In the period 1992–93 to 1995–96 the BBC's licence fee income increased by 14.6 per cent., while over exactly the same period S4C's statutory payments increased by 23 per cent. S4C has done extremely well out of the funding system since 1993. We must recognise the fact that there is a limit to the extent that S4C should continue to receive funding increases above inflation.
It is always very alluring when making such an argument to do what the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, did; namely, to imply that there is some money which one might have had a hope or an expectation of receiving and that if, somehow, one does not receive it, then that money is lost. Indeed, it is the kind of situation where a spinster aunt leaves her fortune to someone else. That is hardly a fair way of looking at the problem.
The order-making power in the Bill simply repeats the position in the current funding arrangements in the 1990 Act which enable the Secretary of State to take into account the costs of transmitting S4C. The order-making power is extended to digital. It is not intended to allow the Government to change S4C funding for any other reasons, nor does it in any way compromise S4C's independence. Government Amendments Nos. 176, 177, 180 and 181 narrow the wording of Clause 64 specifically to take account of fears expressed to me by S4C on the issue.
I join Members of the Committee who paid a tribute to the work of both the Welsh Authority and S4C in ensuring that the material broadcast on the Welsh fourth channel is of a high standard and appreciated by the majority of the Welsh population. S4C's success on analogue will, I am sure, be enhanced by the opportunities of digital broadcasting. The Government are committed to ensuring that proper arrangements are in place for S4C to continue to thrive. That includes the adequate provision of resources. We believe that what we propose, which is analogous to what the BBC enjoys, is appropriate for the purpose.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurances he has given. I am also grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that it is not my intention to cause PES difficulties for any government department because, in another life, I have to make PES bids to another department on behalf of the public body with which I am associated. Therefore, I do not want to create any upsets in terms of expenditure. I understand such disciplines precisely.
My concern has been that in the process of transition to the new world of digital the channel would have problems coping with the change. The Minister made clear that he is pointing S4C in the direction of level funding related to the RPI for its statutory payments but that he is also looking to other sources for greater commercial flexibility. We welcome that fact. Therefore, when the Minister returns on Report with further amendments in the area of commercial flexibility, we shall look to him to give further assurances that the legislation will allow the authority

603
fully to exploit all the possibilities that may be open to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment with the indication that we shall certainly return to the funding issue on Report. We look forward to hearing more about the Minister's further flexibility on the commercial side of the development of the channel's activity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 57, line 26, after ("means") insert ("the 1997 amount or such amount as may from time to time be prescribed under subsection (2B).
(2A) In this section "the 1997 amount" means").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall with the leave of the Committee speak also to Amendments Nos. 177, 180 and 181. Since the publication of the Bill, S4C has expressed concern to me that Clause 64 gives the Secretary of State a broad power to alter S4C's funding annually. As I made clear on Second Reading, that is not the intention behind the clause. We have therefore brought forward this group of amendments to implement more narrowly our policy intention. This is what I referred to in my previous remarks. Our intention is to provide a steady and predictable income stream for S4C to enable both the broadcaster and the Government to plan properly for the future.
These amendments make clear that the Secretary of State can only increase S4C's funding from the 1997 levels in relation to the channel's transmission costs and for no other reason. They extend this provision to include digital transmission costs as well as analogue. I am confident that Clause 64, as amended, will provide a reliable basis for funding to enable S4C to continue its successful Welsh public service broadcasting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 57, line 29, leave out from ("enacted)") to end of line 31 and insert—
("(2B) The Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the cost to the Welsh Authority of transmitting S4C and the service referred to in section 57(1A), by order provide that the prescribed amount is to be an amount which is greater than the 1997 amount and is specified in the order.
(2C) Before making an order under subsection (2B) the Secretary of State shall consult the Welsh Authority.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 57, leave out lines 40 to 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 58, line 1, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2B)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 58, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 182, which stands in my name and that of others, with the leave of the Committee I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 183, 229, 231 and 232. I suggest that, in view of the lateness of the hour, we also consider whether Clauses 65 and 66 should stand part of the Bill. The object of this group of amendments is to abolish in its entirety the funding formula for Channel 4.
At Second Reading I indicated that the formula set up in the 1990 legislation has gone badly wrong. Parliament intended it to be a backstop, a guarantee for the channel as it began to sell its own air time and a safety net whereby the ITV companies received a small insurance premium in the early years in return for a modest liability in the later years. I urge those Members of the Committee who may believe—or who have been led to believe—different, to read the words of my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his reply in the debate on the relevant clauses of the 1990 Act. The formula has now run out of control.
Tomorrow morning Channel 4 will hand over a cheque to ITV of £74,008,186 as the payment for 1995. That is more than £74 million. By the end of 1997 the ITV companies will have had £300 million against their expectation of £100 million over 10 years—an expectation on which they based their business plans when they bid for their licences. They have done very well indeed! More significantly, their liability has vanished. No one—I repeat no one—in the industry, or those whose business is to analyse the industry, forecasts that Channel 4 will need any payments in return. The ITC sees no case for any further insurance payments after the end of 1997. Only the Government appear to think that Channel 4 faces a hypothetical disaster, but they have failed to produce the figures, or the basis on which such a disaster is forecast.
After Second Reading of this Bill I took up the invitation of my noble friend the Minister and I wrote to him asking for figures to justify the Government's hypothesis. I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply which I received this morning. Sadly, his letter provided me with no financial forecast, no facts and no figures. It simply reiterated concerns about the rapidly changing sector. I will not usurp my noble friend in quoting in extenso his letter, but point out that no one is proposing to end the funding formula before 31st December 1997. Channel 4 is happy to pay until then, and will pay out the legitimate expectations of any ITV licensee which have not been met by then.
I shall have to take into account the views expressed by the Committee tonight. Unless my noble friend can satisfy me this evening, I fear that I may have to seek the opinion of the Committee.
Taking the charitable view of the Government's position, the only argument that is left to them is to say that the future of broadcasting may be clearer when we get closer to 1998. That is why, they say, they have taken powers in Clause 66 to adjust Channel 4's payments from that date.
How will matters be clearer in two years' time? For the Government to fix a new percentage payment in sufficiently good time before the beginning of 1998 the

605
decision will have to be announced by the autumn of next year, just 18 months from now. At that point Channel 5 will only just have started broadcasting, and we shall be no clearer about the impact of digital broadcasting. Therefore, postponing the issue only prolongs the uncertainty for all concerned—the ITV companies as well as Channel 4—at exactly the time when, as a result of the rest of the Bill, Channel 4 and ITV are being encouraged to work together. That point was made forcefully by my noble kinsman the Earl of Arran and my noble friend Lord Astor in the debate on Amendment No. 146 earlier today. Just like the question of sport on television, this decision should be taken now to end uncertainty. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that this issue will come up again and again, not only in the remaining stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House and in another place, but time after time in the months ahead.
