Sitting of 15 February 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
3.40 pm
On resuming—

PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To he considered again on Thursday 22 February.

  SCOTT INQUIRY
  Ordered,
  That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the Report of an Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and related prosecutions.—[Mr. Ian Taylor].

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Private Finance Initiative (Police)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the funding to be made available to police authorities through the private finance initiative. [13849]
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the funding to be made available to police authorities through the private finance initiative. [13853]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Police authorities are currently exploring a range of projects under the private finance initiative with an estimated total capital value of about £70 million. There is scope for many more. The private finance initiative provides an exciting new opportunity for the police to enhance and extend their capital resources.
    Mr. Prentice: But is there not a cut of £23 million in capital provision for the police this year? I want the Home Secretary to tell us whether the much-vaunted private finance initiative will meet that shortfall. If it will not, was not The Economist correct to describe the PFI as "a dog's dinner" and a "deceit" that is becoming larger all the time?
    Mr. Howard: Lo and behold. I thought that the Labour party was in favour of bringing private finance into the public sector. I thought that they wanted to take advantage of the opportunities available. That is what the Front-Bench spokesmen keep telling us. But whenever those on the Front Bench say something, those on the Back Benches pop up and say the opposite.
    Mr. O'Hara: Precisely so; the whole House will know that the PFI is really an invention of the Labour party. The Home Secretary should give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who, when he was shadow Transport spokesman, first mooted the idea of bringing private finance into the public service. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the whole point of the PFI, according to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is to bring extra money into the police service. Can he assure us that extra money will come in through the PFI, and that it will not simply make up the £23 million shortfall? Can he give some practical examples of what it will produce in the police service?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is now claiming credit for what his hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has just described as a dog's breakfast. When will the Labour party make up its mind, even about the simplest things? Of course the private finance initiative has the scope to produce extra capital for the police service, and it is already doing so. We look forward to an exciting opportunity for the PFI to increase the capital available to the police service.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in Avon and Somerset there has been a considerable welcome for the significant increases in the general funding of the local police authorities over the past two years—increases much needed, but none the less much welcomed. Will he ensure that the police authority can get proper advice and guidance on how to deal with the PFI, which has caused difficulties in the past, so that both the authority and the local building industry may benefit from it?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the increased resources that we are making available to the police throughout the country. I assure him that advice on the private finance initiative will be available. But it is no use the police having more resources available to fight crime if the Leader of the Opposition goes up and down

    1123
    the country telling people that it is all right to shoplift and to put treats in their pockets. When will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dissociate himself from the disgraceful remarks made by his leader last night?
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite the rumours that are being put out by the Opposition, there has been a large increase in the resources for counties such as Dorset and that there are opportunities for local authorities, if they want to put their money where their mouth is, to transfer money from county council funds to give the police extra funding? Surely the private finance initiative is an additional source of finance.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Dorset will get a 3.9 per cent. increase in its funding next year. I am sure that it will make full use of those extra resources and be on the alert to add to them through the private finance initiative.

    Crime (New Technology)
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department has taken to maximise the use of new technology in the fight against crime. [13850]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): There are many exciting initiatives, including the world's first national DNA database, the national strategy for police information systems, the closed circuit television challenge competition and major projects providing national automated fingerprint identification and radio systems.
    Mr. Congdon: May I very much welcome that answer and especially the DNA database, which I understand now has 20,000 items on it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will play an increasingly valuable part in the fight against crime by ensuring that we get convictions? Can he assure me that he will continue to ignore the advice from those in the civil liberties lobby and elsewhere who are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime?
    Mr. Maclean: The DNA technology is the greatest breakthrough since fingerprints. It is wonderful technology and it has been provided to the British police service. It is a world leader and a world first. It is no wonder that the New York police commissioner recently told me that Britain was light years ahead of our competitors in the use of police technology.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that there are problems in using the new technology in the pursuit of crime? Does he share my horror at hearing that someone who had had more than $500,000 transferred out of an account with a company in this country cannot find a police force to prosecute the perpetrator because no one can decide whose is the responsibility or in which police authority area it lies?
    Mr. Maclean: Any time we introduce a world first technology, there are bound to be some teething problems. The DNA database is building up perfectly well. It is having some fantastic successes, which will become more
    1124
    public when cases currently before the courts are no longer sub judice. We have wonderful technology that is catching thousands of criminals up and down the country—CCTV is a good example. The people in the forefront of its development are shopkeepers and retailers, but there is no point catching all the criminals in the shops if the Leader of the Opposition says shoplifting is just putting a treat in their pockets. He does not believe in the stakeholder society but in the excuse makers' society.

    Obscenity
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the interdepartmental working group on obscenity. [13851]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): The interdepartmental group on obscenity has met four times so far. It has been considering the availability of pornography on computer networks; the display of indecent material in newsagents; and the sale of magazines to youngsters.
    Mrs. Winterton: While I welcome that response, especially in respect of the enforcement of the law against child pornographers, may I remind my hon. Friend of the widespread view in the House that the definition of obscenity in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is virtually unworkable? Will he bring forward proposals to improve the situation so that successful prosecutions can be brought?
    Mr. Sackville: While I share all my hon. Friend's concerns, I remind her that in 1993, there were 293 prosecutions and 209 convictions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The flexibility in the formula of "depraved and corrupt" is, in the end, what a jury makes of it. That is one of its advantages. If we find that we need new legislation to control pornography—for the Internet, for example—we will act.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the information that the Minister has given us. Does he expect the working group to report in the near future or is it to be kept in being? When may we expect some decision from it?
    Mr. Sackville: The working group has already been taking action, for example, in getting the service providers of the Internet together, so that we can work on a voluntary agreement—it has to be voluntary and international and there has to be co-operation—to try to prosecute those who are transmitting pornographic material on the Internet. That is one example of the way in which that interdepartmental group is already working. There are many others. Some may involve magazines and other new legislation that may be required.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that many people would like stronger action to be taken against paedophiles who import videos showing themselves to be engaging in disgusting activities?
    Mr. Sackville: The House is well aware of the Bill to deal with sex tourism which my hon. Friend has introduced. The question whether it is possible to extend

    1125
    territorial jurisdiction overseas is under review. He is right to say that, if there are problems over evidence in that type of sex tourism, it is one category where the evidence might be available and usable under our law.

    Prison Escapes
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people escaped from prison during 1995; and how many who escaped last year and in previous years are still at large. [13852]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): One hundred and twenty two prisoners escaped during 1995–62 from establishments and 60 from escort. Of those, 28 are still at large. As of 31 December 1995, a total of 116 of the prisoners who escaped since 20 June 1988 were still unlawfully at large.
    Mr. Hardy: While I welcome that necessary improvement, have not 1,200 hundred prisoners escaped in the past six years? Is the Minister aware that there is public concern that any reduction in public expenditure, any excessive reliance on dogma, or any greatly increased tension inside prisons could mean that that number will rise and the recent improvement come to shuddering halt?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is significant that the hon. Gentleman chose the past six years. If he had chosen the past three, since the Prison Service became an agency, he would have discovered an 83 per cent. fall in the number of escapes. Will he welcome that and will he acknowledge that that reduction was due to the efficient workings of that agency and, therefore, dissociate himself with Labour Front-Bench proposals to bring the service away from agency status?
    Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware that there were no escapes from Gartree prison in my constituency last year? Is she also aware that that prison recently received a most satisfactory report from the inspector of prisons? Will she bear in mind the good news about Gartree and add it to that which she has given the House?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I congratulate him on the performance of his local prison and I congratulate the governor and the staff of that prison.

    Carl Bridgewater
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fingerprints on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater are so far unidentified; and if he will make a statement. [13854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Two fingerprints found on the bicycle have never been identified.
    Mr. Mullin: How come 16 years elapsed before it was disclosed that two unidentified fingerprints were found on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater? May I put it
    1126
    to the Minister that this case is not going to go away, and that the quicker that it goes back to the Court of Appeal, the better for everyone concerned?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The defendant's solicitors knew of unidentified fingerprints three weeks before the referred case in 1989. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the provisional conclusions in the case were sent to the applicant's solicitors on 7 December last year. We await their making further representations. That may well happen shortly and we will then consider them.
    Mr. Ashby: In view of the fact that all that substantial doubt has arisen and that there is so much extra evidence that was not available at the trial, should not the case be sent to the Court of Appeal so that it can consider all the extra evidence? It is a very worrying case and there may well have been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
    Mr. Kirkhope: The evidence and information obtained in the case have been thoroughly examined—extremely thoroughly examined—over a long period of time. Every item that has been raised that is alleged to be new evidence has been carefully considered. As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend has reached his professional conclusion that the case should not be referred back to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's solicitors have an opportunity to make further representations, if they so wish, and we understand that we may hear from them shortly.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Minister aware that 14 years ago I asked the previous Home Secretary about the missing fingerprints? I received an answer that could charitably be described as inadequate. Does not the Minister understand that almost every week that passes a new doubt arises about the case? Sooner or later it will go to the Court of Appeal once more—why does not the Home Secretary do the proper thing and refer it there straight away?
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the thoroughness of the investigations and inquiries that have been carried out? Four police forces have looked into the matter; all the evidence and the extra allegations that have been produced have been looked into carefully. Despite that, the provisional conclusions are quite clear: that the matter should not be referred back. It is now up to the applicants to come forward with anything further that they wish to put up at this time before final conclusions are reached.

    Immigration
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of additional immigration problems in parliamentary constituencies near Heathrow and other major airports. [13856]
    Miss Widdecombe: We keep our immigration controls under constant review and do not hesitate to take measures to strengthen the system where necessary. We are always ready to consider representations from hon. Members representing such constituencies.
    Mr. Dykes: As local authorities undoubtedly face extra costs related to the provision of social, education and housing services locally—it is not anti-immigrant to state that as a realistic factor—does my hon. Friend agree that the necessary concomitant is to reassure people living in communities near the major airports that we have firm but fair and balanced immigration policies that oppress nobody from outside, but are fair to existing immigrants and other citizens?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. Good, fair and firm control of immigration is essential to the preservation of good race relations. Of course, we recognise that some local authorities suffer disproportionately because of their geographical location. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced a special grant of £3 million to help unaccompanied children asylum seekers. He will also be aware that we are in negotiations with the local authorities to help towards the impact of our Bill in respect of both housing and services for children.
    Mr. Henderson: Is not the Minister ashamed that, as a result of the social security regulations that came into force on 4 February and are linked to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, people with a genuine case for political asylum are now in London, sleeping rough on church floors and dependent on soup kitchens for sustenance? Will the Minister introduce amendments at the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill to reverse that outrage or does playing the race card take precedence over any sense of morality or justice?
    Miss Widdecombe: If there is any outrage it is that caused by the Labour party in deliberately using the term "race" when discussing the problem. It is the Labour party that stirs alarmism; it is the Labour party that introduces scaremongering; it is the Labour party that attributes results to our policies for which there is no evidence. The Labour party causes the outrage. Good and fair control of immigration is essential to the maintenance of good race relations. Does the Labour party acknowledge that there is a problem? If there is a problem, what is its solution to it? If it has no solution to the problem, will it please welcome our solution?
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I refer my hon. Friend to the particular problem of unaccompanied refugee children with which we continue to have to contend in the Heathrow area, particularly in the Hillingdon borough, in which my constituency is located? The £3 million that has been announced from the Department of the Environment is most welcome, but the borough that contains Heathrow within its boundaries is surely the most deserving.
    Miss Widdecombe: All those boroughs that have to absorb extra costs as a result of the numbers of unaccompanied children deserve help, and I fully recognise what my hon. Friend has said. I am grateful to him for welcoming the £3 million grant and I assure him that we will not lose sight of the need to take due measures in respect of unaccompanied children, who must be looked after and for whom local authorities retain a duty of care.

    Prisons
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons or designated prison sites he has visited to discuss the provision of accommodation in the last year. [13857]
    Miss Widdecombe: Since 1 January 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend has visited six prison establishments in England and Wales. I have visited 28 prisons since July 1995. In the course of those visits we discussed a range of issues affecting the Prison Service, including the provision of accommodation.
    Mr. Griffiths: Did the Minister and the Secretary of State discuss with prison governors and other prison staff the increase in overcrowding since 1992? I understand that there are now more people crowded into single-prisoner cells than there were in 1992–93. In the prison planned for Bridgend in my constituency, will special care be taken to set strict limits on additional prisoners above the planned numbers—unless some of her right hon. Friends find their way there following the publication of the Scott report?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman might have carried more conviction had he got his facts right. Far from increasing since 1992, overcrowding has decreased substantially. There has been no trebling whatever in cells designed for one since March 1994. We have completely eliminated the use of police cells and the incidence of two prisoners occupying cells that are designed for one has decreased from 21 per cent. to 17 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does his homework before he comes to the House.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that much prison accommodation is occupied by those convicted of serious shoplifting offences? Does she agree that, whereas the Government provided a citizens charter, the Labour party clearly propose a shoplifters charter. Have we not had the clearest demonstration that my right hon. Friend was right to say that the Labour party is the villain's friend?
    Miss Widdecombe: The Labour party's definition of villainy is for a thief to be putting a treat in his or her pocket. What message is the Leader of the Opposition sending to children throughout the country—that it is all right for Mummy to go shoplifting?
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary's new sentencing policies are likely to lead to an increase of about £1 billion in the cost of the prison building programme? If that is not correct, will she give us an up-to-date estimate of the extra cost of those policies?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait for the White Paper to find out more about those policies, but clearly we shall take into account the impact on both the prison population and the prison budget of our sentencing proposals and we shall make sure that the sentencing proposals and those other requirements are properly matched in whatever phasing we introduce. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows

    1129
    very well that he cannot get us to anticipate the White Paper now, but he needs telling firmly that we are aware of the problem and we shall find solutions to it. His party offers no solutions to crime, to prison or anything, other than the usual story of softness on prisoners.
    Lady Olga Maitland: What progress can my hon. Friend report on the building of the secure training centres? Is she aware that youth courts are increasingly frustrated about their inability to put young persistent offenders into secure accommodation, so that they have to go back into the community and may offend again. Frankly, society is fed up.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is quite right that society expects us to provide sufficient accommodation to take out of circulation those of whatever age who commit crimes. That is why we have had the single biggest prison building programme this century; that is why we have six new prisons planned; that is why we have sufficient accommodation to meet our proposals. That is why, as I told the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), we shall make sure that the prisons are there for those who ought to be in them. That is the policy that the British public want to hear. They do not want to hear about how we shall praise and release shoplifters.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that the Director General of the Prison Service and senior members of his staff appeared before the Public Accounts Committee yesterday and confirmed what we have known for some time: that Prison Service finances are in complete chaos? Is not the Home Secretary's announcement earlier this week that he is seeking alternatives to imprisonment for fine defaulters—interesting though that proposal may be—a reflection of that chaos and of the growing problem of offenders continually entering the prison system? Is the Home Secretary's announcement an indication that he is going soft on crime?
    Miss Widdecombe: The only chaos in the Prison Service exists in the heads and the minds of Labour Members. As the National Audit Office recognised, the Prison Service has taken steps to correct what was wrong in the past. It has introduced rigorous new measures and increased the number of staff accordingly in order to attack the problem. It is putting much right at an exemplary pace.
    It is typical of the Opposition that they cannot welcome that fact or pay tribute to or thank the very hard-working Prison Service management and staff for all that they have achieved. Labour Members simply pour scorn on what the National Audit Office has acknowledged are strenuous efforts to put things right. The hon. Gentleman should stop proclaiming gloom and doom and start recognising the achievements of the Prison Service and praising the very hard-working staff. If he does that, perhaps the Prison Service may have more confidence in the hon. Gentleman—because it has none at present.

    Thames Valley Police
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress Thames Valley police
    1130
    has made with civilianisation since 1979; and how many police officers have become available for operational duties as a result. [13859]
    Mr. Maclean: Information from 1979 is not available. Since 1985, civilianisation of posts has released 152 police officers for operational duties, to add to the 1,100 extra police officers recruited by Thames Valley police since 1979.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that success in putting policemen back on the streets to fight crime is greatly welcomed by my constituents and others? On top of that, there is the welcome news that 30 additional police officers will be recruited to the Milton Keynes force this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am not ashamed of being able to read: I recommend it to Labour Members below the Gangway. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 17,000 additional civilians recruited since 1979—not just to replace policemen, but to improve efficiency in the Thames Valley—is a record of which we can be truly and rightly proud?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that since 1979 not only have we recruited an extra 17,000 civilians to relieve the load on police officers, but we have recruited 15,300 extra police officers. We had to recruit 7,500 of those officers in the first few years of Government because the Labour Government ran down the police force. Under the last Labour Government, the police force was 8,500 officers under strength: that is the record of the Labour party's care for the police force.
    Mr. Straw: We have just heard another example of the Conservative lie machine. Will the Minister confirm that, under the last Labour Government, there was an average increase in police strength of 500 officers per year? That compares with an increase of just 300 per year since 1979.
    As to the Thames Valley, does the Minister understand that no one in that area—least of all the police—will accept the complacent nonsense that we have heard from him and from his hon. Friend this afternoon? Does he not understand that in the Thames Valley area villainy has flourished in the past 15 years? Crime has increased by 150 per cent. and convictions have decreased by 33 per cent. Is it not true that, under the Conservatives, there is much more crime in the Thames valley and elsewhere and many more people who are getting away with it?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted that, after half an hour of questions, we have finally managed to provoke the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet. If he is concerned about too many people getting away with it, why did he vote against all the measures that the Conservative party introduced in the 1980s to prevent people getting away with it? Why did he vote against giving the Attorney-General the power to review lenient sentences, and why did he try to pull the teeth out of the policy on secure training centres?
    The hon. Gentleman is worried about people getting away with it in the past. How many will get away with it in the future because the Leader of the Opposition does not believe in prosecuting criminals who steal from shops? Rather, he regards it as perfectly okay, because they are just putting a treat in their pockets.

    Prisoner Transfers
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for transfer of prisoners from one prison to another the Prison Service dealt with in the last 12 months. [13860]
    Hon. Members: Again, again.
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I shall say it again and again until the Opposition get used to it.
    The Prison Service deals with requests for transfers on a regular basis. The majority of such requests are dealt with locally and detailed records and statistics are not held centrally.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that the Prison Service believes that it is beneficial to prisoners and to the running of prisons to have prisoners near their families so that they can visit. What facilities does the Prison Service have to try to ensure that that is done wherever possible, given that, in many cases, the prisoners' families are totally innocent people?
    Miss Widdecombe: The Prison Service has a very clear objective, which is—as far as possible—to keep prisoners near their families, but it has to take into account the security classification of the prisoner, available space and sundry other considerations. Nevertheless, the Prison Service's objective is that which the hon. Gentleman rightly described as important.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend accept that she is very unlikely to get any requests for transfers from Lancaster Farms young offenders institution, because it has cracked the problem of bullying? Instead of isolating the person who is bullied, thus depriving him of privileges, it isolates the bully, depriving him of privileges. That has had a magical effect on bullying and people from all over the world come to learn about it. It is also one of the reasons why the prison got an excellent report from prison inspectors. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the prison?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in congratulating Lancaster Farms. I can confirm what my hon. Friend has said—its anti-bullying strategy has provoked national and international interest.
    I also congratulate the Prison Service in general on the emphasis that it has put on anti-bullying strategies and on the success of many such strategies, often with completely different characteristics, in various prisons.

    Carl Bridgewater
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a final decision in the Carl Bridgewater case, and if he will make a statement. [13861]
    Mr. Kirkhope: A final decision will be made when we have received and considered the response to our provisional conclusions notified to the applicants, as I have already said, on 7 December 1995.
    Mr. Burden: Will the Minister recognise that there is considerable concern about the reply he has just given and
    1132
    the one that he gave little while ago? He appears to be making a judgment on the quality of new evidence in the Carl Bridgewater case, rather than whether the new evidence is significant. Does he accept that it is for the courts, rather than the Home Secretary, to make such judgments? The sooner the matter is referred to the courts, the better.
    Mr. Kirkhope: No, I do not accept that. As I explained to the House earlier, one of the most thorough investigations into any alleged case of miscarriage of justice has been made in that case. The matter was referred to the Court of Appeal in 1989, when the application was turned down. The further evidence, and the allegations that have been made since that time, have been meticulously and thoroughly investigated by the Merseyside police.
    As I have already explained, if any other points were to arise from the applicants' solicitors in response to our preliminary conclusions, we would obviously wish to consider them carefully before finally concluding the matter.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when that ghastly murder occurred in my constituency, there was widespread distress? There is real concern lest the wrong people have been convicted, so can my hon. Friend give some idea of when he expects matters to be finally resolved?
    Mr. Kirkhope: We expect to receive further representations from the applicants' solicitors very soon. We hope then to be able to proceed further to our final conclusion. Undoubtedly, the delays have taken place because the case is very involved. It is a complex matter and a thorough consideration is taking place.
    I hope that all hon. Members will also bear in mind the appalling time that the family of young Carl Bridgewater have had. They have suffered terribly, and the continuing publicity and time involved in considering the representations are causing them even more suffering.

    Police Funding
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the funding formula for police forces in rural areas. [13863]
    Mr. Maclean: For 1996–97, 0.5 per cent. of total police funding will be allocated on the basis of population sparsity. That has meant an extra £870,000 for the North Yorkshire force.
    Mr. Bayley: Has the Minister seen the latest crime figures for North Yorkshire, for the year ending 31 December 1995, which show yet another increase—to 59,724 offences compared with 21,000 and falling under the last Labour Government? Is the Minister further aware that North Yorkshire—I checked this figure today—has 24 fewer police officers in post than in 1979, under the last Labour Government? Where have the extra 16,000 police officers gone that the Government claim to have provided? When will the Minister give the people of North Yorkshire protection from crime?
    Mr. Maclean: I am not surprised that North Yorkshire has fewer officers. I am surprised even at the number that

    1133
    the hon. Gentleman gave, given the way the county council underfunded the police under its standard spending assessment. In 1993, the county council gave the police £900,000 less than its SSA. The next year, it gave the police £1.3 million less than the amount to which they were entitled. When the Government took over direct funding under the new arrangements, we started by giving North Yorkshire an 8.2 per cent. increase, and this year the increase will be 4.5 per cent. The North Yorkshire force are recruiting bobbies again because the Tory Government are starting to fund them properly, which the Labour county council never did.
    Mr. Alison: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the now Labour and Liberal-controlled North Yorkshire county council is laggard in appointing civilians in police administration, so keeping police officers in bureaucratic posts when they should be out on the street?
    Mr. Maclean: Then it is just as well that there are now freestanding police authorities that can improve on that policy. Throughout the country, police are still doing jobs that could be done by civilians. Since 1979, the increase in the number of civilians engaged in police work has meant that 8,500 officers have been freed up to do proper policing jobs—but much more could be done.
    Mr. Michael: With the Conservatives, it is always someone else's fault. They have forgotten Conservative rule in North Yorkshire. Last week, the Prime Minister excused rail ticket fraud with the words, "Someone has misbehaved." The Home Secretary's formula has cut the number of police officers in rural areas, as in others. Instead of the 1,000 extra police officers that the Prime Minister promised in the 1992 general election, their number has fallen by 800. That is the Conservatives on crime—they say one thing and mean another.
    Mr. Maclean: What an extraordinary diatribe of fantasy. There are 1,454 more constables than there were at the last election. We will not take lessons on defending police numbers from a party who ran down and destroyed the police force when they were in office. They left the force 7,500 short. As for making excuses for crime, the hon. Gentleman should ask his leader to come forward today to explain what he meant when he excused shoplifters as merely putting a treat in their pockets.

    Beat Police (Funding)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with police authorities regarding additional finance for uniformed beat officers. [13864]
    Mr. Howard: I have regular discussions with police authorities about police resources. The Government are giving police authorities an extra £240 million next year, bringing total spending on the police to almost £7 billion.
    Mr. Skinner: It is strange that, 12 years ago, the Tory Government were able to fill every street in Derbyshire with as many police as they wanted during the miners' strike. Today, even the Police Federation is writing to me, asking me to help it to get more bobbies on the beat. That shows that the police are now swinging to Labour. It has
    1134
    taken me 12 years to cultivate it into learning some sense. Instead of trotting out all these feelgood factor figures, why does not the Secretary of State tell the truth, stop fiddling the figures and stop talking as his belly warms?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's leader has blown it in 24 hours. The police will not approve of advice to people to fill their pockets with treats at shopkeepers' expense. The hon. Gentleman can tell the people of Derbyshire that they will have a 4.8 per cent. increase in their budget next year, on top of a 7.9 per cent. increase this year, and that they have 210 more police officers than they had in 1979.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13879]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how long it took him to read the Scott report?
    The Prime Minister: I am a very rapid reader.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the destruction of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords is but a short distance from the destruction of the hereditary monarchy?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at the hostility of the Labour party to the hereditary principle, for this reason: when the Government were defeated in a vote last week, we were defeated by the votes of hereditary peers. As it happens, one of the Labour Front Bench remarked to the House, "the people have spoken".
    Mr. Blair: In retrospect, does the Prime Minister believe that the Scott report would have been better handled if it had been released in the way in which Sir Richard Scott requested? Does he have any regrets about the extraordinary disparity of treatment given, on the one hand, to Ministers and the Conservative machine and, on the other, to Members of Parliament, Opposition spokesmen and civil servants—a disparity about to be exemplified by the shambles at 3.30 pm?
    The Prime Minister: Nothing has been given to the Conservative machine—the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. Sir Richard wrote—I think to you, Madam Speaker—on 31 January to say:
    "Subject to the imposition of strict conditions on access (which Mr. Cook is prepared to observe), I view his request sympathetically."
    We permitted access at 12 o'clock. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman disagree. The arrangements are exactly those offered to the shadow Home Secretary when

    1135
    we published the Learmont report. We even offered him sandwiches. Not only did he not describe the arrangements as "outrageous and insulting" but, when he made his statement, he said:
    "I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in arranging for me to see the report earlier than is usual."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 33.]
    I look forward to similar thanks from the shadow Foreign Secretary later.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that British Telecom's doubling of the amount that is spent on building the information super-highway by people other than BT is the Government's competition policy in action, or does he believe that it would be better to sign a sweetheart deal just with BT to have the information super-highway built more quickly?
    The Prime Minister: The information super-highway has been in the process of being built for some years. The sweetheart deal that was entered into—apparently by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—seems to have come badly unstuck since its initial publicity.
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13880]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many of his Ministers who had early access to the Scott report have since been confined in a secure room, have had their mobile phones confiscated, have had all their messages brought to them by civil servants and have been escorted throughout by officials who are present for their convenience and security?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman is overacting outrageously on this issue. I shall tell the House why Labour Members are behaving in this fashion. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to sign a form promising secrecy and decided to attack the Government for asking him to do so. He then discovered that the requirement to sign the form was not that of the Government but that of Sir Richard Scott and that all Ministers, including me, have signed it. To save face, the Opposition went into sulks and denounced the whole arrangement.
    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend share the following view expressed in today's The Times:
    "Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, was yesterday presented with a golden economic scenario of low inflation and falling unemployment."?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the comment. That economic scenario has resulted from the sustained policies that the Government have followed for some time. We now have the lowest sustained level of inflation for 50 years, which today has fallen to below 3 per cent; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; more foreign investment than any other nation in Europe; and we export more per person than Japan and the United States.
    1136
    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his usual heckling form, talked about taxes. Let him tell us about the new taxes that the Labour party plans: the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the training tax and the social chapter tax on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the Labour party is the taxing party—it is in opposition now and that is where it will stay.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13881]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Why has it been necessary for the Government to prepare a shorthand version of the Scott report for distribution to Conservative Members and to the media? Would it not have been preferable to allow people to make up their own minds, based on Sir Richard Scott's key conclusions and not on the Government's version of events?
    The Prime Minister: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Most Labour Members made up their minds about this issue three years ago—long before Sir Richard started his report. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall read to him a large selection of quotations from Labour Front Benchers that show that they had made up their minds before Sir Richard Scott started his investigation.
    I set up the inquiry so that we could find out precisely what happened and so that the matter could be investigated independently and publicly. It was investigated under the conditions that Sir Richard Scott wanted. I was determined that the report be published and debated by the House, as it has been. The hon. Gentleman will see the outcome shortly.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13882]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 7,000 head teachers are members of the Secondary Heads Association? Is he aware that that association has described Labour's education policy as naive? Is it not typical of the Opposition's arrogance that they have now said that those 7,000 hard-working headteachers should go to the bottom of the class for not doing their homework?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend characteristically understates what was said by the secondary heads. What they actually said was:
    "The document is an uncomfortable combination of the naive and the messianic",
    that they find
    "little evidence in the document of thought in detail or research"
    and that they regret
    "the absence of recognition of valuable initiatives already in place"—
    put in place by this Government.

    1137
    We have learnt over the months that Labour's education spokesman has a tough job. Teachers openly criticise his policy and shadow Cabinet Members openly contradict it—but now that they know what makes a good school, I am sure that they will be able to improve their education policy.
    Mr. Radice: In April 1994, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that, if Ministers fail to give accurate and truthful information to the House of Commons, they should relinquish their positions. Is that still the case?
    The Prime Minister: I have said before that, if I judge Ministers to have knowingly misled the House, they cannot stay. That remains my position.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13883]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the insulting suggestion made last night by the Leader of the Opposition—that when old-age pensioners want a treat, they should steal it? Is he aware that shoplifting costs every household in the country £90 a year? Does he agree that the idea that shoplifters from certain groups should not be prosecuted is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and wanting to do quite another?
    The Prime Minister: Shoplifting is certainly a serious crime. It causes a great deal of loss for small and large shopkeepers. If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield did indeed describe it as my hon. Friend suggests he did, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those remarks. They certainly cannot reflect his settled consideration.
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13884]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: As the Prime Minister has had a full eight days to read the Scott report, and as I have only eight minutes, would he care to advise me which of the 1,800 pages I should find the most interesting?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, in addition to examining the report so that I and others can be answerable to this House, there have been some other things to do. The hon. Gentleman has 11 days now to consider the report. I hope
    1138
    that he will contribute to the debate in the House then—on the basis of fact, not of sneers, smears and innuendo of the sort that we have heard for three years.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13886]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the most encouraging set of economic indicators that this country has had in modern history? Will he further accept, although he knows that I have had concerns in the past about aspects of the health service reforms, that the private health sector is now so popular and so instrumental in playing a role in the health service that my socialist opponent at the next election works for it?
    The Prime Minister: I am truly shocked at that example of how Labour does not always do what it says. I hope that we will not find it in other elements of the Labour party.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [13887]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Did Lord Justice Scott not make it quite clear that all hon. Members should receive his report at the same time? Is it not almost a contempt of court that Back Benchers such as me have no time at all to absorb his important report and that we will find it impossible to quiz the President of the Board of Trade intelligently on its conclusions?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should really come off this silly line that he and his hon. Friends—[Interruption.]—this silly line that he and his hon. Friends are concerting. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is having hysteria, would be better advised to look at the precedent, to see what happened to the shadow Home Secretary, and to see what he said a few days later.
    Hon. Members have tried every trick to prejudice the reception of the Scott report. I suggest that they would be very wise to wait for just a few minutes to see what is in the Scott report. They can then deal with the reality of it on the basis of knowledge, and not on the basis of the smears that they have been putting around for the past three years.
    3.30 pm
    Sitting suspended.

Scott Report
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the report published today of the inquiry by Sir Richard Scott, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned in November 1992, following the end of the Matrix Churchill trial.
The Government have arranged for the report to be debated in both Houses of Parliament on 26 February. During the past three and a quarter years the inquiry, with the full co-operation of the Government, has received many tens of thousands of pages of documentation from Government files and has taken written or oral evidence from 268 witnesses. All Ministers, former Ministers and civil servants who were asked to give evidence did so conscientiously and thoroughly. The detailed procedures of the inquiry were left to the discretion of Sir Richard Scott himself.
The House will realise the diligence with which Sir Richard Scott and his team have scrutinised the events covered by their remit, and for which the Government are most grateful. The report is wide-ranging and detailed, extending to five volumes and some 2,000 pages. In addition, the inquiry will be making available as soon as possible several thousand copy documents. The House will recall that the essence of the inquiry, as reflected in its terms of reference, was to establish whether the relevant Government Departments, agencies and Ministers operated in accordance with the Government's policies, and to report on decisions by the prosecuting authority in the Matrix Churchill case and by those signing public interest immunity certificates.
Let me turn first to the question of whether arms were supplied to Iraq. The report confirms, and I quote,
"the Government was not prepared to countenance the supply of lethal equipment to either Iran or Iraq."
Sir Richard Scott goes on to say in his report, and again I quote:
"Ammunition, guns, tanks, bombs, mines and the like were not licensed for export to Iraq. Nor for that matter were they licensed for export to Iran".
The inquiry also considered whether defence equipment supplied to countries other than Iraq might have been diverted to Iraq's armed forces. During the 1980s some evidence existed that certain other countries might have diverted goods to Iraq. As far as British goods were concerned, steps were taken to counter this. No British arms or ammunition were found in Iraq at the end of the Gulf war. Sir Richard Scott investigated a number of allegations to the contrary and found no evidence for them.
On more general non-lethal defence equipment, Sir Richard Scott recognises that the Government strove to balance the interests of employment in this country with the objectives of our foreign policy. He makes no criticism of the Government's policy. He does, however, make strong criticisms of what he sees as a lack of openness on that, to which I shall return later. Nevertheless, the Government's restrictive policy on exports is in sharp contrast to many of
1140
our international competitors which, during the eight-year conflict between Iran and Iraq, in addition to non-lethal defence equipment, were also content to sell fighter aircraft, guided missiles, munitions and other lethal equipment. This country did not.
I turn now to the most important reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up the inquiry in the first place. This is the grave allegation that Ministers, by signing public interest immunity certificates, conspired in a way that could have sent innocent men to prison. Sir Richard Scott's report demonstrates that that allegation is false and without foundation.
I quote from Sir Richard's words—
Mr. Barry Sheerman: What page?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is making a statement. If the hon. Gentleman has questions to ask, he may seek to catch my eye later. Meanwhile, we shall hear the Minister out.
Mr. Lang: I quote from Sir Richard's words:
"Finally, I must refer to the charges made and repeated in the media that the Ministers who signed the PII certificates were seeking to deprive defendants in a criminal trial of the means by which to clear themselves".
Sir Richard Scott concludes, after more than three years of painstaking investigation, that all Ministers who signed PII certificates did so without any impropriety. There is no criticism of them for so doing. There was no attempt to gag. There was no conspiracy to gaol innocent men. Ministers who signed PII certificates did so in the knowledge that the judge was the final arbiter of what should be disclosed to the defence. There is no case for them to answer. As Sir Richard says:
"The charges to which I have referred are not, in my opinion well-founded".
That conclusion gives the lie to the many scurrilous comments by Opposition Members and by many in the media.
For three years, several of my right hon. Friends have had to endure repeated abuse and attacks on their honour and integrity of the most offensive and unpleasant nature, over their signing of public interest immunity certificates. They now stand wholly vindicated by the report.
As one example, I remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that he said on 7 November 1995 in respect of PII certificates:
"Once again we see Ministers caught trying to cover up their role in arming Saddam Hussein … Not only did they try to arm Saddam Hussein and keep it quiet but they were willing to cover up even at the expense of sending businessmen to court, knowing that those businessmen would be convicted, and knowing that if convicted they might well have gone to prison."
The same criticisms were made by other Opposition Members. As recently as last week, the deputy Leader of the Opposition said:
"Next week, we'll have more evidence with the Scott report. Showing how Ministers were prepared to send citizens to jail to cover their own backs."
There could hardly be a more serious set of charges levelled against Ministers of the Crown, and they are now shown to be utterly unfounded. There was no conspiracy. There was no cover-up. Such charges are reckless and