Parliament was wise enough to provide for the formula to be reviewed in 1997, halfway through the 10-year licences of both Channel 4 and the ITV companies. By that halfway point the ITV companies will have received £300 million—£200 million more than they themselves forecast. Given that under that formula the maximum payout from ITV in any one year is £40 million, even if Channel 4 lost money in each of the final five years ITV would have no cause for complaint. In fact, however, by 1997 the channel will have £150 million of reserves which would have to be lost first. It is inconceivable that a £40 million payment could be needed. Furthermore, £40 million in such circumstances would hardly protect the channel in the way that Parliament intended.
There is no more threat to the viability of Channel 4 in 1998 than there is now. Even if there were, a down payment of £300 million in premium for a maximum claim of £40 million is excessive by any standards. Given that there is no threat, there is no need for the formula.
Secondly, we need to be clear that the formula was never designed as a subsidy for ITV. Indeed, when the formula was registered in Brussels for clearance as state aid its objective was defined by the Government as:
"continuation of quality programming on Channel Four".
Those cross-payments were not intended to assist ITV companies in complying with their licences. Nor are they anything to do with their regional programmes. In fact, each of the regional ITV companies makes far more in profits than it receives from Channel 4. None of them depends upon those payments. For example, Border Television, one of the smallest companies and one known very well to my noble friend the Minister, made profits last year of £1.9 million, and received £45,000 from Channel 4. Last year Carlton's two licences made £122.8 million profit. This week Carlton will receive £22 million from Channel 4. We have just seen Granada successfully buy up Forte for nearly £4 billion. It will receive £16 million from Channel 4.
No one could seriously argue that ITV's programmes could be threatened by the removal of the subsidy. Nor should its regional programmes be at risk. The
606
companies are duty bound to comply with their licence conditions anyway before profits. In any event, the ITV companies' bids will be reviewed by the ITC in 1998. Nor do I think that the ITV companies can seriously argue that the formula was an integral part of their original bid. In total, they have received three times their expectation. They knew that the formula was up for review in 1997 and they made their commercial bids on that basis.
These payments have become nothing less than a subsidy to ITV. I thought that we were against subsidy. For almost every other industry we have stripped out subsidy. Why should these profitable ITV companies depend on the earnings of their competitor? The whole point of the 1990 Act was to promote competition, not to distort the markets, nor to create new subsidies. Channel 4 does not want a subsidy; why should ITV which is four times wealthier?
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has been able to use that wealth in such a spectacular fashion with his non-domestic colleagues in the new production centre which he announced today. Channel 4 is ready to face the future without subsidy, without special protection. Originally it wanted the formula scrapped when its perversity became clear. However, the board of Channel 4, led by Sir Michael Bishop, has made two important concessions. First, Channel 4 now accepts that nothing should be done until the end of 1997—the first point at which Parliament provided for a review. Secondly, it has offered to pay out at that point any unmet legitimate expectations of any ITV company in full: that is, the full payment that each company expected to receive up to 1997, as recorded in its 1991 bid document. The ITV companies knew then, of course, that the position could not change before 1997 but certainly could change after 1997.
My amendments accept that the payments, even at their inflated rate, should continue until the end of 1997. But then they should stop. In view of my noble friend's letter, I feel that I should point out that the ITC—the objective regulator of the whole industry—also believes that payments should stop then. Indeed, the ITC believes that the ITV companies should receive no further payments but retain a long-term liability—a much tougher proposition than anything I am asking for. If ITV companies really believe that they might have a liability, they ought to favour my amendments rather than oppose them.
The Government's proposals prolong the agony. They do not deal with the central issue that the formula is both unnecessary and damaging and they offer the prospect of a further two years' lobbying in final percentages. That is no way to run an industry. Good programmes take time. Good films can be two or three years in the making. That is no way to encourage ITV and Channel 4 to work together on the digital future mapped out so well in the rest of the Bill. Some Members of the Committee may feel that the campaign has gone on quite long enough. By scrapping the formula after 1997, we can end it now. Abolition is in the end the clearest answer. There will be no losers. The ITV shareholders already have their money. All the money retained by Channel 4 will be spent on

607
programmes and films; 1,500 new jobs will be created. The viewers will gain, the lobbying will cease. Channel 4 and ITV can work together on a great digital future and on an equal basis. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Earl has put an eloquent and devastating case. I await with interest hearing how the Minister hopes to answer him. I remind the Minister that Channel 4 is a unique British achievement in the whole world of broadcasting. It is a small company by world standards. It has a high-minded and extremely limited remit to cater for tastes and minorities that are not otherwise catered for. It is wholly commercially funded through selling its advertising. It has proved that it can do that very successfully. If I may say so to the Minister, who is the first Minister from this House to have responsibility for broadcasting, it is a very great Conservative achievement. The Conservative Party and the Government should be proud of it. In political terms it was very much the achievement of his noble friend Lord Whitelaw, his neighbour in Cumbria. The Government should approach the question of the future of Channel 4 with a certain pride of proprietorship rather than in the somewhat hang-dog manner in which they seem to be approaching the situation.
That situation, as the noble Earl said, is not the result of the purposes of the financial formula. The financial formula was clearly designed as a safety net for the new circumstances that the Government, in their wisdom, created in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. The fact that it clearly was a safety net was recorded not only in the debates but, as the noble Earl said, was recorded by the Government in Brussels since it was registered as a state subsidy to Channel 4. In fact, as a result of Channel 4's enterprise and excellence, the situation has been an Alice in Wonderland one, in which the great, popular Channel 3 is heavily subsidised on the scale described by the noble Earl. The proper and wise thing to do now is to call it a day, wipe the slate clean and make a fresh start in relations between Channel 4 and the ITV system.
In any case, the 1990 Act contained a provision for a review. I do not want to go over the ground that the noble Earl recited in relation to the figures. They are of a scale to make the mind boggle. By the end of 1997 the ITV companies will have received three times what any of them stated collectively in various business plans when they bid for the contracts. It is sometimes said that we ought to preserve the ongoing subsidy for the time being because it represents compensation for the ITV companies in respect of investment they made in the establishment of Channel 4.