1141
malicious and they should never have been made. The House will now expect to hear them withdrawn without reservation.
Sir Richard Scott has cast his net widely and examined a whole range of issues. He has made recommendations in a number of areas, and he has also made some criticisms. I should like to comment now on the subjects of those recommendations and criticisms, including in particular export control legislation, the law on public interest immunity, the ministerial guidelines on exports, the Matrix Churchill trial and ministerial accountability.
The report deals with the legislation that has governed the control of imports and exports since 1939. Since the second world war, that legislation has served its purpose effectively in allowing controls to be imposed on the import and export of certain categories of goods.
Sir Richard criticises the continued use of wartime emergency legislation by both Labour and Conservative Administrations over the past 50 years.
The appellants in the Ordtech appeal in early 1995 challenged the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, praying in aid Sir Richard Scott's views, which he had first expressed a year earlier. However, in the Court of Appeal hearing on 22 May, before the Lord Chief Justice, the orders made under the 1939 Act were declared lawful. We shall, however, wish to consider further the future arrangements in that area in the light of Sir Richard Scott's comments.
I turn now to the interpretation of the common law as it relates to public interest immunity. The inquiry has suggested that in the period of the Matrix Churchill and Ordtech trials, the law did not support the concept that Ministers had a duty to sign public interest immunity certificates, nor the idea that those certificates could be used in criminal prosecutions.
The Government followed well-established case law, backed up by independent legal advice, in holding both that Ministers had a duty to sign PII certificates and that such certificates were applicable in criminal cases. It was then for the judge to decide which documents to release. The Attorney-General took advice on that from independent and eminent counsel—and incidentally, the Government's handling of PII was endorsed by three defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill trial.
The proposition that PII claims were a matter of duty was supported by authoritative judgments by such distinguished judges as Lord Scarman, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Justice Bingham. The applicability of PII to criminal cases has been established by a decision by Lord Justice Mann. It has since been confirmed by a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
In his report, Sir Richard Scott does not in any way question the personal integrity of the Attorney-General. He does, however, express criticism of the adequacy of the instructions to prosecuting counsel conveying the views of the then President of the Board of Trade, and said in particular that the Attorney-General should personally have supervised them. It must be a matter of opinion whether that was something that the Attorney-General could reasonably have been expected to do. Sir Richard does, however, accept the genuineness of the Attorney-General's belief that it was not. In the event, it made no difference. The judge exercised his discretion,
1142
as the Attorney-General had said that he would, and ordered the release of the relevant papers to the defence counsel.
The Government remain firmly of the view that the advice given at the time to Ministers by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was correct. There is no doubt that he acted throughout with complete propriety and integrity.
The inquiry has found failings to have arisen in the 1980s in the distribution of intelligence material within and between Government Departments. We accept that there is substance in that criticism. The report makes it clear, for example, that the junior Ministers who approved the Matrix Churchill licences for which the directors were later prosecuted did so without the benefit of intelligence reports that would have shown the intended military use of the items covered. Sir Richard concludes that the Ministers took their decisions on a false footing, which he makes clear was not their fault. Substantial revisions of procedures have already been made to prevent, as far as possible, a repetition of such failings. Sir Richard's report recognises that improvements in that area have been made.
I turn to the Government's policy from the outset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. Our policy was to remain neutral in the conflict and not to sell lethal weapons to either side. Further, the Government took steps to ensure that non-lethal defence goods that could have had an impact on the way in which the war was prosecuted were controlled. In support of that policy, and to assist in its application as events unfolded, a set of guidelines was established in 1984 by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe, then Foreign Secretary.
The guidelines established that export orders that would
"significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict"
would not be approved. Following the ceasefire in August 1988, those guidelines had to be applied in changed circumstances. Opportunities for expansion of legitimate trade began to emerge. At the same time, relations with Iran and Iraq were affected by concern over the hostages in Lebanon, human rights in Iraq, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and the safety of British nationals held in both Iraq and Iran. Ministers and officials were obliged to react to circumstances that were continually changing.
Sir Richard Scott concludes that, following the ceasefire in 1988, but not before—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are always taken at the end of statements.
Mr. Faulds: No. This is a new practice.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
Mr. Faulds rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
Mr. Faulds: I have done so, under protest.
Madam Speaker: There would have been greater protest had I used the Standing Order.
Mr. Lang: Sir Richard Scott concludes that, following the ceasefire in 1988, but not before, Government policy

1143
towards the export of non-lethal military goods changed in a way that he believes should have been drawn to the attention of the House. Both Ministers and officials believed at the time that they were applying policy in a way that remained within the existing guidelines and Sir Richard expressly accepts that they were sincere in doing so. However, he does not agree that they were correct in their belief. On that basis, he concludes that a number of Ministers' letters and answers to parliamentary questions were inaccurate because they restated what Ministers understood to be the policy but which Sir Richard believes, in retrospect, had changed.
Discussions about the guidelines took place on several occasions in late 1988 and early 1989 between junior Ministers and officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence as the situation developed. Those Ministers reached no settled decision to change policy which they regarded as requiring the approval of senior Ministers or an announcement to the House. As I said, Sir Richard disagrees with them, but accepts that they were sincere in their beliefs.
The crucial issue is whether those junior Ministers intended to mislead this House and the country. Sir Richard gives an unequivocal answer on that. He accepts that the Ministers believed that they were avoiding a formal change to the guidelines and that in holding that belief, they had, to quote his words, "no duplicitous intention". In respect of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was at the time one of the junior Ministers concerned, Sir Richard goes on to say:
"he did not intend his letters to be misleading and did not so regard them."
My right hon. Friend is therefore absolved of the charge that he intended to mislead Members of the House or anyone else.
The House will recall that the Scott inquiry was set up following the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial in 1992. Sir Richard has scrutinised that prosecution. The inquiry finds no evidence of impropriety in the way in which the Matrix Churchill prosecution was brought. There was no conspiracy and no deliberate withholding of material known to be relevant that might have helped the defence.
It is worth emphasising, too, that the court itself, at the time, expressed no criticism of the way in which the prosecution, with the advice of independent and well-respected counsel, was brought and conducted. But as Sir Richard Scott says, with the benefit of hindsight, this was a trial that ought never to have commenced. I stress, as Sir Richard himself does unequivocally, that this is a judgment with the benefit of hindsight.
While Sir Richard dismisses the serious allegations of personal impropriety that have been made about the conduct of Ministers, there is a continuing line of criticism running through the report of what he describes as the
consistent undervaluing by Government of the public interest that full information should be made available to Parliament".
One of his major recommendations is that there should be a review of the long-standing parliamentary convention whereby questions on certain subjects are not answered,
1144
or are not fully answered. He recommends that that review should take account of an enhanced need for Ministers to provide full and accurate information to Parliament.
That subject will form an important aspect of parliamentary consideration of the Scott report. This Government have made advances in the openness of government which go beyond the position of any of their predecessors. Nevertheless, it is right that we should debate those issues further in the light of the findings in Sir Richard Scott's report, and the Government are ready to do so.
In the light of that debate, the Government will consider whether any amendments to current practice should be made. It would be unrealistic, however, if I did not say at the outset that there are bound to continue to be areas, particularly in the field of international diplomacy and commercial operations, in which a degree of confidentiality will sometimes be necessary.
Sir Richard Scott's report contains a substantial section of recommendations. The Government have already taken action on a number of the issues on which the inquiry now makes recommendations, for example, on intelligence handling. We are able to accept others straight away, such as those relating to export controls and licensing procedures, on which a consultation paper will be produced as Sir Richard Scott recommends.
Other recommendations, such as those on changes to the law relating to prosecution practices and the approach to public interest immunity, for example, are technically complex and will need careful and detailed consideration. They will receive it. In sum, all Sir Richard Scott's recommendations are under active consideration and a number have already been accepted.
The House will recognise that the Scott inquiry has been long, searching and thorough. It will want to consider the report fully and to discuss the issues raised by it. There are lessons to be learned from the inquiry and Sir Richard Scott has made a number of important recommendations, which the Government will now pursue. The inquiry has identified areas where systems and procedures can be improved and those will be closely and urgently studied.
The overall picture that emerges is that, while mistakes were made, Ministers and officials acted honestly and in good faith. This country went to enormous lengths rigorously to enforce a self-imposed ban on the supply of all lethal and other offensive weapons to either combatant in the Iran-Iraq war and to remain neutral in the conflict. Our policy towards the combatants in that terrible war was sound and principled. It stands very favourable comparison with that of any other nation. It was conducted and sustained throughout with integrity.
Not only did Britain sell no lethal weapons to Iraq, but, as Sir Richard Scott's report makes absolutely clear, nor was there any conspiracy among Ministers to send innocent men to gaol. Those who alleged otherwise should now withdraw unreservedly and apologise to the House and to my right hon. and hon. Friends whom they have defamed.
Mr. Robin Cook: The President has just made a statement in which he laid blame on the Opposition, official advisers and the system, but accepted no blame for Ministers. The public outside will not find that a credible or dignified response to such a serious report.

1145
I have spent the past three hours studying the report. It fully vindicates our two central charges—that Ministers changed the guidelines on defence sales to Saddam Hussein and that they repeatedly refused to admit that, either to Parliament or to the courts.
I did not recognise the report that I read from the statement that the House has just heard. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government accept many of the report's recommendations. Those recommendations arise from Sir Richard's conclusions. If the Government are going to accept his recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."' Here is the question: does that mean that the Government will accept the conclusions on which the recommendations were based.
The right hon. Gentleman has just accepted what witness after witness from the Government at the Scott inquiry tried to deny: that the guidelines on defence sales were changed and that the Government failed to inform Parliament of the change. Now that he has accepted that conclusion, will he also accept Sir Richard's conclusion that that failure was, in his words, deliberate and the result of three Ministers agreeing to give that no publicity? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is in the report. Will he also accept the conclusion that the reason that they gave it no publicity was that they did not want the public outrage that would greet it?
The President described the statement by the Chief Secretary as inaccurate. Does he accept the conclusion of Sir Richard Scott that the Chief Secretary signed letters to Members of Parliament denying that the guidelines had been changed, which were misleading and that, in the words of Sir Richard Scott,
"he was in a position to know that was so"?
Does the President accept—he did not mention it in his statement—that Sir Richard's conclusion is that Government statements on defence exports to Iraq, in his words, "consistently failed" to comply with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and thereby failed to discharge the principle of ministerial accountability?
The President's statement contained no mention of the super-gun. I presume that he is aware that the longest chapter in the report is on the super-gun. Does he accept the conclusion in that chapter that there is, in Sir Richard's words, "clear evidence" that the Government knew about the super-gun a full year before its seizure by Customs and Excise? Does he accept that, in Sir Richard's opinion, Parliament could and should have been told, and that the failure to tell Parliament constituted, in his words,
"a further example of a failure to discharge the obligations of accountability"?
Does the President accept Sir Richard's conclusion that the intelligence information that the machine tools from Matrix Churchill went into the Iraqi arms programme was, in Sir Richard's words, "so strong" that for Ministers to maintain that they were possibly for civilian use was
"the equivalent to the … use of a blind eye"?
Does the President accept the conclusion that public interest immunity certificates, denying the defence in the Matrix Churchill trial an entire class of documents, had never before been used in any criminal trial and Sir Richard recommends that they should never be used again? Will the Government at least give an assurance that they will never repeat the practice that led to that prosecution of Matrix Churchill?
1146
Does the President accept that Sir Richard Scott found "risible" the defence claim by the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), that the release of the documents would cause "unquantifiable damage" to the public interest? If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that being called risible is a criticism, when will he recognise a criticism?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Attorney-General was personally at fault in terms of the failure of the Government's Law Officers to instruct the prosecution to tell the trial judge that the current Deputy Prime Minister signed his certificate with reservations? Will he say whether the Government accept those conclusions—it takes only one word to say it: yes or no? He has had plenty of time to work it out: he has had eight days to study a report that Members of Parliament have had eight minutes to read. His difficulty in answering the question is not that he has not had the time to make up his mind, but that his colleagues could not survive his acceptance of those conclusions.
Are the Government really going to ask us to accept a report that says that the current Chief Secretary signed 27 letters to Members of Parliament that were misleading, and which he was in a position to know were misleading, then tell us that he can remain in office as if the report had never been published? Is the President really going to ask the House to accept a report that shows that the Attorney-General wrongly advised Ministers and failed to tell the court that at least one Minister signed under protest, then tell us that the Attorney-General can also stay in office? Is the President really going to ask the House to accept a report which, over five volumes, demonstrates how this Government misjudged Saddam Hussein, misled Members of Parliament and misdirected the prosecution, then tell us that no one in the Government will accept responsibility for getting it wrong?
Will the President, before he passes the buck any further, confirm that yesterday, civil servants named in the report were told that any public comments they made must be cleared with their head of department, must be consistent with Government policy and must not criticise Ministers? How dare Ministers blame civil servants while ordering civil servants not to blame Ministers.
The report goes beyond the career of individual Ministers or the reputation of some officials. It reveals the price that Britain pays for a culture of secrecy in government. The report documents how Ministers changed the guidelines, but were more worried that Members of Parliament and the public might find out than they were about what Saddam Hussein might do with the weapons.
The President now has a second opportunity to rise to the occasion. Will he now tell us which Ministers accept responsibility for what went wrong while they were in office? Will he tell us whether the Government will dismiss those Ministers who, in the opinion of Sir Richard, failed to discharge the obligation of ministerial accountability to the House? Will he take the steps that are now essential if the Government are to be trusted in office? I warn the President that if he fails to answer those questions, the Government will forfeit any right to remain in office.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Livingston has twisted and distorted almost every single point to which

1147
he referred in answering my statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] He has repeatedly claimed that he has not had enough time to read the report. That did not stop him spending the past three years prejudging its findings and getting them wrong.
The hon. Gentleman was invited to come to the Department of Trade and Industry at 12 o'clock to see the report, but instead of rushing in to see it, he was seen standing outside on the pavement for 10 minutes talking to the press. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order—on both sides.
Mr. Lang: When the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) arrived and saw the hon. Member for Livingston talking to the press, he asked his car to go round the block so that he too could stop and talk to the press. So much for the enthusiasm of Opposition Members to read the report; I hope that they will now read it and they will be considerably better informed.
For the past three years, week after week and month after month, the hon. Gentleman has fed the House, the press and the public a sour stream of invective, innuendo and invention. It has been one of the most odious campaigns of manipulation and black propaganda that the House will be able to recall. He repeatedly—as we now know, without a shred of justification—charged Ministers with secretly plotting to arm a foreign dictator and with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Now he tries to sidle off the ground that he so malevolently pegged out for three years and pretend that it does not matter any more, but it does.
In 1992, the hon. Gentleman said:
"You cannot diminish the level of political scandal of a Government that privately, covertly, without public statement, arms a brutal psychopath who exposes British troops to fire from those arms."
In 1993, he was saying:
"Ministers were prepared to see businessmen wrongly convicted rather than tell how much they knew about the arms trade with Iraq".
In 1995, he said:
"None of these businessmen would have been convicted in the first place if Ministers had not"—
[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will have an opportunity in 10 days' time—[Interruption.] Order. They will have an opportunity then to tell us what is in the report. I shall spend the weekend reading it, as all hon. Members may. The Secretary of State has the freedom of the House to say what he wishes. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to put their points of view later.
Mr. Lang: Now the hon. Member for Livingston has been found out: it was all without foundation, and the Scott report shows that. It was a cheap and nasty smear campaign, with his whole party joining in the chorus. Their behaviour was contemptible.
1148
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Government accept the conclusions. On all the essential issues that concern the public, yes, the Government accept the conclusions. The hon. Gentleman referred to the changing of guidelines and to the quotation from the report, that the failure to inform Parliament about the current state of Government policy was deliberate. The point is that my right hon. and hon. Friends, as Ministers in the Departments concerned, were of the complete and sincere belief—which Lord Justice Scott accepts—that they had not changed the guidelines. There is no question of his suggesting that they had deliberately misled the House. He accepts their good faith and their integrity.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of super-gun. If he reads the report, he will find that it is accepted that the Government did not know about that until 1989. He also raised the question of the use of PII in criminal cases. The use of PII is judge made; it is court made. It is not decided by Ministers. The use of PII in criminal cases has been supported in a series of judgments, including by the Lord Chief Justice.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the prosecution in Matrix Churchill. That is a matter for the independent prosecuting authority. He suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General wrongly advised on PII. My right hon. and learned Friend has the support of the four judges to whom I referred in my statement on that matter.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the treatment of civil servants. That is a matter for the Departments concerned. Sir Richard Scott's report will be examined carefully and any action taken will be in accordance with normal civil service discipline procedures. No disciplinary action will be taken if civil servants acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy.
By his behaviour in the past three years on the issue and by his failure to apologise at the Dispatch Box today, the hon. Gentleman has blighted the rest of his career in this place. He will never be trusted in the House again. There is one course open to the hon. Gentleman: he should seek to make a personal statement and apologise to the House, or he should resign.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I am glad that I caught your eye. Madam Speaker. I received my copy of the Scott report at only 3.32 pm. Although there are many references to me in the index, I have not yet had time to read them—although of course I shall do so. However, I must say to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall put the proceedings in their proper context: we are questioning the Secretary of State.
Mr. Renton: Between 1985 and 1987, I was the Minister of State at the Foreign Office responsible for implementing the guidelines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I say that because some hon. Members were not here at that time and they should know the background. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm my memory of events: we were the only country to introduce a published set of guidelines, in addition to export licence applications, for the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq? We were the only country to do that.