I can speak to that argument from a certain amount of personal experience. I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority at the time. The facts are that the ITV companies received in Channel 4 a partner with a limited remit whereas they might easily have had an entirely new competitor. They were also given the right to sell the advertising for Channel 4 in exchange for resources they made available in setting it up. They did not in fact do it very well. That is one reason why extraordinary figures emerged of Channel 4's success in
608
selling its own advertising. However, I believe that over the 10 years they did receive a surplus of some £68 million in advertising revenue over the investment they made. Today the benefits to the ITV companies are on a massive scale. In 1995 Carlton received £21.9 million; MAI 13.1 million; and Granada £16 million. Granada, once a very great television company with other commercial interests in the catering and rental fields, now a very great hotel owning company with some television interests, received a subsidy of £16 million. It is a very extraordinary situation.
The ITV companies—I have much sympathy with a number of them—are making the most of what they believe to be the position of the small regional companies which we have just discussed at some length. Five small regional companies who, in many ways, give some of the distinctive character to the ITC system, as we have been arguing, together receive, not the £16 million that Granada receives nor the £21 million that Carlton receives, but £1.6 million. The implications in terms of Clause 63 are clear. On the basis that the noble Earl made the case in an unanswerable way, there are implications, if the correct decision is taken, for the Government, for ITV, the ITC and indeed for Channel 4.
As I said at the beginning of these proceedings, it is necessary to do a number of things. It is important to bring together the dates for the Channel 4 review and the dates for the review of the ITV licences so that some of the grotesqueries of the bidding system can be put right at that time. Incidentally, I tabled an amendment with which we shall no doubt deal on Thursday proposing that BSkyB is now sufficiently successful to make its contribution to qualifying revenue as a well established broadcaster dealing with a British broadcasting public. The amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is extremely important. We should have a government guarantee on the face of the Bill that the discounts which are part of the network system of ITV and which sustain the smaller regional companies will be guaranteed for the future.
Finally, I turn to the responsibilities of Channel 4 if the Government are wise enough to wipe the slate clean. It has a responsibility that is not being fulfilled as well as it ought to be in relation to the commissioning of programmes from the regions. I am told that a good deal less commissioning of programmes from the smaller ITV regional companies now takes place. I asked for figures from Channel 4.
It appears that Channel 4 spent £188 million last year in commissioning programmes. The statement is that £35.5 million of that was spent "outside the M.25". It is a curious and revealing description of Channel 4's idea of dispersing creative programme-making to the regions. It reminds me of an occasion when, as a Foreign Office Minister, I was asked to take action to disperse the Passport Office out of London. The Passport Office was extremely reluctant to go. Finally, it bit the bullet, came back to me and said that it had been extremely difficult but it had found a site in Ealing.
The amount that Scotland receives out of Channel 4's £188 million is £4 million. I do not feel that in Horseferry Road they have heard of the Goschen

609
Formula and that Scotland normally expects to have 11 eighty-eighths of the United Kingdom's revenue. There is a long way for Channel 4 to go. So, while I am proud of its place in the broadcasting scene, the Government should act in support of the amendment moved so well by the noble Earl. Channel 4 has its responsibilities and, if the slate is wiped clean and we make a fresh start for both Channel 4 and ITV, I hope that Channel 4 will rise to those responsibilities. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Birkett: I too support the amendment to which my name is attached. Between them, the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, have made such a comprehensive survey of the history and finance of the matter that I do not need to add to it. It adds up to an unanswerable case. However, I should like to emphasise one small element which they did not. It relates to the programmes which would be made.
At Second Reading I told your Lordships exactly what Channel 4 thought—and I agreed—would be possible had it not had to pay the sum to ITV. But today the position is very much more dramatic. At Second Reading I talked about what Channel 4 would have done with £56 million or £57 million, which is what it paid last year. This week it is paying £74 million. I have added up all the programmes which it has carefully budgeted at £74 million. No fewer than 88 new programmes would result; some of them single programmes, some of them complete series, and some of them major films. That would be very good news for the viewers of this country, because Channel 4 makes programmes and films very well.
The film and television industries are much more closely interlinked than ever they were before. Anyone can tell the difference between a cinema and a television screen. But it is often quite difficult to know on which of those screens a new film will appear, so interlocked are the media. Not only would the 88 new programmes be wonderfully good news for the viewers of this country, but they would be wonderfully good news for the talented programme and film makers of this country. A shot in the arm is what they have needed for years and there are very few places to look for that shot. This would be something so valuable to the industry and so valuable to the viewers that it simply cannot be neglected.
Baroness Birk: It certainly does not seem as though six years have passed since I was embroiled in the details of the last Broadcasting Act. However, technology has moved on since then. The Bill now before us recognises that technological change has created a range of new opportunities in the media. Channel 4 remains committed to its full public service programme remit but admits much tougher competition than there was at that time. However, the funding formula imposed on it in the Broadcasting Act 1990 is draining the corporation of funds badly needed to invest in British programmes.
It was never the intention of Parliament that the funding formula should be anything but a safety net provision for an innovative channel specifically targeted
610
at minority audiences which were not catered for under the system at that time. How anxious most of us were at that time to ensure its success during its transition to financial independence. Instead, the funding mechanism has become an expensive millstone round Channel 4's neck, depriving viewers of new British programmes and films and in the process creating a regular, risk-free windfall for many ITV companies.
It is the viewers who suffer from a lack of new programmes. It is employment which is penalised, since the money paid out can provide around 1,500 new jobs. As has already been said three times, but I think it is worth pressing it yet again, this week Channel 4 will pay £74 million to ITV. Last year it handed over £57 million. In 1997 it will have paid £300 million. It really is a victim of its own success. That is all wrong. The funding formula's sole purpose was to sustain Channel 4, not to subsidise ITV. Given ITV's profitability and its mergers and takeovers, its shareholders should not suffer from the abolition of the funding formula.
In 1990 we agreed to the formula for the best of intentions, but the formula has not worked out because Channel 4 has been much more successful than we estimated in 1990. In this Bill we now have an opportunity, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to review the situation. The Government have argued that the future for Channel 4 is uncertain, which is why I think there should still be a fall-back position, but have failed to provide evidence to back that up. The ITC also wants it to have a fall-back position just in case it needs help. But again it failed to provide evidence to sustain that. Channel 5 is coming two years later than expected and its programmes will be competing primarily against ITV and not against Channel 4, as was once thought. For the safety net to operate after 1997, Channel 4 would first have to lose, as has been pointed out, £150 million, which is 30 per cent. of its annual advertising revenue, and a further £150 million to consume its reserve fund.
The National Heritage Select Committee has unanimously recommended the abolition of the funding formula since it hinders investment in the British film industry. As a past governor of the British Film Institute, I would much prefer to see the revenue earned by Channel 4 being ploughed back into British film and programme production. If the channel did not have to subsidise ITV, it would be able to invest in 12 new "Film on Four" projects for this year alone.