1149
Does my right hon. Friend further agree with my abiding impression, from two years at the Foreign Office, of the immense amount of trouble taken by Ministers and civil servants alike to see that the guidelines were implemented fairly and effectively? Is there any reason to believe that that ethos in Whitehall and that ingrained custom of caution about the guidelines was not every bit as prevalent in 1989–90 as it was in 1985–87? I can assure the House that that was so.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I assure him that that is the case. I cannot find another country that operated such a principled and carefully controlled policy on defence exports as the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend might like to know that France was exporting Exocets and Mirage fighters to Iraq; Belgium was exporting ammunition; and the Soviet Union was selling tanks, aircraft and missiles. This country exported no lethal weapons to Iraq and Sir Richard Scott's inquiry has confirmed that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why did the President of the Board of Trade not refer us to paragraphs D4.42 and D4.43? Is not it blindingly clear from those paragraphs that the Government stand condemned of deliberately failing to inform Members of Parliament and Parliament itself of a fundamental change in policy and of a consistent failure to discharge their constitutional responsibilities?
When the Government's chief Law Officer, who has responsibilities beyond those of being a Minister, gives wrong legal advice on such matters as the use of public interest immunity certificates in criminal trials and fails to ensure that the reservations of the then President of the Board of Trade are passed to the court, how can the House and the public have confidence in him?
Why is it that the President of the Board of Trade failed to refer us to paragraphs D3.123, D3.124 and D3.125? How can anyone have confidence in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when, in those paragraphs, his views are rejected by Sir Richard Scott as "misleading", "sophistry" and
"not … to correspond with reality"?
Mr. Lang: Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been supported by all the distinguished judges to whom I referred, including the Lord Chief Justice. The Government believe that the advice given at that time was correct.
As far as the question of sophistry is concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to believe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, with two other Ministers, single-handedly changed Government policy without telling the Secretary of State—against the advice of many of his officials—and sustained that change for several years with nobody knowing. That is palpably incredible and Sir Richard Scott accepts that, although the guidelines changed over a period of time, they were not deliberately changed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, who sincerely believed—as did all Ministers and as the Government continue to do—that the 1984 guidelines remained in place throughout their existence.
Mr. Tom King: As someone who, in his time, had to sign PII certificates to protect essential
1150
intelligence information, but who did so always on the clear understanding that the judge had full access to the information and could decide whether it ran the risk of prejudicing the rights of defendants, may I say how pleased I am to hear that, as I understand Sir Richard Scott has made clear, there is no evidence whatever of some conspiracy to send innocent men to gaol?
In answer to the second smear, that in some way we sent lethal arms to Iraq, is my right hon. Friend aware that I walked round the largest lorry park in the world at Al Jubail at the end of the Gulf war and personally inspected a vast range of equipment that we had captured from the Iraqis? I found there lethal equipment from a whole range of countries but, from the United Kingdom, I found one Land Rover. That bore out my own evidence and impression that Sir Richard Scott's conclusion—that we scrupulously observed the guidelines about the sale of lethal weapons—was correct.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am happy to reassure him on public interest immunity. The report confirms the behaviour of all right hon. and hon. Members who signed PII certificates. The Government's clear view is that the advice given by the Attorney-General is supported by a range of senior judges—that Ministers had a duty to sign, the trial judge decides, PIIs are not gagging orders and PII law is court-made law, not Government law.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about evidence on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait. Any variation in the application of guidelines is the result of the oncome of peace in 1988. That was the major change that led to the application of guidelines affecting different products.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the section in the report that deals with the letter that the Prime Minister sent to me on 17 February 1992, which Lord Justice Scott says was misleading? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall certainly do every justice to the Prime Minister. Will the Secretary of State refer to that letter, in which the Prime Minister wrote:
"Guidelines laying down which types of equipment could be licensed for export, and which could not, were first introduced in 1980, were revised and made more stringent in 1984, and were announced to the House by Geoffrey Howe in 1985. The guidelines announced by Geoffrey Howe remained in force until the invasion in 1990 when they were replaced by a total embargo."?
Sir Richard says that that letter was "misleading". He says also, at paragraph D4.16:
"I do not doubt Mr. Major's evidence that he signed the letters believing the statements they contained to be accurate, but I do not accept that they were in fact accurate."
If the Secretary of State looks further at that section, he will see that the Prime Minister unknowingly sent me an inaccurate letter, because an originally truthful letter was deliberately doctored by the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary at the Foreign Office, to remove the truth. If the Secretary of State will refer to paragraph D4.13, he will see that the root of the untruth that the Prime Minister unknowingly sent to me lay in the action of the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Sir Richard Scott makes it clear that the letter that the Chief Secretary sent to the hon. Member for Lancaster

1151
(Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was untrue. Sir Richard confirms that the Chief Secretary sent a letter that was untrue. How can he remain in office?
Mr. Lang: This whole question turns on whether or not the guidelines were changed. Sir Richard Scott concludes that the guidelines were changed, but he accepts that all Ministers throughout the period in question were of the view, and continued to be of the view, that the guidelines had not changed, that they acted entirely in good faith and that the flexibility that they used was applied in the light of changing circumstances.
After the ceasefire, items that had been refused before it—such as hovercraft spares to Iran and mobile radar equipment to Iraq—were approved, but still refused in those continuing guidelines were high-grade secure radios, Hawk trainer aircraft, phototypesetting spares, metal detectors, modems and optical disc drives. I thought that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), having read the report's findings, would bear it in mind that he said in 1992:
"this Government have no excuse at all for a cynical operation aimed at arming a dictator".—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 667.]
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would come to the House to apologise, having slandered the Government.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is perfectly clear from the Scott inquiry that in the difficult decisions that Ministers had to take over a long period, they acted honourably—and that the people who have acted dishonourably are Opposition Members, with their smear campaign? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to remember that the defence industries are among our most important exporters and largest employers in the country? If the Opposition had had their way, they would have banned arms exports to innumerable countries, with the loss of millions of jobs and millions of pounds' worth of exports. Should not the whole thing be put in that context as well?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, but as a result of the strict control and strict policy on defence-related exports that this country followed between 1985 and 1990 we contributed only around 1 per cent. of Iraq's defence-related imports. Under the last Labour Government, the value of total exports to Iraq rose from £61 million in 1974 to £427 million in 1979.
Mr. Faulds: Is it not the case that the report makes clear that the guidelines were changed, that certain named Ministers changed them, however much they have forgotten the significance of the change in the words, and in that case, why was the House lied to?
Mr. Lang: The House was not lied to. Sir Richard Scott accepts that no Minister deliberately misled the House and that all Ministers believed sincerely throughout the period that the guidelines that they were using remained the same as the ones originally set up in 1984.
Sir Peter Hordern: Did defence counsel acting for Matrix Churchill have any cause for complaint
1152
in the handling of the public interest immunity certificates? During the Scott inquiry, was there any evidence, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary or my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, of deliberate misleading of the House? If that were the case, such a charge, to the knowledge of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would be a most ludicrous one.
Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend raises the question of defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill trial. That counsel specifically supported the signing of PII certificates. The judge in that trial acknowledged that PII claims were properly made. He saw all the documents: he instructed the disclosure of some and not others, and he expressly noted the terms of the PII certificate of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. On the question of misleading the House, with regard to the signing of letters by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, Sir Richard Scott's report says:
"I accept that he did not intend his letters to be misleading and did not so regard them."
Sir Richard makes no charge against any Minister of having deliberately misled the House.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Despite your wise advice on 7 February, Madam Speaker, may I point out that, despite a request to the Department of Trade and Industry for prior access to the report for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, that facility was not afforded to us. That is an abuse of a situation in which a request was put directly to the President of the Board of Trade. Therefore my comments can be only brief. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to volume IV, chapter 8, which clearly states that in 1985:
"Guidelines were deliberately not disclosed"
in answer to a parliamentary question. The following page states that there was
"a deliberate concealment from Parliament of the circumstances under which Mr. David Hastie had attended the Exhibition"
in Baghdad. That obviously impinges severely on the arms trade issue in general. I hope that we can discuss that matter in detail in the next debate. Will the President of the Board of Trade now tell us who was refusing to disclose the guidelines and who was organising the concealment?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady should understand that the guidelines are not statutorily based but self-imposed. They were established by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe when Foreign Secretary as an operational arm of policy to assist in decision-making. It was felt that there was no immediate need to publish them. When they were published in October 1985, some nine months after they had originally been drawn up, that drew no complaint and no unexpected attitude on the part of any right hon. or hon. Member who discovered them. They were not the full embodiment of policy; they were the way by which decisions were made on a day-to-day basis on many tens of thousands of export licence applications so that the Government's strict control over arms and defence-related exports to Iraq could be carried out.
Mr. Paul Channon: The exhaustive Scott report details the history of many years. Does my

1153
right hon. Friend agree that in the real world the Government must answer two questions: did Ministers conspire to send people to prison? The answer is no. Did the House or the Government connive at exports of a lethal nature to either Iraq or Iran during this period? Again, the answer is no. Does not this report answer in the Government's favour on those two crucial issues?
Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on both counts.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until hon. Members have had the opportunity to read the entire report they cannot properly assess the conduct of Ministers, whether the House was misled and whether there was a cover-up? Is he aware that Iraqi pilots were trained in Britain until a few days before the invasion of Kuwait? Is he also aware that the charge against the Government is that they were an accessory to aggression and to genocide? The whole question of the arms trade, which was denounced by four bishops in a letter in The Times yesterday, is the real and on-going issue. This country subsidises the arms trade by £1 billion per year, and those weapons are often used to repress people—as is the case with Indonesia and the people of East Timor.
Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Labour Members repeatedly approached Ministers for support in securing defence contracts for factories in their constituencies. I remember what happened in the 1970s, when the then Labour Government set out to sell frigates and Canberra bombers to Argentina.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph D4.42, in which Sir Richard Scott observed:
"The answers to PQs, in both Houses of Parliament, failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy on non-lethal arms sales to Iraq. This failure was deliberate and was an inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers that no publicity would be given to the decision to adopt a more liberal, or relaxed, policy, or interpretation of the Guidelines … I have come to the conclusion that the overriding and determinative reason was a fear of strong public opposition to the loosening of the restrictions on the supply of defence equipment".
Does that not go to the heart of democratic and accountable government? What is the Government's response to that statement?
Mr. Lang: Sir Richard Scott said:
"I accept also that the junior Ministers believed they were avoiding a formal change of the 1985 guidelines."
He believed that the Ministers acted in good faith. The parliamentary answer that they drafted in early 1989 said:
"The guidelines on the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq are kept under constant review and are applied in the light of prevailing circumstances, including the ceasefire and developments in the peace negotiations, and are not only informative but accurate."
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Chief Secretary told the inquiry that, in some circumstances, it is necessary to say something untrue in the House of Commons. As one of the people named in the report and having received unsatisfactory answers from a number of Ministers over seven years in relation to the question of
1154
arms sales to both Iran and Iraq, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that Ministers who feel that it is necessary to tell untruths in the House of Commons should resign? In particular, does he think that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should resign now in view of the way in which he misled the House?
Mr. Lang: Sir Richard Scott accepts that no Minister deliberately misled the House.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the plight of the people who have been forgotten in all this welter of controversy? I refer to the 600 constituents of mine who used to have jobs at Matrix Churchill. They are a highly skilled team of men, and they are of the view that, if Customs and Excise had not blundered in, a deal in which the City of London and the management were trying to buy out the Iraqi shareholding would not have been aborted. Had they been able to complete that plan, those jobs might have been in existence today.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraphs C3.25 to C3.65. Does he agree with my—albeit tentative—conclusion that Sir Richard Scott calls into question whether the Customs and Excise people behaved within the appropriate guidelines? If they did not, is there some question of liability here?
Mr. Lang: It is clear and generally agreed, with hindsight, that it would have been desirable if the Matrix Churchill trial had not taken place. But Customs and Excise are independent prosecutors and it would be wrong for the Government to seek to intervene in their decision over a prosecution. The report acknowledges that there was strong evidence of breach of controls, and Sir Richard Scott found that the Customs and Excise had observed the code for prosecutors.
Dr. John Gilbert: Is it true, as alleged earlier this week in the Financial Times, that during the period under review components vital to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme were being shipped to that country? If so, when did the intelligence service learn about it, and when were Ministers informed?
Mr. Lang: There is no question of the Government having connived at the export to Iraq of equipment for use in the development of the Iraqi nuclear programme. The Matrix Churchill machine tool export licence—which mentions project K1000, to which the hon. Gentleman refers—was not approved: it was still outstanding when Iraq invaded Kuwait and United Nations sanctions were imposed.
Mr. Rupert Allason: May I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 25 of chapter K6, on the subject of public interest immunity certificates in criminal cases? Does he agree with Sir Richard Scott's verdict that the use of these certificates on whole classes of documents is "bizarre and unacceptable"? Does he agree that there is a serious danger of a miscarriage of justice when PIICs are used primarily for administrative convenience? Does my right hon. Friend accept that Lord Justice Russell, the precedent used consistently in relation to public interest immunity certificates, said that matters of national security could never be decided by a court but only by Government?

1155
Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that no prosecution using public interest immunity certificates to ban the disclosure of whole classes of documents should be brought in future? Would it not be appropriate to take this judge-made law out of current use and put it on a statutory footing so that we can all understand it? Does my right hon. Friend accept the need to take a further look at cases, including that of Regina v. David Roche of Plymouth, in which there is a serious danger of a miscarriage of justice in criminal prosecutions in which a public interest immunity certificate prevents the defence from deploying its chosen defence?
Mr. Lang: As I told my hon. Friend in my statement, the Government intend to consider that matter further. The handling of PII certificates is court driven and case driven, not Government driven. The development of case law has governed the development of the handling of PII certificates. They are not a matter of administrative convenience: as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General advised the Ministers in question, they had a duty to sign and it was then for the courts to decide on the admission or otherwise of the documents. In a criminal case, every document is seen by the judge. My right hon. and learned Friend's view on the matter is supported by eminent counsel, by three defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill trial and by Lord Bingham, Lord Donaldson, Lord Scarman and Lord Justice Mann, to whom I referred earlier.
Mr. Peter Shore: Given the seriousness of the issues covered by the report, and the number of Ministers and Departments involved, would it not have been better if the Prime Minister himself had made the statement this afternoon? As inevitably happens in these exchanges in the House, minds are concentrated on the conduct of Ministers. Surely that, too, goes to show that the Prime Minister alone, entitled as he is to deliver judgment on the conduct of Ministers—just as he is the author of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", issued in his name—should have answered in the House.
Did the Attorney-General and the Ministers connected with the PIICs know when they signed the documents that Matrix Churchill was in touch with the secret services? If they did, surely they had an overriding obligation to see to it that Customs and Excise were pushed out of continuing the prosecution, just as they were pushed out of the super-gun case? Does not the Attorney-General have power to override Customs and Excise in the bringing of a prosecution by setting out what I believe is called a nolle prosequi?
Mr. Lang: The report came to me because it was commissioned to be delivered to me as President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave evidence to the inquiry: it was therefore right that the report should come to me.
As for the PIICs, some of my colleagues may well have known about the connection with the secret services—that does not affect the matter. The point was that the Ministers in question had a duty to sign the certificates so that the public interest and the interests of justice could be weighed by the judge, who alone had access to all the
1156
documents and who could and did take a decision. The trial proceeded unaffected by the PIIs for four weeks before it was finally abandoned.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when I was Minister for Trade I was one of those who had occasion to refer to, and give answers in connection with, the guidelines? When I asked to see them, the text that I was shown and the text to which I stuck used exactly the same words as the text given in the House by Lord Howe in 1985.
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the guidelines are just as they are described—guidelines—which have to be applied with judgment to any specific application for a licence to export non-lethal equipment? The interpretation of the guidelines, as my right hon. Friend has already said, would surely be expected to reflect whether there was peace or war in the Gulf.
Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consideration given in early 1989 and late 1988 to revising the guidelines was given precisely to reflect the fact that No.3 guideline referred to the prolongation and exacerbation of the conflict. Once the conflict had changed, it was sensible that Ministers should consider updating the guideline. The wording that they considered using differed in almost no respect other than to reflect that fact. The amended wording, however, was not adopted or put to Secretaries of State. The fatwa intervened in February 1989, which led to a different approach to the application of the existing guidelines.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: May I refer the President to the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which implied that all or some Ministers signed certificates in good faith, not understanding what had happened? But D4.16 quotes a briefing as follows:
"Since the ceasefire in August 1988, the Guidelines have been applied with greater flexibility for Iraq (but since last February, with much greater rigidity for Iran)".
Surely that shows a marked change of policy. The quotation continues:
"Our public presentation of our policy on arms supplies to both countries has, however, stayed broadly the same."
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that public presentation included presentation to Parliament, whether by all Ministers or by some? Which Ministers made those changes, which clearly represented a difference from earlier guidelines?
Mr. Lang: It is the clear view of the Government that the policy remained the same and that the guideline was applied more flexibly to reflect changing circumstances. One of the circumstances was the ceasefire in 1988. Another was the Iranian fatwa in February 1989, when Britain broke off diplomatic relations and withdrew her chargé d'affaires. Another was the execution of Farzad Bazoft in March 1990, when the British ambassador was withdrawn from Iraq. There were general situations of an extremely unpleasant kind such as the retention of the hostages, the treatment of the Kurds and threats to British shipping in the Gulf. All those matters caused the existing guidelines to be applied flexibly. The amount of

1157
equipment exported to Iraq as a result of the changing circumstances did not alter by any discernible amount, either in number or in the type of licences granted.
Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend has confirmed that Customs and Excise, in bringing the prosecution, was acting as an independent taxation and prosecuting authority and did not, therefore, consult the appropriate Minister—which was me at the time—about the matter. Will he also confirm—I think that he said it in his statement—that in bringing the prosecution Customs and Excise acted properly and withdrew it properly when the evidence given in court changed?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to agree with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister respond to allegations made in The Independent in November 1992 by John Gordon, the former head of the Foreign Office nuclear energy department, that by permitting the sale of nuclear-related technology to Iraq the Government breached not only their own guidelines but article 1 of the non-proliferation treaty which forbids the assisting of any other country in the making of nuclear weapons? Did Scott agree that the Government had breached the non-proliferation treaty?
Mr. Lang: I am disinclined to believe anything that the newspapers have said about these matters in recent days. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the report.
Sir Michael Neubert: When it comes to doing business with dictators, does my right hon. Friend remember that to clinch an aircraft deal the last Labour Government invited the megalomaniac Communist tyrant Ceausescu on a state visit and had him put up at Buckingham palace? When it comes to changing tack within Government guidelines, does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour Prime Minister embarked on the £1 billion Chevaline nuclear missile enhancement programme without—it is said—even consulting his Cabinet? In the light of Labour's record, does not Opposition Members' orchestrated outrage amount to humbug of the highest order?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yet again, the Labour party has said one thing and done another.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was not the Tory Government's real fear about the Scott report that as many as four witnesses would reveal that the Tory party received arms commissions—money—from some of the firms which were exporting to Iraq and Iran? Did the Tory party receive money from any of those firms and, if so, how much?
Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman had had any evidence to that effect, I have no doubt that he would have passed it to Sir Richard Scott—in which case, I have no doubt that Sir Richard Scott would have commented on it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Surely the key question that the House must ask with regard to Ministers' futures is whether they acted with
1158
integrity and in good faith. As I could not read the whole report in the few minutes that I had, can my right hon. Friend help me by pointing to anywhere in the report where Sir Richard Scott questions the good faith or integrity of any Minister? I have found one quotation where he says that the Chief Secretary
"did not intend his letters to be misleading and did not so regard them."
Why should any objective person therefore ask the Ministers in question to resign? Will my right hon. Friend reassure me on that point, since they felt that there were acting in the national interest with integrity and good faith?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only did Sir Richard Scott not find any evidence of any Minister's lack of integrity—he specifically went out of his way on several occasions to pay tribute to their good faith and the way in which they behaved.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in advancing the defence of the relevant Ministers by describing them as models of integrity and good faith he is using the defence of incompetence and negligence? If they are to be lauded for their integrity and good faith, are they to be punished for their negligence and incompetence?
Mr. Lang: Sir Richard Scott identified some areas in which mistakes were made. They were largely of an administrative nature—for example, in intelligence handling and in the handling of some export licences. Those issues are already being looked at and action has already been taken to improve the administration of those matters. Sir Richard Scott did not impugn the integrity of any Minister; where there are disagreements, they are of principle and of attitude to proper practice and procedure in the House. The procedures that the Government have followed in relation to answers on defence-related exports are procedures which have been followed by successive Governments of both parties for very many years. I look forward to the debate on the issues so that Parliament can decide whether changes should be made.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will always be differences of opinion as to how much information it is in the national interest to make available to Parliament about such sensitive matters as arms sales? Academics, editors and judges will put forward their various views on how much information ought to be made available to a sovereign Parliament, but in the end the decision on how much information should be given must be for the sovereign Parliament alone.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a very sound constitutional point. To illustrate how policy has remained broadly the same over successive Administrations, I quote an answer given on 10 June 1974, which says:
"It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to individual countries."—[Official Report, 10 June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 396–97.]
That answer was given by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) when he was a Minister.
Mr. Jim Cousins: The President of the Board of Trade told the House in his

1159
statement that the Government knew about the super-gun project in 1989. Can he therefore explain why, in the subsequent three years, a quite different story was told by Ministers and civil servants on numerous occasions? Does he regard that as being the responsibility of Ministers or of civil servants?
Mr. Lang: As the House has already been told, the report contains a long chapter on the super-gun. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read it. There he will find his answer.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not especially sad that Opposition Members giggle and laugh when there has been a total vindication of the honour of two Ministers? May I direct Opposition Members' attention to paragraph K8.15, the very last page of volume iv, which explains how things can happen? It says:
"A Minister should not be held to blame or required to accept personal criticism unless he has some personal responsibility or some personal involvement in what has occurred."
Sir Richard Scott says that the Cabinet Secretary's point was that
"the conduct of government has become so complex and the need for Ministerial delegation of responsibilities to and reliance on the advice of officials has become so inevitable as to render unreal the attaching of blame to a Minister simply because something has gone wrong in the department of which he is in charge. For my part, I find it difficult to disagree."
Is it not obvious that that is the explanation, and is not my right hon. Friend absolutely right to say that the mistakes—which have undoubtedly been made—will be looked at, and also to say that Ministers of the Crown do not deserve the blame originally attached to them by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for their behaviour in the matter?
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes a serious and worthwhile point. These are matters which should be debated. I illustrate the point by quoting from the article in The Times of 24 March by Mr. Gilbert Gray QC, one of the counsel for defence in the Matrix Churchill case. He said:
"All counsel agreed that great weight should be given to the interests of the accused. The judge ruled that all documents, save those concerning national security, should be disclosed. The case continued. Neither Ministers nor Attorney-Generals sought to intervene on this second question. How this narrative of fairness can be fabricated into an indictment of the Attorney-General I fail to follow. I never had the impression that he stooped to conquer or tried to gag. The Bar esteems him greatly for his honour and integrity and so do I. At no time did the trial judge ever suggest that the Attorney-General or Mr. Moses be criticised."
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why was it that the reservations of the Deputy Prime Minister were not passed either to Alan Moses QC or to the trial judge?
Mr. Lang: The judge acknowledged that the PII claims were properly made. He saw all the documents and expressly noted the terms of the PII certificates signed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Although it may well be, as Sir Richard Scott says, that more specific action should have been taken to ensure that
1160
the matter was brought to the judge's attention, it had no effect on the trial. The judge saw the document and expressly noted the terms of that certificate.
Dr. Keith Hampson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraphs F4.56 to F4.66, which concern the accountability of Select Committees to the House? He will be aware that Sir Robin Butler and Sir Michael Quinlan said to the Select Committee that two retired civil servants should not attend to give evidence. That is perfectly understandable in view of the then memorandum of guidance for officials appearing before Select Committees. The memorandum says:
"the official would remain subject to Ministerial instructions as to how to answer questions".
The officials concerned had retired.
Surely the Select Committee sought to inquire into facts, not into ministerial policy. We have, therefore, the suggestion in the report that Ministers' duty to account to Parliament should be recognised as extending to an obligation to assist an investigating Select Committee to obtain the best first-hand experience available. In his review of the recommendations, will my right hon. Friend consider changing or adjusting the memorandum of guidance for officials appearing before Select Committees so that we can avoid the requirement that officials have to follow ministerial instructions on how to answer questions?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. All these matters will certainly be further considered.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I refer the Secretary of State to page 487, which says:
"In March 1989, Mrs. Ann Clwyd MP asked '… if United Kingdom arms manufacturers will be granted export licences for sales to Iran or Iraq in the near future'."
A Foreign Office note apparently said:
"The FCO prefer to stick to the unamended version as used in reply to Teddy Taylor on 18 January … They, like we"—
that is, the DTI—
"wish to avoid the impression that the guidelines in relation to the Gulf conflict are being reviewed in the light of the current bilateral situation."
Sir Richard Scott says:
"In my opinion, neither Mr. Alton"—
who had asked a similar question—
"nor Mrs. Clwyd was given an adequate or an accurate answer."
Those of us who witnessed at first hand the victims of Halabja and realised that the shells that were delivered on Halabja were made by the lathes of Matrix Churchill, those of us who saw the wretched Kurds fleeing across the mountain tops in 1991, those of us who heard the shells of Saddam Hussein and those of us who realised the complicity of the British Government in all this are sickened by the Scott report today because it shows clearly that those on the Treasury Bench are the guilty men.
Is it not the case that at the core of the report is the simple big lie—that Britain, a decent democracy, does not sell arms to tyrants? We did so and we still do so. The Government assist in that process and the big lie has now exploded in their face.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is absolutely wrong. I accept that she has not yet had an opportunity to read the report.

1161
When she does, she will find that Sir Richard Scott, after three years of painstaking inquiry, acquits the Government of those charges, which have been repeatedly levelled at them.
The hon. Lady may like to know that between 1988 and 1989 machine tool exports to Iraq did not increase, as would be implied if the guidelines had been changed in some dramatic way: they actually fell to two fifths of the 1988 level.
Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that my constituency is a manufacturing constituency? Firms there are furious that NATO companies and European Community companies export to countries to which they are not allowed to export. I have sent letters to Ministers, I have raised questions on the Floor of the House and I have brought representatives of firms to visit Ministers. Never once have the prescribed guidelines been subject to an exception, whichever Minister I have written to or been to see. Never once has any company in my constituency complained that other British companies got favours that they did not.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can be no doubt that this country, uniquely, conducted a policy that was far more rigorous and far more principled than that of almost any other country involved in the export of arms and defence equipment.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the President of the Board of Trade now have the decency to apologise to the House on behalf of the Government, who were responsible for what Sir Richard Scott calls "deliberate" concealment from Parliament? If the Government had any respect for truth and open democracy, they should resign en masse and have a general election.
Mr. Lang: When the hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will find that Sir Richard Scott specifically exonerates my right hon. and hon. Friends from any intention deliberately to mislead Parliament. He accepts that their approach was principled and sincere.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My constituents who work in the defence industry and related industries will be appalled if the outcome of the Scott inquiry and the navel-gazing that will go on in the House over the next few weeks is that they will not be able to export legitimate materials or to create jobs. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that whatever changes are made to the way in which sensitive information is released to the House, it is not done at the expense of British jobs?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance to our economy of this industry. Some 400,000 jobs in this country are directly or indirectly related to the defence industry. Provided that the policy is conducted in a principled and consistent way, as the policy of this Government consistently has been, it is important to recognise the economic benefits to be derived.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does the Secretary of State recall that early in 1994 Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary, gave
1162
evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service in which he adumbrated the ministerial right to lie to Parliament? Does he further recall that in March 1994 the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told us that ministerial lying to Parliament was part of the natural order of things and that it would be naive to believe it could be otherwise? Now that the Chief Secretary has been convicted of deliberate concealment from Parliament, ought he not to take his odious theories and practices to the Back Benches?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's question is distorted and the premise is unsound. His question has no validity whatever.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of questions from the Opposition, including the previous one, have been about the role of the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury? I looked at the report and in addition to the section quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, I saw paragraph 4.12. Sir Richard Scott says that he accepts that the present Chief Secretary had no duplicitous intention. At paragraph D4.6, Sir Richard says:
"I did not receive the impression of any insincerity on his part in giving me the evidence he did."
Surely we can conclude from this that the Chief Secretary's name is now completely cleared by Sir Richard Scott.
Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the President of the Board of Trade look for a moment at page 495, paragraph D4.42, and perhaps add in the words that were left out by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) when he quoted from that section:
"and a consequential fear that the pressure of the opposition might be detrimental to British trading interests."
Is not the truth of the matter that the guidelines were changed and matters were hidden because the Government were frightened that if the truth came out, some people in this country—not just Opposition Members—might simply say, "Stop selling to Iraq", because that is what the Government were doing? The Government were permitting lathes, which manufactured weapons of war, to be sold to re-arm Iraq. The Government did not want the truth to be known because, if it had been known, people would have discovered what was going on and the trade would have been stopped.
Mr. Lang: Sir Richard Scott recognised that British trading interests are a legitimate component of policy and can properly be taken into account. However, he also quite conclusively reached the view that no lethal weapons were sold to Iraq and that none was found at the end of the Iraq-Kuwait war.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend turn to paragraph G18.106 and agree that it exonerates Ministers in relation to their signing of the

1163
PII certificates—clearly on the basis that the judge would have been able to look at them? Can my right hon. Friend also clear up the charge, which has been made during the past three years, that the case collapsed once the PII certificates—as gagging certificates—were released by the judge? In fact, the case continued for another four weeks. It was once Alan Clark changed his statement in the witness box—[Interruption.] He may well have done. The reality is that, as my right hon. Friend would agree, once Alan Clark changed his previous statements under oath, the prosecutor asked the presiding judge to withdraw the case.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The role of PII certificates in that case has been entirely distorted by Opposition Members. The PII certificate is not a gagging order: it is something that Ministers have a duty to sign so that the public interest can be brought before the judge and weighed against the interests of justice. That is what properly happened in that case.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: That being so, will the President of the Board of Trade comment on this? Sir Richard Scott, after three years of examining the issues, stated in his report that he found a Minister to be "personally at fault". What right have the Government to say that they reject that? I am quoting paragraph G13.125 in respect of the Attorney-General. That is the considered view. One cannot pray in aid Sir Richard Scott's report when it exonerates the policy but dismiss it when it states quite specifically that a Minister was personally at fault.
Will the President of the Board of Trade answer a question on a matter of finance? He did not refer even once in his statement to the financing of the arms trade. Will he tell us—I have had no time to read the report, so I do not know—whether at any time the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is the holder of the Conservative party's overdraft, ever received any taxpayers' money through the Export Credits Guarantee Department as a result of financing arms exports to Iran and Iraq?
Mr. Lang: On the latter point, if the hon. Gentleman cannot find the answer in the report, and if he will table a question, I will make sure that it is answered. As to the views of the Attorney-General, I readily accept that Sir Richard Scott takes a different view on some of these matters from that of my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend took great care to get detailed and specific advice from eminent counsel, and he has the support of a number of distinguished senior judges.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: We are now going to move on. Thank you very much.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after the business statement.