We have a duty to promote the British film industry and to ensure that the viewing public has the chance to see more films like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "The Madness of King George III". The Government's proposals, as set out in the Bill, provide only further delay in solving the failure of the formula. It will ensure continuing dispute between ITV and Channel 4 at a time when they will be expected to work more closely together with digital television. That is not good for either organisation or, I suspect, the Ministers concerned who will be the recipients of further informative lobbying material.

611
We can play our part in rewarding that success and enable viewers to have more of what they so clearly appreciate. I hope that the Government will think again and secure the future of independent film and programme production companies up and down the country by allowing Channel 4 to use all its earned revenue for much needed investment in this important British industry. I urge the Government to accept these very sensible amendments, if only to save the rain forests which have been ravaged in the lobbying efforts of those concerned.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that my noble friend moved the amendment and made an elegant and devastating case. I agree that my noble friend certainly made an elegant case, but I put to the Committee that it was neither devastating nor convincing. I shall take a moment to explain why.
Much has been said about the funding formula, but two things are clear. In 1990, Channel 4 welcomed the protection that the formula provided. Also the ITV companies based their bids for the 10-year licence on the formula and the terms of the Act. Channel 4 has done much better than many expected—indeed, better than it expected itself—and it has gained an estimated 21 per cent. of the advertising revenue share. As a result, it has had to pay sums over because it is over the 14 per cent. One could say that it agreed a very expensive insurance policy. It was an insurance policy because if it had gone wrong the ITV companies would have had to pay money to Channel 4.
My noble friend the Minister has taken the view that the formula under the 1990 Act should be reviewed at the end of 1997, but that it should stay in place. The ITC has also said that the formula should stay in place, but that the payments should be set at zero. Michael Grade has now said that he believes that the formula should remain until the end of 1997, which is a change from his previous position, but that it should then be abolished.
There are many arguments which have been made to promote that cause. The first is that it would enable Channel 4 to plough back more money into domestic production. That sounds reasonable and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made a case. We have to look at what the consequences will be for other small, regional ITV franchisees. Let us look carefully at the claim that abolition would increase domestic production.
Channel 4 does not owe its success to homemade programming. One of the reasons that it is successful is that it has cleverly imported ready-made programmes From America. The audiences love them. That is the reason for their success. I know from my own experience at home, wrestling and battling to get hold of the remote control, that programmes such as "Cheers", "Frazier", "NYPD Blue", "Roseanne" and many others are popular.
It is interesting that in fact, although Channel 4's income rose from £251 million in 1992 to £394 million last year, over the same period the number of US programmes broadcast on Channel 4 actually increased
612
from 992 to 1,443. Channel 4's income has grown in recent years, but so has the level of imports. So I am rather sceptical of the simplistic argument that giving more money to Channel 4 will automatically increase domestic production. A simple analysis of the ITC annual report demonstrates that once the special payments from Channel 4 to ITV, and from ITV to the Treasury are taken out of the equation, there is no difference. Comparing the ITV and Channel 4 franchisees, both spend the same percentage, some 50 per cent. of net revenues, on original UK production.
The Earl of Stockton: Does my noble friend have a comparable figure for investment in British film industry production, particularly in terms of bringing on a script to the point of production?
Viscount Astor: The funding formula has nothing to do with the film industry. This is about Channel 4. It is a separate matter.
Channel 4 has been able under the existing rules to increase its programming budget by 44 per cent. over the past three years: not a bad record when you consider that it has also been able to spend £62 million on a new building. What we must also remember is that although Channel 4 pays some £60 million to the ITV companies, it does not pay any levy to the Treasury. The ITV franchisees actually pay over £370 million to the Treasury, plus corporation tax and dividends to shareholders.
Channel 5 arrives next year, paying about £22 million in licence fee to the Treasury, and is forecast to gain a 4 per cent. share of total television advertising in its first year, rising to 9 per cent. in 2002. It is very important to retain the flexibility and not haphazardly change the rules. With Channel 5 taking a large chunk of revenue, and many more satellite and cable channels about to be launched, who knows what will happen?
The Government must have the flexibility. Much has been said about the smaller ITV companies. We all agree about the importance of regional programming, which we discussed earlier, but without the possibility of support post-1997 those companies could be in great danger. The amendment removes the possibility of support post-1997. We all agree that the larger ITV companies will not need the money after 1997—they might not get any of it—but this amendment removes the formula and the flexibility. If we tinker with the arrangements in this way, we put some of those companies in grave danger. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will firmly resist the amendment.
Lord Palmer: This is becoming a fascinating debate and, although I do not agree with the noble Earl, I almost tore up my speech because what he said was so convincing.
I feel that I must declare an interest as a small shareholder in the smallest television company, Border TV, which as many of your Lordships may know has just 1 per cent. of the viewing population. The sheep outnumber the viewers by 5:1. Border TV produced 0.6 per cent. of total ITV revenue.

613
Many of us have been lobbied vigorously on the question of Channel 4 funding. There is a danger that we will all become hopelessly confused by claim and counterclaim, by endless references to "reserve funds", "percentages of qualifying revenue", "cash bids", and so on.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 guaranteed that the funding formula would stay in place unchanged until the end of 1997. Going back on that guarantee would mean the Government acting in bad faith. That would be a great pity at this particular moment. I think that even Channel 4 is beginning to accept that a deal was made and a deal has to be adhered to. The shareholders of the ITV companies invested money on that basis. It would be quite wrong to change it.
I accept that after 1997 the argument is more complex, but I believe that it would be entirely misguided to alter one element of the financial balance within the Broadcasting Act while leaving the others unchanged. As a result, we should not abolish the funding formula at the end of 1997. The two channels (ITV and Channel 4) have battled out this issue in the press and elsewhere. The Government's reaction set out in the Bill represents a fair compromise: keeping the funding formula in place but enabling the Secretary of State to regulate a flow of funds from one channel to the other after "the end of 1997".
We have also to remember, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, that Channel 4 does not pay any tax to the Revenue. When one thinks of the enormous tax bill that the ITV companies pay (£370 million) and that is before corporation tax, we must be extremely wary of this. Nor must we forget that, as it is a publicly owned company, it has no requirement to make profits.
I suspect that in the longer term the right solution will be to spread the payments that the ITV companies make to the Treasury more widely across the whole broadcasting industry, including Channel 4 and the cable and satellite broadcasters. That would create a genuinely more level—although I hate the expression—playing field for the whole of the broadcasting industry. Even so, I do not believe that that should be the intention of the Bill.