Business of the House
5.14 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I shall make a statement on forthcoming business.
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) and Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations, the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
FRIDAY 23 FEBRUARY—The House will not be Sitting.
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Scott report, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I am not yet in a position to be specific about the subsequent three days, other than to say that I expect to take Government business, and hope also to provide some Opposition time. On Friday 1 March, the business will be private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and for taking on board our representations that the Asylum and Immigration Bill should have an extra half day for its remaining stages.
I turn first to the Scott report, because we have just heard a very important statement—everyone must agree with that. Will any of the Ministers who have been criticised in the report be making a personal statement next week, and are the Government prepared to reconsider their decision that the debate on the 26th should be on a motion for the Adjournment? Why are the Government not prepared to table a substantive motion that could be amendable, so that the House could have the opportunity to have a clear vote on many of the issues contained in the report? Will the Leader of the House tell us, today, who will be speaking in that debate, and which Ministers will be facing the House to answer further questions?
May I also repeat my regular question about the timing of the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference? In recent weeks, hon. Members have pressed the Lord President about that matter many times, and he has said that he will answer at some future stage. We have still not had an answer, and I think that that information would be of interest to hon. Members.
When do the Government intend to move the writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire? The Leader of the House will be aware that efforts are usually made to fill vacancies within three months. He will also be

1165
aware that all the main political parties have their candidates in place, that the register is available, and that it has been published. To keep within the three-month agreement, I think that the writ will have to be moved next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be, or are the Government afraid of that by-election?
Mr. Newton: I express my gratitude once again for the hon. Lady's reference to the modification of the business that has been made in response to the entirely reasonable representations that have been made through the usual channels.
I am not aware of plans for any Minister to make a personal statement on the Scott report next week. I think that a debate on the Adjournment is much the most appropriate way to debate such a wide-ranging report. The Ministers who will take part in the debate, I expect, will be the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
In relation to the IGC White Paper, the hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that I said that I would shortly be giving the House a date. I think that I said that the White Paper will be published in good time before the IGC, but I shall of course let the hon. Lady know as soon as I am in a position to give a date.
As for the writ for South-East Staffordshire by-election, the hon. Lady will know that that is not a matter for me. I shall, however, bring her comments to the attention of those concerned.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent early debate on the economic situation, so that we can point out that unemployment is still falling—it is now 7.9 per cent.—that inflation is low and falling, that this is all due to the Government's policies, and that our economy is very much stronger than those of western European countries which follow the policies advocated by the Opposition?
Mr. Newton: What an excellent question; I could not have put it better myself.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on the collapse of the Government's social housing programme? This morning, housing associations—the vehicle that the Government are now using to create social housing in place of local authorities—have had their private finance stopped because of the inadequacy of the Housing Bill. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to put the matter right?
Mr. Newton: Were the hon. Gentleman's forecast accurate, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to make the position clear. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the position, but I shall draw his comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to discuss the resolution passed by Labour-controlled Sheffield city council on 31 January, which has been sent to the Secretary of State for Education and all Members of
1166
Parliament for Sheffield? In it, the council condemns the hypocrisy of senior Labour politicians in seeking privileges for their children in contradiction of their own stated educated policy.
Mr. Newton: That sounds rather a good subject for a debate, along with many others I can think of. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Leader of the House aware of the dramatic increase in the number of complaints being received from all parts of rural United Kingdom about the tangible effects of low-flying training? Will he arrange for a debate in Government time on this subject and, in particular, on the Ministry of Defence's restitution of compensation in cases where property is dislocated and destroyed, and where loss of life is a direct consequence of low-flying training?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of such concerns. Indeed, one or two have been expressed in my constituency. I shall, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I should add that, inevitably, a balance has to be struck. This afternoon, we have been talking about Iraq. Our planes made such a contribution to the war there that we could not have failed to carry out the relevant flying training exercises.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the briefing of the press in this place? We heard in the statement about briefing against members of the Government which suggested dishonourable and scurrilous behaviour, but I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 421, which shows that briefing has occurred, but, in this case, by the deputy Leader of the Opposition against his own leader.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said on this and other matters, but I hope that my hon. Friend's comments will be carefully considered by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—and, indeed, by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
Mr. Alfred Morris: In the light of the evidence that he has heard and seen here today, does the Leader of the House really think that a single day is long enough for the debate on the Scott report?
Mr. Newton: I have already said that a debate on the Adjournment is appropriate. I also think that the proposal for a day's debate on the Adjournment is appropriate.
Mr. Greville Janner: As it is such a long time since the House debated health and safety, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to arrange a debate focusing in particular on the safety of children and young people in parks? I ask this because of the pollution of a stream running through Braunstone park in my constituency, which resulted in a number of young people being injured and burnt, and the destruction of thousands

1167
of fish. It is the sort of problem that afflicts people across the country, and I think that a debate would be appropriate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Government are concerned to improve the protection of the environment and of people, and that they have taken action to that end. It sounds an appropriate subject for a Wednesday morning debate; perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman might like to bid for a such a debate.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of a debate on the Scott report, does he agree that the way in which the arrangements were made for the report to be seen makes a mockery of parliamentary accountability, and that he, as Leader of the House, must be accused of showing contempt for Parliament in not persuading the Government to act otherwise? It is disgraceful that hon. Members were given only 10 minutes, or probably less, to read a five-volume report. Once again, the Government have shown contempt for our procedures.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. Perhaps it may be of some comfort to him to know that I did not receive a copy of the report until 3.30 pm.
Ms Glenda JacksonMay we have an early debate on the grievous effect of the Government's noxious habitual residence test and its impact on British citizen and United Kingdom nationals? Is the Leader of the House aware that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux this week published a report entitled "Failing the Test", which shows that, far from catching benefit tourists, as the Secretary of State for Social Security claimed, the test is targeting more than 38,000 British citizens and UK nationals? As appeals against the test can take anything up to three months, many British citizens and UK nationals are living in their own country without any means of financial support. That is a grievous situation, and we should have an early debate on it.
Mr. Newton: There will, of course, be a number of social security debates next week, but I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. In introducing the test, the Government were responding to criticism of the easy access to income support for anyone who chose to come to this country. Experience has shown that abuse was substantially greater even than had been estimated, which originally caused the concern. There are certainly no plans to withdraw the test.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The weather has improved, but may we have a debate on cold weather payments, as a number of people have missed out on them and been placed in very difficult circumstances? Even under the current rules, the temperature is often measured miles from where the problem is. Clay Cross in my constituency is almost 50 miles from Leeds, but Leeds is the centre where the relevant measurement is taken.
1168
However, there were probably at least two weeks in January, when, had the temperature properly been measured in north Derbyshire, people in Clay Cross and the surrounding areas would have received cold weather payments.
Mr. Newton: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to examine the matter, but I know from experience that the scheme is a great deal quicker, more effective and sensitive than it was not so many years ago.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on commercial lobbying? Does the Leader of the House think it right in principle that a Minister of the Crown should sign a renewal application for a pass for a commercial lobbyist, and that a pass to the House should then be issued? Surely there is a principle involved.
Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, I understand that my hon. Friend to whom the hon. Gentleman refers has written to you about the matter, and I do not think that I should make any further comment from the Dispatch Box now.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Leader of the House aware that the local government boundary commission for Wales gave the Secretary of State for Wales its proposals today to deal with anomalies in the border around the town of Bridgend? Because of the way in which the matter is being dealt with, there is a danger that, if the Secretary of State does not allow the proposal to be publicised tomorrow for a period of six weeks, the boundary changes will not come into effect for a full year after the local government reorganisation has taken place.
Great concern has been expressed in my constituency about the impact of this, and I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House could use his good offices to secure a debate on behalf of my constituents. Clearly, I am using mine, but I realise that his probably have a greater pull in this respect.
Mr. Newton: I had not been aware of that report or proposal, but I am now. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is aware of them both, and I must point out that he is due to answer questions here next Monday.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House is probably aware that next week is half-term holiday throughout most of the country, and that on Monday, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), speaking on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, revealed to the House that the Commission has no plans to introduce any kind of child care facility in this building for the children of Members or of staff, other than the £6-a-day allowance for private nursery places to which some staff are entitled.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it might be an idea at least to consider the problems of many people who have young children yet who also want to be in the House, and so need some child care facility? Just before the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, might not this building catch up with the times by introducing a practice that is fairly normal in

1169
large institutions, and providing a workplace child care facility, so that all people, whether Members or people employed here, could participate equally in the proceedings in this building?
Madam Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on such matters—or simply an opinion?
Mr. Corbyn: Of course, Madam Speaker, it would be helpful if the children could come and take part in the debate. They might bring some sense of reality to our proceedings, which is clearly missing, judging by what is happening today.
Madam Speaker: I am simply reminding the House that this is an occasion on which we ask for debates.
Mr. Newton: You may also think it right to remind the House, Madam Speaker, that such matters are for the House of Commons Commission, of which you are the Chairman, and for which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed speaks.
Mr. Corbyn: You are the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: And I am a member of the Commission—and I have played a part in bringing about the improvement in provision to which the hon. Gentleman referred, by introducing the arrangements he mentioned. I shall ensure that the Chairman of the Commission has her attention drawn to his remarks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Gratified though I am to have a walk-on part in the Scott report, may I ask for a debate next week about the streets of London? I realise that the Leader of the House rarely walks the streets of London, surrounded as he is by his fawning civil servants, but if he were to do so, he might see that they are being turned into patchwork quilts by being constantly dug up by deregulated operators, especially the cable companies, who leave them in the
1170
most appalling state. That is the sort of thing that really gets up the noses of the people I represent in the east end of London, and I should like the opportunity of a debate, so that I can tell the right hon. Gentleman in far more detail exactly what is going on.
Mr. Newton: I mildly observe that I do occasionally walk the streets of London, usually when accompanying my wife on a shopping expedition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sexist."] I do not think that there is anything sexist in that. It is an entirely proper thing for a husband to do—and probably a wise one as well. [Interruption.] This is going to cause trouble when the news gets back home.
Various efforts have been made in recent years to achieve better co-ordination when streets have to be dug up, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we have not yet reached perfection, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of those concerned.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I impress upon the Leader of the House the urgent need for an early debate both on the whole of Senator Mitchell's report and on the infamous decision and action of the IRA in returning to bombing innocent citizens? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Senator Mitchell and his esteemed colleagues argued that there was a need for meaningful negotiations, which they hoped would lead to comprehensive change in Northern Ireland? Surely that laudable objective could be helped in a realistic way if all-party talks, to include Sinn Fein, were to take place in the near future.
Mr. Newton: I accept unequivocally that the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate is serious. I think that he will also recognise, as will the occupants of both Front Benches and the spokesmen for the minority parties, that no one would want to do anything, whether in the House or elsewhere, that did not seem clearly to contribute to the prospects of the peace that we all want to see. In that context, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said and bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Points of Order
5.34 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall the answer that I received from a Minister of the Crown on the granting of a pass by a Minister to a commercial lobbyist. You will also know that last week you twice ruled that you are not in a position to intervene. Who will sort out the problem? A Minister of the Crown provides a pass to a commercial lobbyist, whom he registers as a researcher but who does no research for that Minister. There is an issue—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can inform the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is looking at a register that is not current. The Minister of the Crown concerned ceased to employ the gentleman in question in the middle of 1995, and he has not had a pass since that time. I have correspondence on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to my office, I shall show it to him, so that he can see all the dates.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I, too, have seen the documentation, Madam Speaker. The pass application was signed on 1 May, yet the person concerned was appointed as a Minister three months earlier. It cannot be possible for a Minister of the Crown to sign a pass for a commercial lobbyist who does not work for him. Something is wrong in the system. I am simply suggesting that something should be done.
Madam Speaker: It is perfectly correct for a Minister of the Crown to employ whom he wishes. That was done perfectly properly. Since last year, the Minister has not employed that person, and he does not have a pass to enter the House. I have records giving me that evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to come to my office, I shall make them available to him.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you uphold, some may say embody, the dignity of the House, do you share my concern about an article that appeared in The Guardian yesterday about the "Mark Thomas Comedy Product", a new Channel 4 programme in which Members of Parliament will be interviewed dressed in the costumes of various animals, especially teddy bears? I am sure that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), who declined to be interviewed dressed as a male organ—although some of us might think that most appropriate. Do you not feel, Madam Speaker, that that detracts somewhat from the dignity of this place? Clearly some Members of Parliament will do anything for publicity, and I feel that their attention should be drawn to the matter.
Madam Speaker: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that many Members of the House will do a great deal to get publicity. I make no mention of names—just follow my eyes. We must now move on to more serious matters.

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting
  [Relevant document: The draft of the BBC's new Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation.]
  5.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move,
  That the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cm. 3152), dated 25th January 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  The BBC is a central part of our national life. Virtually all of us watch its television channels and listen to its radio services. None of us is indifferent to it. It is a unique repository of talent and expertise.
  The BBC has remained dedicated to its core tradition of public service broadcasting, true to Lord Reith's original vision of 70 years ago. It still serves to inform, to educate and to entertain. It is a benchmark against which other broadcasters are measured. Michael Grade said that it is the BBC that
  "keeps the rest of us honest".
  Since the present charter and agreement were debated, we have seen rapid change in the world of broadcasting, with cable, satellite and Channel 4, and Channel 5 will soon arrive. Three independent national radio stations have been introduced, as have a new BBC national radio station and nearly 200 independent local radio stations.
  I pay tribute to the BBC's determination to stay at the forefront of technology. Over the years, it has adapted in line with changing circumstances and technological advance. Recently, it has played an important part in promoting digital broadcasting, and it introduced digital audio broadcasting last September. We shall discuss that when the Broadcasting Bill has completed its progress in another place.
  Internationally, the BBC helps to define the United Kingdom's image and reputation. It was on the BBC that President Gorbachev relied for accurate and impartial news when he was under house arrest. It has the highest reputation as a broadcaster and programme maker at home and overseas.
  Today's debate on a new charter and agreement marks the culmination of a three-year process of rigorous consultation and debate. The Government published their consultation paper on the future of the BBC in 1992. I pay warm tribute to my predecessors in office.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) for the original consultation paper, in response to which many thousands of people let us know their views and concerns. I pay tribute to the National Heritage Select Committee, which made a valuable contribution through its 1993 report. The Government and the new Secretary of State responded to that in our White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in 1994. A year ago, with another Secretary of State, the House debated the issues arising from the White Paper.

  1173
  Perhaps it is a tribute to the BBC and to the concern that hon. Members feel for it that, for all the many issues on which views may change with successive Secretaries of State, there seems to have been great unanimity of view on this subject.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: In between offering those tributes, which I am sure have been richly earned, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the concerns and interests of BBC Scotland are being treated sympathetically by the hierarchy of the BBC in London?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am extremely satisfied on that front. I shall say more about those matters later, but I have carefully considered that issue, as has the BBC governor from Scotland. I hope that, on this as on other matters, the scrutiny that has been undertaken will satisfy hon. Members.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Under present arrangements, Scotland has a national broadcasting council. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the value of the English National Forum and the local radio advisory councils, which are not specially recognised in the charter? I know that she is aware of the issue. Is she prepared to make a more positive statement about that, or even consider amending the charter?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) have reinforced the fact that it is right that the BBC should be answerable, accountable and involved in the various parts of the United Kingdom and the regions of England. I met members of the English National Forum earlier this week, and I hope that I was able to satisfy them, as I hope I will satisfy my hon. Friend, about our earnest intent that their concerns should be properly considered right at the heart of the BBC.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Impartiality is important in the BBC and, in fairness, I shall take a question from the hon. Gentleman and then make progress.
  Mr. Maclennan: It is important to establish the status of the documents that we are debating. The right hon. Lady may know that that autocrat of the breakfast table, Marmaduke Hussey, wrote to several bodies, including that to which the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred. On 24 January, he wrote:
  "The Government, however, has indicated firmly that it does not wish to amend the documents."
  Does it not follow from that that this debate is an utter charade, and that the Government have no intention of amending the documents under discussion in the light of anything that may be said—for example, about the apparent oversight of the position of Gaelic in Scotland? That should be dealt with, either in the charter or in the agreement.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are well aware of the importance of the BBC and of the legitimate concerns of hon. Members in its affairs. The agreement must be
  1174
  debated in the House before it can be implemented. There have already been years of consideration of those issues and months of detailed deliberation. It has recently been debated in another place and careful consideration was given to the points raised there. In the same way, after this debate, we will carefully consider the points raised before finally implementing the agreement. It would be unfair not to inform the House of the inevitable concern of the BBC and others that the uncertainty there has been for many months should be brought to an end.
  Mr. John Maxton: Paragraph 2.2 of the agreement states that the BBC will provide
  "two television programme services available for general reception throughout the United Kingdom, which may include regional variations".
  Is the use of the word "may" a mistake, and if it is, could it be amended to "must" or "shall"?
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is possible that there could be an amendment. I will consider the matter in more detail. I must make progress with the substance of my remarks, because it is clear that many hon. Members want to speak.
  Overwhelmingly, the view that emerged from the consultation by the Government, from the Select Committee report and from all the other contributions was that the BBC should continue to be the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster. That would not always have been the predictable outcome, and it is no small tribute to the advances that the BBC has made in recent years under the shrewd and effective chairmanship of Marmaduke Hussey. He has been chairman of the BBC for longer than any other chairman, and is the only one to have been reappointed. He was the 17th chairman of the BBC, and the House will wish to express its thanks for all that he has done.
  Throughout this process, the Government have listened carefully to the views expressed and reflected on them. Our stance has been that of a supporter of the BBC, but not an uncritical one.
  The documents before the House today reflect our conclusions. The draft royal charter is the instrument that will continue the existence of the BBC and regulate its constitution until 2006. The charter is granted under the royal prerogative, and is not subject to parliamentary approval. I welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the draft charter in conjunction with the associated agreement, for which, as I have made clear, I seek the approval of the House. It has been debated already in another place, and we have given careful consideration to the points raised there.
  The agreement is a contract with the BBC, setting out how the corporation will meet its objects and obligations. We regard the BBC as a strong, independent organisation serving the public. The agreement contains, for the first time, a specific recognition of the BBC's editorial independence. That independence brings with it a responsibility to audiences. Under the agreement, the BBC will be required to produce a statement of pledges for its audiences. That will play a part in improving accountability. It reflects the principles of the citizens charter.
  The outline before the House is a first indication of what it will contain. I want that statement to be developed to contain specific detailed promises. The BBC can be held accountable to the public at all levels—local, regional and national. That work is in hand.

  1175
  Central to the future of the BBC is the role of the board of governors. It will be for the governors to deliver the BBC that we all want. They are a strong team, with the expertise to oversee the BBC's public service and commercial activities. Under the chairmanship of the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, we look to them to promote high standards, to enhance the BBC's reputation, to build on its traditions, and to oversee its strategy for success in the future.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State mentioned the new chairman-designate, Sir Christopher Bland. What sort of confidence can the Opposition have in the independence of Sir Christopher Bland as the chairman of the board of governors, as he is an ex-Tory councillor and has been an active member of the Conservative party? Where is the impartiality there? Is she not replacing one Tory millionaire with another?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The new chairman of the BBC has been strongly commended by individuals such as Greg Dyke, Melvyn Bragg and many others, who I was under the impression were thought to be supporters of the Labour rather than the Conservative party.
  The role of the BBC chairman is vital, and the greatest possible care was taken to find an individual who had the skill and expertise to lead the BBC forward into the next century. Above all, the governors are the trustees of the public interest. Their duties are clear in the new charter and agreement. They set the overall framework for the corporation, approve strategy, objectives and promises for its services and monitor the extent to which they are being met. They ensure that those who work for the corporation comply with the BBC's obligations. The governors are accountable to the public, and the BBC's management are accountable to them.
  The House will be aware that the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, has experience both as a regulator and programme producer. He recognises the distinct role of the BBC chairman and governors, at the centre of the relationship between the BBC and the public. To discharge that role effectively, the governors need to draw on informed and specialist advice. The national broadcasting councils are the key to that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  We have considerably strengthened and clarified the role of the national councils. They are to be responsible for assessing public opinion, developing the corporation's objectives in conjunction with the governors, and advising on the allocation of resources and on the contribution that programme makers throughout the United Kingdom could make to the BBC's programme output. That last duty is particularly important.
  From the contributions that have already been made to the debate, hon. Members will be aware that it is our concern that the BBC is not a London, but a British, broadcasting corporation. We said in the White Paper that the BBC should continue to be a major provider of programmes, making and commissioning a reasonable proportion and range of its national output, as well as programmes for local audiences, in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.
  1176
  The annual report should record progress against production targets in each area. We have included those as requirements in the new agreement. That will ensure that the economic and cultural benefits of the BBC's activities will be shared throughout the United Kingdom.
  The English regions also need a direct voice, as I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). The charter provides for the continuation of the BBC's regional advisory councils. That is underpinned by a new requirement for public consultation in advance of any material changes for home services. Services meeting the public interest should not be changed without reference to the public. While we have increased the governors' discretion about how they obtain regular advice, we fully recognise the essential contribution made by the BBC's advisory bodies.
  Only this week, I met members of the English National Forum. It brings together the chairmen of all the 10 regional advisory councils. Marmaduke Hussey has told me of the tremendous start that has been made in bringing together the voices of the English regions. He has given the strongest public assurance of the governors' support for the forum and its work. Excellent work by the local radio advisory committees represents the views of listeners and viewers at grass roots. I look forward to hearing more about their work directly when I meet them individually later in the year. The chairman and the governors must continue to listen to local voices. The structure of the advisory bodies currently in place is invaluable in providing that input.
  Direct accountability to the listening and viewing public will be underpinned by the new "Statement of Pledges". The full statement will detail what the BBC is promising to deliver. The pledges will be a contract between it and its audiences. The House will already be aware of a preliminary version, but the BBC will wish to make headway on those pledges in the light of debate in another place and, indeed, the comments made today.
  I know from my postbag the sort of promises that people want—targets on subtitling for deaf viewers, commitments to Gaelic broadcasting for the community in Scotland, pledges on funding for the arts and new music. In developing the statement, the BBC will be taking into account those views and those of Parliament and its advisory bodies.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Secretary of State will have received numerous representations praising the good work of the BBC in promoting Gaelic broadcasting in recent years. Does she agree with those representations? It is important for that work to be preserved in the pledges for the future.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that I made it clear that the tradition of the BBC to promote diversity throughout the country is extremely important. I hope that it will be possible to develop precisely the concerns that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the "Statement of Pledges".
  As I made clear, it is vital that there is increased accountability to audiences and, as a citizens charter for the BBC as it were, the "Statement of Pledges" will play an important role.
  Mr. William Cash: I tabled the amendments on impartiality to the Broadcasting Bill in 1990—they are

  1177
  included in section 6 of that 1990 Act—and I notice that a new requirement is being imposed on the BBC with respect to enhanced impartiality and a new mechanism. There is also reference to rules to be laid down in a code. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there should be accountability. How would that code be enforced? Is Parliament going to have an opportunity to see it in draft before it is brought into effect, bearing in mind the extreme importance of impartiality, which is what the consumer, listener and viewer are often primarily concerned about?
  Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend will discover, I hope to say a little more on impartiality later. We make it an explicit requirement that the governors ensure that the elements are properly enforced. My hon. Friend might want to discuss that matter in more detail when the Broadcasting Bill reaches this place.
  We have emphasised the BBC's independence. We have established its direct accountability to its audiences for its programming, but we have not lost sight of the need to reinforce high standards. That is an issue on which the House and I feel strongly. Some argue that violence and sex constitute only a small proportion of television output, but they have a disproportionately powerful effect on impressionable minds. We cannot become complacent on these issues. I discussed that with the chairmen of the BBC and the ITC, and they take it seriously.
  To ensure that standards are maintained, we have brought into the heart of the corporation's charter and agreement its responsibilities for taste and decency. The BBC is under obligations equivalent to those on other broadcasters under the terms of the 1990 Act. Our proposals in the Broadcasting Bill for a new broadcasting standards commission will further underpin the work of the BBC governors and of the commercial regulators in maintaining standards of taste, decency and fairness.
  One of the fundamental standards that we require of all broadcasters is impartiality, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred. As he rightly said, he made an important contribution in the 1990 Act. The BBC is a highly respected and trusted source of news and information. It has a special obligation to the public not to abuse that trust. We have introduced additional requirements that the governors establish an impartiality code giving programme makers clear guidance on the standards expected of them. The governors must ensure that the corporation, its employees and all programme makers engaged by them comply with the codes or guidelines covering programme standards. That is a clear legal requirement on the governors and corporation under the new charter.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: While I greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said, does she recognise—I am sure that she does—that the viewing public's main concern is that the standards being laid down should have teeth? Irresponsible journalists who carry out biased journalism—sadly, that happens in all branches of the media, including, occasionally, the BBC—should be able to be disciplined and held publicly to account.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. He will have seen a copy of the producers' guidelines, and I refer him to the section on impartiality.
  1178
  There is a copy of the document in the Library of the House. The director general has made it quite clear that those seeking employment in the BBC should explicitly recognise those producers' guidelines, whether they are directly employed or independent producers. A number of other mechanisms have reinforced the seriousness with which the matter is regarded.
  Mr. Cash: Now that my right hon. Friend has reached this part of her speech, will she be kind enough to give an assurance that the code—on which the issue of impartiality will ultimately turn—will be presented to the House in draft form, so that we can have the opportunity to consider it? The nuts and bolts will be sorted out in the code.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am not able to give my hon. Friend that assurance, although I can discuss with the governors of the BBC what further steps they will take to ensure that there is absolute confidence in the code that they introduce.
  The BBC is highly regarded around the world for its standards and expertise. The standard of its programmes and its independence from political control are very much the foundation of its domestic and international reputation. The reputation of the BBC name provides a great opportunity for the BBC and its independent producers to export programmes and take up other commercial opportunities.
  The new charter and agreement implement our policy that the BBC should be able to develop its commercial services. They provide a proper framework. We expect the BBC to re-invest a large proportion of the profit that it makes in UK productions and public service activities to the benefit of the licence fee payers.
  The BBC sets the pace. My hon. Friends will be aware of the success of the recent series, "Pride and Prejudice"—10 million viewers watched that programme at home. That has led to the opportunity to sell the programme to 14 different countries, earning £2.5 million. The oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit earned video sales of 500,000 for their first two films, and "Wallace and Gromit's Grand Day Out" was sold to 30 countries. The commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, has licensed Wallace and Gromit merchandising through 35 deals. The pair, via BBC Worldwide, are earning millions, which can be reinvested for the benefit of BBC public services. We want to see more of those successes for the BBC—this is only the beginning.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South called his White Paper "The Future of the BBC: Serving the nation, Competing world-wide" and we do indeed wish to see the BBC competing worldwide. In allowing this development, we are determined to ensure that the BBC's commercial activities are separate, and seen to be separate, from licence fee-funded services. The agreement requires the governors to put in place distinct and transparent accounting, and to ensure that the BBC trades fairly, without cross-subsidy from the licence fee. The Broadcasting Bill, which is not yet in this House, will make the corporation's commercial services subject to licence and regulation by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority.
  We have agreed with the BBC that it should focus on those activities that have to be retained in-house, for reasons of cost or to ensure continuing high quality. The

  1179
  BBC's transmission facilities are not essential to its public service obligations. We have agreed that, subject to appropriate safeguards, the BBC's transmission services should be allowed to develop in the private sector.
  By introducing the new charter and agreement, we have made clear our commitment to the BBC as a public service broadcaster. Privatisation of transmission will bring clear benefits to the licence fee payer by bringing downward pressure on transmission costs and by allowing more resources to be invested in the high quality services for which the BBC is known. The independent broadcasting transmission service was privatised in 1991.
  The House will be aware that National Trans-communications Ltd.—NTL—the privatised company, now competes successfully for transmission and telecommunications contracts worldwide. The BBC's transmission staff have built a superb service. It is now time to set it free from public sector constraints to enable it, too, to play a full part in the commercial developments that lie ahead.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Notwithstanding the fact that NTL is a world-beater, particularly in terms of research and development and compression techniques with digital transmission, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the sale of transmission facilities from the BBC will not be open to purchase by NTL? If they were, my right hon. Friend would simply be creating another monopoly.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Such matters are subject to normal competition law, and would be open to consideration by the competition authorities.
  The charter and agreement set out the future of the BBC. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government's view is that the BBC is highly regarded for its quality, fairness, accuracy and artistic excellence. It is a respected institution here and around the world—that was evident from the responses to our consultation paper. It is not a perfect institution, and some hon. Members will have examples where they consider it to have fallen short of its own high standards. The new charter and agreement set out a clearer framework of accountability to ensure that the standards aimed for remain high. The board of governors is responsible for ensuring that those standards are met.
  The BBC's prime function is to serve the nation. At the same time, we are setting the framework within which the BBC can compete worldwide. I expect it to compete vigorously but fairly, and to minimise the call on licence fee funding, while maximising its contribution to the United Kingdom's economy and extending the reach of British culture. The new agreement—with the draft charter—provides the right framework for the BBC's continuance and its development over the next decade. I commend it to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: First, may I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has had to return home and is therefore unable to open the debate on behalf of
  1180
  the Opposition? I also apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not informing you of that fact before you entered the Chamber.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate the draft charter and agreement for the BBC, which plays a unique role in our national life and is rightly recognised and praised around the world for the standards that it sets in public service broadcasting. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to debate the service that the BBC provides to us all.
  The charter is designed to take the BBC forward, through the turn of the century, to 2006. The broadcasting sector is changing rapidly, so we can expect to see a different broadcasting landscape by the time the charter is considered for renewal once again. We must therefore ensure that we know what we are doing and that we get it right. If we set the wrong framework for the BBC, it will suffer in the years ahead and broadcasting in the United Kingdom will be the poorer for it.
  As the Secretary of State said, the Government's proposals were contained in the White Paper published in 1994 and debated in the House a year ago. The drafts of the charter and of the agreement have been laid before us. The charter is to be noted and the agreement is to be approved. The problem is that we can neither add to them nor subtract from them—only approve or reject the whole.
  The charter has already been debated in another place. Prior to the debate, peers had an opportunity to question the Minister in that House informally on the contents both of the charter and of the agreement. I know that many of them found that most useful, and it puzzles me that hon. Members here were not offered the same opportunity.
  We have been approached by a number of organisations, such as Broadcasting for Scotland, that have made sensible, positive suggestions for minor amendments to the charter and agreement. Sadly, as Marmaduke Hussey, the chairman of the board of governors of the BBC, made clear in his letter of 24 January to the national councils:
  "The Government, however, has indicated firmly that it does not wish to amend the documents. In the face of this, the Governors themselves wish to provide assurances about the way business will be conducted."
  It would have been a little more respectful of the views and wishes of the House if the Government had not made their intentions quite so blatantly obvious before deciding to debate the issue. It makes me wonder why we are all standing around debating it. Perhaps the Minister of State will refer to that point in his reply.
  Although the Opposition have no intention of voting against either document tonight, we want to register our dissatisfaction with the fact that they are unamendable and that we cannot make any adjustment or fine tuning. We do not believe that this is the proper way for the House to consider such an important national institution as the BBC.
  We must also consider the charter and agreement in the context of the Broadcasting Bill that is before another place. Changes in the broadcasting landscape proposed in that Bill, while largely welcome, will alter significantly the outlook for the BBC. Although it is likely that the BBC will remain the broadcaster with the widest reach, it will be in a much wider field with many more competitors.

  1181
  It is regrettable that we could not first determine the new structure of the broadcasting world and then produce a charter to promote the BBC within it, rather than consider the charter before the Bill.
  Labour Members welcome the more explicit statement of the BBC's public service objectives that is to be found in the charter. Those objectives stand beside new freedoms to provide commercially orientated services and are essential at a time of widespread anxiety about broadcasting standards and scope in years to come.
  The BBC must be able to expand its output in the digital age and provide a diverse range of services on its multiplex, but we must ensure that the formal public service requirements set down in the agreement are adhered to. The new chairman has already mentioned a subscription sport service on a BBC digital channel. That may be attractive, but it must not be developed at the cost of the exclusion or withdrawal of sport from the free-to-air service.
  The Government, too, must reflect on the issue. As they learnt to their embarrassment in the other place last week, public service obligations arouse great strength of feeling in many quarters.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I am among those who have expressed strong views on the issue. He will also recognise that the Government have always had an open mind on the matter and, as their consultation paper makes clear, they are prepared to listen to representations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the thorough way in which he has entertained representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Dr. Moonie: I would feel more confident if the Government had not voted against the proposal in the other place last week. Although I fully accept the good faith in which the Government entered into their proposals for consultation, perhaps there was some procrastination on their part in not wishing to be seen to make a decision too quickly. I fully accept that there may be faults with the amendment that was carried in another place last week and that the measure may require further amendment and certainly much greater discussion when we debate it, but there has been a clear expression of opinion and I am glad to say that the Government have suggested that they are prepared to accept the will of the other place.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, if the Government have an open mind on the issue, they discovered it very recently? In June 1994, they rejected out of hand the Select Committee's proposal for listed events to be protected and, as recently as December 1995, Ministers repeatedly wrote to me and others saying that it was purely a matter for market forces and that it would be quite wrong for anyone to intervene.
  Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing concentrates the Government's mind more quickly than a large number of what they thought were their hon. Friends turning out to be quite the opposite. Had our roles been reversed and the Bill had been considered here first, I suspect that the result would have been exactly the same.
  The programme content requirements set out in the agreement are as important as the public service requirements. The requirements to inform, educate and
  1182
  entertain; to stimulate support and reflect the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom; to provide authoritative and impartial news and much more make the BBC unique in its breadth of coverage.
  There are still concerns that, in some respects, the requirements are less onerous than those placed on other broadcasters. There is a long-running war of words between the BBC and the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinema and Theatre Union about educational broadcasting. Most recently, BECTU stated:
  "Neither the Agreement nor the Charter provide any requirement that the 'education' objective of the BBC should he maintained at any minimum standard. Whereas the ITV and Channel 4 television companies are monitored by the ITC, there is no adequate monitoring system to ensure that the BBC's Home Services' education output is adequately monitored, evaluated and fulfils proper education objectives.".
  That is a reasonable point and the Government should consider it seriously before they finalise the charter. It seems odd that Channel 4 has a minimum number of hours for schools programmes but that there is still no such requirement on the BBC.
  To provide the diversity of viewing to which I have referred, the BBC must be able to develop its commercial activities freely. This is not an argument for the revenue from the licence fee to be reduced. The BBC accepts—and the Opposition agree—that, to expand and remain competitive in the broadcasting marketplace, it must generate its own income in addition to that from the licence fee.
  It is right that the charter and agreement contain safeguards to provide public subsidy of private ventures, but the Government must not be over-restrictive—as they are with the Post Office at present—just to make a point about private ventures by public sector organisations. I understand that the Government are to review the BBC's capital structure and borrowing arrangements. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister clarify why that was not completed before the new charter was published?
  The Labour party has long believed that the role of the governors of the BBC needs to be clarified. The charter is the first to recognise the existence of the director general, his deputy and the board of management. I cannot help thinking that the delineation of responsibility could be clearer.
  The governors, by definition, are the "corporation" whose functions have been set out in article 7 of the draft charter, but some matters—such as industrial relations, which appear in article 15 of the charter—that are the clear responsibility of the board of management are still referred to as matters for the corporation. There should be a clearer divide, or I fear that many people will question whether the governors are sufficiently detached from the management of the corporation to play a proper regulatory and supervisory role.
  The position of the chairman is particularly important. The recent appointment of Sir Christopher Bland raises a number of questions about independence and accountability. Sir Christopher has a great deal of experience in broadcasting, which I am sure will be of great value to the corporation, and we intend to watch his progress with interest, but it is easy to lose confidence in the Government's good intentions when consultation over the appointment, as requested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is refused. The appointment is