The right thing to do is to keep the Channel 4 funding in place along with the other financial aspects of the broadcasting legislation, and review them all at the same time at the end of 1997 or even during 1998. I believe that it would be good for British broadcasting, fair to all the companies, and, above all, the right decision in the interests of good government.
Lord Burnham: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether, as a shareholder in Border Television, one of the smallest companies, he can confirm that in 1995 it made a profit of £1.9 million, whereas its subsidy from Channel 4 was £44,405. If that is so, it is scarcely an absolutely vital element in the survival of Border Television.
Lord Palmer: I am not sure how I should answer that other than to say that Border Television has for many years been struggling, but under new and dynamic
614
management it is proving to be a much more successful company. Indeed, the share price went up to over £3 this morning. I am not sure how I can reply more logically to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hayman: I shall not detain the Committee long at this time of night, but I shall say a few words in support of the amendment which has been so well argued by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and others. I support the propositions that have been put forward, but I shall not follow in all the details the contributions that have just been made.
It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was arguing that because, in effect, Channel 4 had taken out an expensive insurance policy for itself in 1990, from 1997 onwards it should take out an expensive insurance policy for the small ITV companies. That cannot be right.
Mention was made earlier of the tendency of broadcasting legislation to predict the past. The provisions in the 1990 Act that we are discussing had the effect of achieving the opposite of what they intended. What was intended in the funding formula as a safety net for Channel 4 ended up, in effect, as a subsidy for the ITV companies. That is what happened. Those were the provisions that were put in place, and those are the provisions that will stay in place until 1997. We have to consider whether it is right that we should continue that situation.
Channel 4 is different from the ITV companies. That takes us into the taxation issues. It is different because of its clear public service responsibility. As has been said, the original proposals were registered as state aid with the European Union in order to sustain quality on Channel 4. I am not sure that anyone could argue that the effect of what has been done has been directly to sustain that quality. However, I believe that in reviewing the funding formula there is an opportunity to fulfill those obligations about sustaining quality in the public service remit if those retained services are not syphoned off into the ITV companies but will accrue to investment within the film industry—I think that the film industry is most relevant here because of the closeness between film and television industries—and to employment in production in the television sector. We should welcome and encourage the willingness that Channel 4 has shown to guarantee that surpluses would be put straight back into programming and to welcome the ITC having a role in overseeing this, and perhaps looking into the issues of regional programming and commissioning as mentioned earlier.
We would be making a great contribution to the future success of Channel 4. It has been a great success and an asset to public service broadcasting in this country. A great deal has been said about the turbulent times ahead and the vast changes that we envisage in broadcasting. In view of that, it is even more important that we should be supporting and sustaining Channel 4's public service remit and not devaluing it by sustaining present funding arrangements beyond 1997. For that reason, I support the noble Earl tonight.
The Earl of Arran: I believe that the amendment has been rottenly argued by my noble kinsman Lord

615
Stockton and I am sorry that on this occasion blood is most certainly not thicker than water. I totally agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Astor.
There is no excuse for failing to understand the intricacies of Channel 4's finances because Channel 4 has spent a huge amount of money making sure that we all know about it. Its version of the story tells us of award-winning programmes never made and of opportunities unfulfilled. Channel 4 claims that it has been bled of finance. However, Channel 4 can afford to make a lot of noise because it is now a huge success. When the station began no one believed that to be possible so a funding formula was invented. It is a little like a seesaw. If Channel 4 is struggling ITV will back it up, but if Channel 4 prospers ITV becomes the beneficiary.
I am delighted that Channel 4 is doing so well and I am happy to pay tribute to the considerable commercial acumen of the Channel 4 managers. But their accompanying chorus of bleeding hearts really is a little hard to swallow. We hear a great deal, and we have heard a great deal tonight, about how much the TV giants receive from Channel 4's coffers. We hear nothing at all about the sums that go from Channel 4 to the small ITV companies; money that is never squandered but pays for valuable regional programmes. That money was part of the deal and effectively part of the legislation.
The points, very simply, are these. The Channel 4 funding formula was designed to last until 1998. The Channel 4 funding formula is still essential to small companies. Without it their corporate plans would be thrown into total disarray. Without it their pledges to the ITC would be seriously hampered and without it their viewers would suffer. There may be faults in the funding formula but they can be properly addressed on schedule towards the end of next year. Until then, the whole of independent television should stick to the letter of the binding agreement. A promise is a promise and I suggest that we break it at our peril. I strongly urge my noble friend the Minister not to accept this amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to support the amendment and briefly to point out what appears to me to be a great inconsistency on the part of Members of the Committee who have spoken against it. We have dealt successively tonight with two funding formulas. The outcome of both cases has been different from the predicted intention of Parliament. In one case, the case of S4C, the noble Viscount argues that the formula should be amended because it has been too generous to the authority. In the case of Channel 4, he argues that the formula should not be amended because it has been providing revenue for ITV companies.
Clearly, we cannot have it both ways. If the formula were going through the public expenditure procedure, no doubt he would be in favour of amending the formula. In this case the formula is taking out of public service broadcasting and is providing added value for what is becoming an increasingly commercial sector. It is taking money out of programme production into the interests of shareholders.
616
It is for that reason, because potential revenue for production is not being utilised for production, that I support the amendment and make it quite clear that so far as concerns the future of the independent production centre throughout the United Kingdom, there is more future in terms of programming invested in Channel 4 than there is invested in the profits of the current ITV companies.
Lord Crickhowell: I am moved to intervene in the debate by the two speeches from the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, suggested that there would be a great increase and huge flood of new productions from British companies, if the formula were done away with. We have just heard the suggestion that it will somehow be much more valuable and better managed in the hands of Channel 4 than in the hands of the ITV companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pleaded very strongly and correctly earlier in the day for regionality. So far as Wales is concerned, if the money were taken away from HTV, it would to a certain extent come out of programmes made in Wales and the programme-making capacity that we have. It simply is not true that there would be a great upsurge in programme making. The truth of the matter is that there would be more programme making by one channel and less programme making by another. People can take sides as to which could produce the best programmes and whether there is virtue in the one or the other. But the idea that there will be an enormous increase in UK production as a result of such change is, I believe, simply nonsense.
I understood that my noble friend Lord Stockton made a most eloquent speech. It was a most persuasive argument for standing where we are. He told us very clearly that he did not propose a change until the end of 1997 and that everyone should stick to that point. We have a formula which provides for a review in 1997 but at that point it allows the Government to take account of whatever the situation may be at that stage. We all know about the difficulty of making forecasts.
I am not one who argues that necessarily the existing proportions should continue to be paid right through for 10 years. My noble friend Lord Stockton made quite a case for change after 1997 and no doubt my noble friend the Minister will consider that very carefully at the appropriate time. But we had a timetable for review and people made their plans accordingly. As we argued in an earlier debate, there was a parallel provision made in the 1990 Act but with a gap of a year which would enable a review of the licences for the new companies. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, observed, that again is a very strong case for bringing together those two things. We need to look again, at the appropriate time as provided by the legislation, at whether change is needed. But at the same time, the companies which made their bids under the previous arrangements need the ability to have a chance to have those licences reviewed, and the two things should happen together.

617
I shall make only one other observation. It has been made in much more detail and very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Astor. We have heard a tear-jerking plea on behalf of the fourth channel, but we heard very little of whether there was any merit, in the light of everything that has happened and the unexpected success of the company, in considering whether some modest contribution might be made to the Revenue by that channel. I must say that I am at a loss to understand why, if we are to have a level playing field, one channel should provide a huge subsidy to the Treasury and the other should not. It seems to me that if we are to review matters, perhaps we should not review just one item of the package but have a more fundamental review. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Stockton and those who press him to argue the case in this Chamber would not be quite so happy to have a wider review of the total financing arrangements.
The Earl of Stockton: Before my noble friend sits down, I should tell him that I would be entirely happy to have a wider review. I should point out that Channel 4 pays corporation tax. There are two questions that I should like to ask my noble friend. He has declared an interest in Harlech Television, a company which bears the name of my revered and respected noble uncle. Is that position remunerated? If so, does he accept that, therefore, part of his remuneration comes indirectly from Channel 4?
Lord Crickhowell: The other day I inquired of the Clerks about the way in which one should treat declarations of interest. Of course, I have declared my interest. It must be a direct and meaningful financial interest to prevent me from arguing the case. But I doubt whether my accountants would be able to calculate even a minuscule consequence for me brought about by a change in the formula.
Baroness O'Cathain: I declare an interest. I was a director of Channel 4 but before the 1990 funding was put in place under the 1990 Act.
In 1993, the National Heritage Select Committee took evidence from Channel 4 on the subject of the funding formula and Channel 4 said that during the passage of the 1990 Act it had not objected to the funding formula and did not want to lobby against it now for the reasons that stood then. That was only 1993. Of course, it has been a great success and we must hand it to Channel 4 for that.
But from 1993 to 1996, Channel 4 has spent some £81 million over the amount that it had budgeted for its programmes. Therefore, in those circumstances it cannot plead poverty. But of that £81 million, it reduced its expenditure on programmes from the UK and other sources by 2.5 per cent. and increased its expenditure on US programmes by 66 per cent. in 1994 alone. Therefore, all the arguments that we have heard this evening have been most persuasively put but they really do not hold a lot of water.
I think that it is sad that we have two organisations here—ITV and Channel 4—which are both very successful in producing programmes, commissioning
618
programmes and buying in programmes which the customer obviously likes. They should not be fighting with one another and bandying statistics and figures all over the place. I believe intrinsically that an agreement is an agreement. An agreement was made. It has fewer than two years to run. Why do we not leave it at that? I shall certainly not support the amendment.
Lord Desai: I merely rise to note that in this country, success causes more problems than failure. Had Channel 4 lost a great deal of money, we would all have sympathetically given it even more and we should not be having this debate.
The ITV companies took a gamble which was highly successful. They made three times more money than they thought they would do, even on their best expectations. It seems to me that it is very strange to claim that the small ITV companies would be devastated if they did not receive that money for ever and ever. If their planning is that bad, they do not deserve to be in business.
For my money, it does not matter whether the companies commission British productions or import American or Chinese productions. They are in a free market and can do what they like. If we do not believe that, we should not have an independent television sector. We should oblige them only to make British programmes and nothing else. That is not a valid argument.
The valid argument is that something unanticipated confronted us in 1990. We took a gamble. We now know that that fear was unjustified. Is there any reason to continue the arrangement which was extremely successful for those on one side of the bargain but not for those on the other side? One can reward people for one gamble, but one should not continue to do so forever. I believe that the noble Earl's point is perfectly valid.
At the end of 1997 I believe that we should abolish the formula. No other reconsideration would make any sense. Even if the Government were to reconsider the matter, I would be surprised if they came to any other conclusion except that put forward by the noble Earl. Therefore, why do we not make the decision now?
11 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: Members of the Committee can be very proud of themselves; we have indeed had a most lively debate. I believe that it is now seven hours since "kick off", and things are still going very well. It has been said that the funding formula was established as an insurance police to protect Channel 4 and we can recall why. It was in case the channel did not attract the advertisements or in case the audience was small. The latter has proved not to be so and that is wholly to its credit. It was also to protect the channel should the competition, the satellite or cable competition hit their adverts. That has not happened either, mainly because the introduction of Channel 5 has been delayed and satellite and cable are expanding primarily in subscription, not in advertisements.

619
That is the history of the matter and we have had figures put forward from all sides of the Committee. Clearly, it is a very complex issue and the funding formula is obviously not working as intended. I believe that that is one of the few areas of total agreement by all Members of the Committee. Payments of £175 million between 1993 and 1995, and rising, were never envisaged and are clearly, and understandably, intolerable to Channel 4. Indeed, had those of us who were in this place at the time known about those figures by looking into the crystal ball, the 1995 formula would never have been introduced or been accepted. What was seen as a small insurance policy has become a massive levy on Channel 4's profits and success. The resentment in that respect has been clear from the majority of contributions made by Members of the Committee from all sides.
As the formula is not working, how and when do we change? I believe that the "when" is easier to answer, because the end of 1997 would be a natural break. In response to some speakers who have pointed out that Channel 4 has changed its position—which is often seen as a bad thing—I should say that I know that that was actually a concession on the part of the channel to try to make life easier for us. The "how" of the matter is more difficult. Anyone seeking a compromise, as some of us have, has not found it easy to bridge the interests of both sides. As the massive flow of briefing paper has demonstrated to us, bottom lines were speaking very loud. I feel that the hyping of the issue by both sides has not helped us in the bridging process; it has certainly not helped us politically.
To end the formula totally and soon, as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, would lead to many disadvantages and threaten the budget cash flows of ITV, thus causing pain throughout the regions. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was very sensible in that respect. I do not believe for a moment that most of them budgeted for this bonanza. However, having said that, to continue the subsidy for a long period at the present rate would be an intolerable and unacceptable levy on the marvellous success of Channel 4. The fact that the better Channel 4 performs the more it suffers is something which upsets many of us.
There is an additional factor involved about which there has been some disagreement. If the money were kept in Channel 4, there is no doubt that it would mainly go into domestic programme production and films in the future. It is important to mention films because Channel 4 has a very good record in that respect. Channel 4 has generously promised, in advance, to do more of that in future. Therefore I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that Channel 4's performance in the past is not relevant to what it will do in the future as it has made clear promises as regards better performance on domestic programme production and continuing expenditure on films whereas, as we know, some 50 per cent. of that money when passed to ITV goes straight to the shareholders and the directors, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, stated so powerfully. That is not pleasing to anyone who cares about the health of British TV where we want the maximum invested back in the production industry.
620
The Government's compromise formula has not had much show in all the exchange of heavy artillery from the two sides. I thought it not a bad opening shot. But its flexibility—flexibility is a virtue which we do not often see—is in a way its disadvantage, leaving the Secretary of State apparently deciding the matter each year. That is the last thing I want. It is like the racing industry and the bookmakers arguing each year about the levy, as they used to do. It creates the danger of annual battles over the formula distribution. That would institutionalise the present battle, and that is not desirable.
I have some sympathy with the ITC approach of keeping a kind of sleeping formula in case one needs the insurance but making zero cash payments after 1997. Our position on this side is clear but not brutal. We believe the matter should be settled for the end of 1997 and not left in further doubt for future battles. It should be seen within the context of the overall taxation net for broadcasting where there are many inequalities from which, on the whole, the ITV Channel 3 companies suffer. They make overall an unfair over-payment to the Revenue while others make a lesser payment. I am pleased that the matter will be raised again on Thursday because it is an important context in which to consider what is a much smaller financial issue—the funding formula. We on this side expect the date—1997—to be important as we expect a Labour government to have been comfortably in office for some time when we take the decision. We expect to do so in relation to the several considerations I have outlined.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure we all agree that we have had an interesting and worthwhile debate about the Channel 4 funding formula which has generated a wide diversity of views. My noble friend Lord Stockton suggested, in moving the amendment, that Channel 4's long-term future was assured; that the statutory funding formula had already acted against its interests; that it no longer served a useful purpose; and that its retention would lead to annual conflicts about levels of payments—all of which, and much besides, led him to the conclusion that the formula should be abolished.
No one applauds Channel 4's success in recent years more than the Government. We want to safeguard its future as part of the core quality public service channels in the digital age. We have already debated this in general terms. In our view the right way to secure Channel 4's part is to retain the funding formula but to enable the Government to adjust the variables in that formula to take into account the economic realities of an uncertain future as they become apparent. Abolishing the formula outright could prejudice Channel 4's long-term future and we oppose doing that.
Perhaps it may help the Committee if I first explain the basis for the present formula and the Government's proposals to amend it before dealing with my noble friend's specific points. As already mentioned, Channel 4 was established in 1982 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The ITV companies sold Channel 4's advertising space and funded the channel by a subscription. The 1990 Broadcasting Act changed the arrangement. It provided for Channel 4 to

621
become a statutory corporation, selling its own advertising space. It set out Channel 4's remit to broadcast a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by Channel 3, with special emphasis on innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes.
The funding formula was introduced by the 1990 Act as a response to anxieties that the new arrangements introduced for Channel 4 to sell its own advertising, rather than to rely on financing from Channel 3 as before, might have a damaging effect on its finances and that that, in turn, might damage Channel 4's ability to execute its remit properly.
The funding formula was accordingly devised as a means by which Channel 4 is, in certain circumstances, guaranteed funding from the Channel 3 companies should its income from advertising revenue fall below 14 per cent. of total national advertising revenue. As a quid pro quo for that arrangement, in essence a kind of insurance policy, any income which Channel 4 obtains from advertising revenue taking it above the 14 per cent. threshold is distributed according to a formula. Fifty per cent. of the excess goes to the ITV companies; 25 per cent. to a statutory reserve fund held by Channel 4; and the remaining 25 per cent. to Channel 4's current expenditure on programmes. However, should Channel 4's income fall below the 14 per cent. threshold, the funds which have accrued in the statutory reserve are used in the first instance to top up Channel 4's income so that it reaches an amount which is the same as 14 per cent. of total national advertising revenue. If and when reserve funds are exhausted, it is for the Channel 3 companies to fund the shortfall between Channel 4's income and the 14 per cent. threshold, up to a limit of 2 per cent. of total national television advertising revenue in any one year.
We have heard a lot about the level of Channel 4's payments to Channel 3 since 1993. It is fair to say that it was anticipated at the time the 1990 Act went through Parliament that Channel 4 would be profitable in its early years and that it would accordingly make payments to the Channel 3 companies. The Government are nonetheless aware that many people believe that the amount of those payments has been higher than was expected at that time, and we have taken that into account in proposing an amendment to the funding formula.
The Government's approach retains the basic framework of the funding formula. However, it includes the power, by order, to adjust the treatment of Channel 4's earnings above the 14 per cent. threshold which I have described. It also updates the definition of total national advertising revenue to include multiplex revenue as well as the other elements (including Channel 5 revenue) specified in the 1990 Act. It would not be right to change the rules applying to funding flows between Channel 3 and Channel 4 before 1997. To do that would be unfair.
The Government's approach has two benefits. First, retaining the formula will keep the safety net for Channel 4 in place as a prudential measure. I hear the arguments that that safety net is unnecessary, since Channel 4 has every expectation of being able to stand
622
up for itself in future. We do not feel that it is responsible to be so sanguine. The broadcasting industry is going through a period of intense change. Indeed, I doubt whether there has ever been a period of such change. There is a plethora of uncertainty, arising from the launch of Channel 5, the advent of digital terrestrial television and the projected expansion of the cable and satellite sector, with scope for several hundred channels to be available in future. As the ITC has acknowledged, the outlook for Channel 4 into the next century is uncertain. Some forecasters anticipate a downturn in Channel 4's share of net advertising revenue, in particular as Channel 5 develops in the early years of the next century.
No amount of media analysis one way or the other can make an inherently uncertain future any the less so. Channel 4's efforts to increase its advertising revenue have been extraordinarily successful, with its share rising from 14 per cent. to 21 per cent. of total national advertising revenue over the past four years, growth in revenue which has raced ahead of the increase in its share of the audience. That shows considerable success. However, we have to acknowledge that, as the financial advertisements put it, past performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future success. Indeed, as those of us involved in politics are aware—and I draw this point to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—there is scope for rapid and considerable fluctuations in opinion polls. The essential point is that we cannot predict the future with certainty. For that reason, I am sure that the retention of a long-term prudential framework is right and that we should not abandon the principle of having a safety net on the basis of two or three good years.
The second major characteristic of the Government's proposals is their flexibility. Clause 66 will provide powers for the Secretary of State, by order, to adjust payments from Channel 4 to Channel 3 companies downwards from their current level of 50 per cent. of Channel 4's income above the 14 per cent. threshold. It is too early to say what the new funding level will be, but there is scope to adjust the current distribution significantly and our intention will be to enable Channel 4 to retain significantly more of its revenues for programmes. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the issue fully in due course.
Furthermore, included in these powers is one by which we can reduce Channel 4's payments into the statutory reserve. It may help the Committee to know of the Government's present intention so far as the reserve is concerned. The reserve currently stands at more than £70 million. Assuming no unexpected difficulties, it is the Government's present intention that the reserve would be capped at an appropriate level, with no further payment made into it unless circumstances changed. Even assuming no change in the level of payments to Channel 3, that would at a stroke double Channel 4's income above the threshold to spend on programmes. Thus, it would be able to provide the kind of extra programmes to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred.

623
In that context, undoubtedly one cannot accurately trace or follow any transfers of money which may pass from Channel 4 to Channel 3. After all, both of them are organisations which make programmes. As I also indicated, it is our intention to review the level of payments to Channel 3. It seems that there is little doubt that what the Government propose is not incompatible with what the ITC proposes because it hinges on the way in which the formula might be drawn up. According to the ITC, the way the problem should be resolved is by means of the proposed order-making power under which the flow of funds between Channel 4 and Channel 3 is reduced to nil. The funding formula should not be abolished altogether because it may still have a useful role to play in the longer term.
At this stage I cannot possibly predict what might be an appropriate amount of money to pass between the parties concerned. We are talking about the distant future. We wish to have in place a formula which can be activated as and when necessary and appropriate.
Before sitting down I wish to respond to one or two specific points raised in the debate. Questions have been raised about whether Channel 4's commercial success has been bought at the expense of its specific remit, to which I have referred. It is for the ITC to determine and monitor Channel 4's remit. Clearly, this is in principle a further potential element of uncertainty. The ITC's last annual performance review contained a good deal of praise for Channel 4's output. I know, however, that the ITC has registered various concerns, in particular in relation to the proportion of repeats. No doubt the ITC will take the comments of Members of the Committee into account in considering what, if any, tightening might be appropriate to Channel 4's licence.
A number of speakers have drawn attention to the scale of Channel 4's payments to Channel 3. I have already outlined the background to that and do not wish to go into it in great detail. I have acknowledged that the Government are aware of concerns on that score. However, it is important to be clear that Channel 4's payments do not represent one-way traffic. Although some of the companies in 1982 are not necessarily those which hold licences today, overall Channel 3 companies as a whole have paid more to Channel 4 since 1982: over £400 million in 1995 prices against £170 million the other way. I have also taken careful note of anxieties—particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue— that retention of the funding formula will lead to continuing bickering and lobbying in annual negotiations about the details of the formula. I do not see it as a serious problem. The Government will make matters quite clear in putting the proposed orders to Parliament in due course. They will be intended to last for a number of years, as I mentioned at Second Reading.
Those advocating abolition of the funding formula base their case on a very confident analysis of a very uncertain future. They are putting all their money on one horse. The Government's proposals have the virtues of prudence and flexibility to allow Channel 4 to develop as a quality public service broadcaster. Yet they maintain realistic, sensible and fair safeguards to ensure
624
its continuing economic security and underpin its enduring wider success. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with those who advocate the abolition rather than the reform of the funding formula.
The Earl of Stockton: It would clearly be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have moved their position. Until recently, the Department of National Heritage maintained that the formula was part of a complex set of arrangements. I am glad that they now recognise that it is no such thing, but simply and solely an insurance policy for the benefit of securing Channel 4's public service programme remit.
I thank my noble friend for his suggestion of a cap on reserves and his assurances that a flexible approach will be taken by his department. I remind him, however, that where I go horse-racing you tend to do better if you bet on one winner than if you put your bets on several horses. But perhaps his experience in the north-west is different.
My noble friend Lord Astor spoke eloquently about the threat in the post-1997 era to the small ITV companies. I remind my noble friend that threats are not restricted to small companies. In many cases the bigger they are, the harder and easier they fall.
I still believe that keeping the formula would be a mistake, as do a number of noble Lords. I was interested that my suggestion for a compromise received the support of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It was about the only one of my suggestions that did receive his support. I cannot believe that I heard him aright in his suggestion that I put forward this amendment for other than purely altruistic motives. I am sure I misheard him.
My noble friend wants to persuade the Committee that his solution is better than a simple abolition. If that is the case, he has to produce a slightly clearer exposition before the Bill leaves this House of the Government's real intentions. Do they really intend to fix the percentage for the five-year period—or will the period be longer or shorter? Will these arrangements come for another two years and then start over again for a another fcur or five years? They say now that significantly more of the channel's money should be retained for programming—but how much more?
As we agreed last week on the sports issue, it is surely better to have certainty now, before the Bill leaves this House, so that all concerned can get on and plan their businesses. Furthermore, ITV and Channel 4 must work together for the digital future. The necessary co-operation will be hard to achieve while they are still in conflict.
Unless my noble friend can persuade us that he has the answers t these questions, we shall have to return to the principle of abolition as a much more straightforward solution at a later stage of the Bill. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Application of excess revenues of Channel Four Television Corporation]:
[Amendment No. 185 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 186:
After Clause o6, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION AND SIANEL PEDWAR CYMRU TO PROVIDE DIGITAL SERVICES.
(".—(1) In section 24 of the 1990 Act (Channel 4 to be provided as licensed service) after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(5) The Corporation shall also have power (subject to and in accordance with Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996) to arrange for the broadcasting of Channel 4 in digital form as a qualifying service (within the meaning of that Part)."
626
(2) In section 57 of the 1990 Act (functions and duties of Welsh Authority) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The Welsh Authority shall also have power (subject to and in accordance with Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996) to provide a further service as a qualifying service (within the meaning of that Part), and to arrange for the broadcasting of that service in digital form." ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Immigration Service: Removal of Illegal Entrants
  Immigration Service: Removal of Illegal Entrants
  ODA Expenditure Review
  ODA Expenditure Review
  EU and EC Treaties: Command Paper
  EU and EC Treaties: Command Paper
  University Air Squadrons: Future
  University Air Squadrons: Future
  Prerogative Powers
  Prerogative Powers