  1183
  made by the Queen in Council. It is of great national significance and it must be seen to be made in a scrupulously independent manner. I believe that the Government have failed yet another test of openness and accountability in respect of that appointment.
  The BBC's accountability to its audience relies, in part, on its advisory structures—which have been referred to by the Secretary of State and by way of intervention. Those bodies should also be a source of advice and encouragement to programme makers. A number of concerns have been raised about the proposed new structures. In the present charter, the councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland control policy for the BBC in those parts of the United Kingdom. In the new charter, their role has been reduced to advising and assisting the governors in that task. I know that many of my colleagues do not welcome that downgrading.
  The merger of the English regional advisory councils and the local radio councils has also caused concern, particularly among those with a keen interest in local radio. The BBC must recognise in its new structure that the interests of radio should not be subsumed in those of television.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the performance of the local radio advisory councils has been very patchy? While one or two radio stations believe that they have benefited from their input, other stations feel that the LRACs are an unwelcome intrusion. The vast majority of listeners are not even aware that they exist.
  Dr. Moonie: I suspect that that is the case with many bodies that the Government appoint to represent our interests. I accept that there are great differences in radio councils' performance levels, but the fact that democratic accountability sometimes fails to meet the very high standards of some hon. Members does not mean that it should not occur. The hon. Gentleman should have regard to that fact: it is a good in its own right.
  The BBC must acknowledge the very local interests of many small radio stations. We propose that there should be a council of the English regions matching the national broadcasting councils. Until now, the BBC has had an English regional forum. We agree with the point made by the Voice of the Listener and Viewer organisation that the new draft charter
  "does not specify how many Regions or Advisory Councils there should be, nor does it refer to any form of English Regional Forum, or to any constitutional link with the Board of Governors. Should, therefore, the BBC decide to reduce the number of English Regional Councils or to abolish the English Forum it could do so tomorrow".
  If that requirement is not inserted in the charter, we shall seek the BBC's assurance that it will maintain such a body.
  The BBC has a range of other advisory bodies—for example, on science and religious broadcasting—and the General Advisory Council. While I do not believe that we should lay down every aspect of the BBC's operations in the charter and agreement, we would welcome an early statement by the BBC as to what advisory structures it will continue to operate.
  The BBC has a new requirement under the agreement to undertake public consultation about changes that it makes to programme services. Consultation implies that
  1184
  there is some willingness to accept the views of members of the public. I trust that the BBC now knows, to its cost, how much strength of feeling programming changes can arouse. For example, there is still great unease about "Test Match Special" replacing Radio 4 broadcasts on long wave. FM reception in my area is not very good and I can no longer receive Radio 4. The "Anderson Country" experience must also have proved a salutary lesson.
  Mr. Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that surveys have shown that the Radio 4 audience increases substantially when the cricket is broadcast on the normal transmission channel? For many millions of people, England's performance in the cricket World cup—which we hope will improve in future—is vital. That programme certainly offers more objective coverage than the "Today" programme.
  Dr. Moonie: I also hope that England's performances in the World cup improve—they could scarcely be any worse than the performances over the winter.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Spoken like a true Scot.
  Dr. Moonie: A true Scot who has played cricket for most of his adult life and who still takes an avid interest in the game. However, I find it difficult to find the broadcasts on long wave.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has missed the point. Radio does not aim simply to attract the largest audience; it aims also to cater for specialist interests. I assure him that the BBC was inundated with complaints from regular listeners to Radio 4 about the changes to its programming. I believe that the views of those who have been loyal listeners for many years should be taken into account when programming decisions are made.
  The BBC's accountability to the public and to Parliament depends also on the free flow of information. The introduction of a range of performance objectives to be included in the annual report is a useful step, but we must not risk allowing quantitative measures to overtake qualitative judgments. On occasion, the Government have woefully ignored issues of quality in broadcasting. As evidenced by the current Broadcasting Bill, the Government have not yet learnt from their mistakes. We must not allow that situation to prevail with the BBC.
  As I said earlier, we are concerned about many aspects of the Broadcasting Bill, which is inextricably linked to the documents before us. Of particular concern is the proposed sale of the BBC's transmitter network—which has already been mentioned. We will make our feelings about that fully known when we debate the Bill in this place, but I believe that it is worth raising some general issues now as we debate the documents that are paving the way for the sale.
  Nowhere in the documents or in the Bill is it stated explicitly that the BBC will be the sole beneficiary of the proceeds of the sale. We have received private reassurances that it will, but we would feel much happier about the Government's good intentions if that were made clear either through a statement or in legislation. We are seeking an assurance that the BBC will retain the money to pay for the development of new services. We are also

  1185
  concerned that this is possibly the first privatisation measure that does not refer to the employees of the body to be privatised.
  In addition, the agreement refers to directions to the BBC to dispose of stations, while the charter's definition of "station" is so broad that many parts of the BBC could be sold at the whim of the Secretary of State. The BBC may be taking a fairly relaxed view of the privatisation proposal, but there are many more questions to be asked and answers to be given about that issue.
  I want now to mention radio broadcasting in Scotland—I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I make one or two important parochial points. I am sure that hon. Members will have received the communication from Broadcasting for Scotland, which sets out a number of its concerns in detail. It mentions in particular the fact that
  "The Governors have also gained the power to select the members of the National Broadcasting Council giving them the opportunity over time to pack the Councils with the timid and the faithful. Selections were previously made by panels formed by the BBC General Advisory Council, now itself abolished, in each country and acting independently of the Governors".
  It goes on to suggest the following:
  "complete not partially independent selection panels maintained in each country
  council right to initiate a strategy and objectives for their country
  a council duty to inform audiences in their country of relevant BBC policy effects".
  The document refers also to Gaelic broadcasting. That matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who appears to have left the Chamber—I did not say that.
  Labour Members are concerned about the lack of status accorded to Gaelic broadcasting compared with the situation in Wales. We believe that, while the BBC is sympathetic to moving towards a national Gaelic radio service, that should be specifically recognised by a commitment in the charter. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will wish to return to that issue.
  Today, I was sent a long and comprehensive document by Wilf Stevenson of the British Film Institute about the archiving of BBC material. I quote the document in the hope that the Minister of State will be able to refer to it in his reply. I am very happy to let the Minister read it if he has not already done so. It states:
  "We believe that it is important that the Charter's archival obligations on the Corporation be not only retained but strengthened, in order to ensure that the preservation and accessibility of the nation's broadcasting heritage is secured."
  The following points are suggested for improving the situation:
  "(a) that the archiving obligations placed on the BBC should be no less onerous than those which apply in statute and licence to the ITV Companies and to Channel Four;
  (b) that the Charter should specify that the BBC has an obligation to maintain archives to the commonly accepted standards, and that it can either do this itself or make arrangements to fund the National Television Archive;
  (c) that if it is decided to maintain an internal Television Archive, there should be a formal requirement to co-operate with the relevant national bodies, such as the BFI in respect of television and related materials; and
  (d) that the BBC should not dispose of any of the contents of its libraries and archives without first freely offering such material for preservation in the appropriate national, regional or national regional collection."
  1186
  Those are fair points and I hope that the Minister will refer to them when he is winding up.
  It has been argued that, at a time of dramatic change in broadcasting, it would have been better to guarantee the licence for the full 10 years of the charter period. The Opposition have much sympathy for that point of view and we can see the logic of the argument, but I can also see the logic of reviewing the licence fee after five years. A decision has to be made to do one or the other. The licence fee is already the subject of widespread public debate due partly, no doubt, to the recent imprisonment case in "Coronation Street".
  If the licence fee is to be changed in any way, it must be after a major public consultation in which all the options are explored and which is, if possible, free from the type of debate that can sometimes characterise more general taxation matters. In the past 17 years, the Conservative party has not been a friend to the BBC. Many Conservative Members have attacked and threatened it and expressed the desire that it be sold off. I believe that the BBC has won many of the arguments about its future and the Opposition have consistently supported it. The Government have drawn back and given the BBC a partial vote of confidence.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Was not the hon. Gentleman in the House on a day in the spring of 1994 when my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), then the Secretary of State for National Heritage, announced that it was Government policy to have a new charter? My right hon. Friend said some very positive things about the BBC, which echoed the view of the Select Committee on National Heritage, of which I am proud to be a member.
  Dr. Moonie: One swallow, however, does not make a summer.
  Mr. Jessel: It was nearly summer.
  Dr. Moonie: Absolutely, I must have been away playing cricket at the time.
  I do not wish to suggest that nobody on the Conservative Benches has the future of the BBC at heart, or to suggest that Secretaries of State do not do their best to discharge their obligations. I referred to some of the comments that I have heard made over the years by Conservative Members, which certainly do not lead me to believe that the BBC would be safe in their hands in the long term. Fortunately, of course, that is not likely to happen.
  The Labour party will continue to give its support to the BBC and to the work that it does at home and abroad. With the reservations that we have expressed tonight, we offer our support for the charter and agreement before the House.
  6.34 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, because I was employed in broadcasting by both the BBC and ITV for many years before I came to the House. We have heard quite a bit about Scotland and it is high time that Wales was mentioned. Before I come to that subject, I shall refer to the situation generally.

  1187
  The BBC's charter renewal for a further 10 years comes at a time of enormous change in the broadcasting world. Not only do we have the development of cable, satellite and wire services—all of which will offer a wider variety of services to the home than have been available through the traditional house or set-top aerials—but we are approaching the period of digitisation of the analogue channels. That will open up the possibility of an amazingly wide spectrum of choice for viewers and listeners. There will be so much choice that the recipients will probably be very grateful for some guidance on the plethora of programmes and services available. I understand that the BBC is already considering providing that guidance. The Broadcasting Bill, which is currently in the other place, deals with the problems of digital services, but those matters cannot be far from our minds as we discuss the new charter because the shape of future services is likely to be moulded during the decade ahead.
  In passing, I shall pay tribute to the work that the BBC has done on digital services. It has established the first digital audio broadcasting service and the sound quality is superior. The BBC has also shown that it can translate its existing analogue services to digital wide-screen receivers, but it has expressed the opinion to the Government that
  "analogue terrestrial transmission is still likely to be the only distribution system offering universal coverage of all homes for at least the next ten years."
  The increasing multiplicity of services becoming available and the increasing competition for viewers, listeners and resources of all kinds is the cyclorama against which the BBC charter is being renewed. That it should be renewed is not a major issue. The days when some thought that the BBC had a too dominant and too pervasive position in British broadcasting and was insufficiently challenged are going, if not gone. Our major current concern is to conserve the best of the BBC and to ensure that it is in a sufficiently strong position to continue to provide the public services of the very highest standard that we have come to expect.
  We are all fully aware of the important role that the BBC has in portraying Britain to the world and there is a new emphasis on that aspect in the charter and in the ancillary agreement.
  In its worldwide operations, the BBC faces powerful competition backed by truly vast resources, and there is a very real fear that the BBC, in meeting that competition, will somehow be diverted and may reduce its efforts at home. That is why in the briefing for this debate—I am sure that we have all had a copy—there is a representation from the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union which highlights the BBC's proposals to reduce television programming for schools by 20 per cent. and radio broadcasts to primary and secondary schools by 37 per cent. However, that is simply evidence of the concern about the Home Services, and that concern is also expressed by the National Consumer Council. It would like the governors to have
  "a clear and independent regulatory role, quite separate from the BBC's Board of Management."
  I am sure that the fear that the Home Services will be sacrificed by the BBC lies behind the worried comments that have reached us, especially from the national regions
  1188
  of Wales and Scotland—which have expressed grave doubts about the new description of the role of their national councils.
  I want to stress how important are regional services to the people of the regions, and those provided by the BBC have a new premium attached because of the takeover threat posed to ITV regional companies by their larger brethren. In the regions, the public are not reassured by promises made by distant predators that they will maintain local programme output. They may observe the letter of their promises but the programmes will not be locally inspired.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was considerable fear in Staffordshire—in particular, in Lichfield—when it was announced that London Weekend Television would be acquiring Central Television? However, as there are in effect two independent licences with the Independent Television Commission, Central's coverage of local news and current affairs has not decreased but has been enhanced by that larger amalgamation.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to hear of that enhancement, but it cannot be guaranteed that such a thing will happen every time. There is considerable fear in some regions that although promises will be respected to the letter, nevertheless the regional character of programmes will be lost. The BBC and the Government have tried to combat that foreboding by writing into their agreement that the two television services that the BBC undertakes to provide may—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) emphasised—include regional variations. To the House, the word "may" means that that undertaking is discretionary. Hon. Members who represent the regions would much prefer the word "shall" in that context.
  We cannot believe that the Department of National Heritage did not mean to confer discretion. If it were otherwise, I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not have used the word "may". As the agreement is surely amendable, I hope that the word "shall" can be used instead. The use of "may" is sending out all the wrong signals to the public.
  The BBC has committed itself to doubling the amount of drama made in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland by 1997–98, and to doubling music and arts productions in the regions within four years. That is all very fine and welcome, but it is not tantamount to providing regional services. Neither is the requirement in paragraph 3(2)(h) that Home Services
  "contain a reasonable proportion and range of programmes for national audiences made in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and in the English regions outside London and the South East."
  That is merely a commitment to more network productions from the regions. Although such productions are welcome, they could be made anywhere and need not reflect the region's character.
  It must be obvious to the House that I distrust the metropolitan outlook and the domination that it spells, the coterie that shares it and the dominance that it has over our press and media. Life in the United Kingdom is the poorer because of it.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The distinction is made between shall and may because the measure will also

  1189
  cover BBC2, and it is unlikely that it will be involved. As to BBC1, in effect the meaning is "shall", but "may" appears in the documentation because it covers a range of channels. I hope that that thoroughly reassures my right hon. Friend.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I accept her explanation and commentary implicitly. It may be that members of Labour's Front-Bench team will not do so, but I trust my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Maxton: In the matter of the word "may", the right hon. Gentleman has to trust not the Secretary of State but the future governor of the BBC. He may not find that easy to do.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I find it easier to trust my right hon. Friend because I read in one of the BBC's commentaries that it interprets the word "may" as "shall". Nevertheless, we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend as to the meaning of the word. As she gave it on the Floor of the House, I am sure that others will respect her interpretation.
  I was being critical of the metropolitan domination, which means that nothing that happens beyond Watford can possibly be of any consequence. That is a cardinal tenet of the pseudo-intellectual caucus that adheres tenaciously to the metropolitan view. No wonder the provinces feel deeply slighted. The BBC may lose out from the dilution of its regional identity. I hope that it does not allow that to happen. The regions are the nursery for future broadcasters and programme ideas.
  That is the context in which the national broadcasting councils appointed by the governors of the BBC are to advise those governors on the attainment of objectives in their countries and on any significant change in the corporation's resources in a country, by making representations to the corporation. The councils' role does not seem significant. They will not have the power to control programme policy and content, as they do now. At the moment, in Wales, that function must be performed
  "taking into account the culture, language, interests and tastes of the people of Wales."
  It is a pity that those words are to disappear, because they are meaningful in the Welsh context. I hope that that obligation, and the spelling out of it in those terms, can be retained in the subsidiary documents.
  The charter's dominant theme is centralist, which is understandable when one takes into account the challenges facing the BBC. However, those challenges are diffuse and hydra-headed in their profusion—and they are likely to become more so as digital services come on stream. Just as the main networks in the United States have been undermined to some extent by local, thematic and special interest services, the same thrust to achieve viewership in particular spheres may develop in the UK. I warn the BBC to be on its guard against any abandonment of its regional interests and audiences.
  As one would expect, the BBC will have the power to run subscription, pay-per-view and other commercial channels. I hope that the Government will not shy away from granting similar powers to the Welsh S4C authority, subject to similar accounting safeguards, so that S4C may supplement its Welsh language programmes with English
  1190
  programmes—bought, produced or commissioned—to replace programmes lost from Channel 4 when it is separately available in Wales after digitisation. There is already the BBC example, where in special circumstances a similar statutory body is allowed to produce programmes commercially and to transmit them. That privilege should be granted to S4C.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for National Heritage for her tribute to the work of the Select Committee on National Heritage. The two bases of the documents that we are discussing—the new 10-year charter starting this year and that the BBC be funded in that period by the licence—were first recommended by the Select Committee in its report, published on 9 December 1993. As the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) said, since then, the whole television landscape has changed. The Select Committee warned that it would in its report, and its recommendations were made in the context of that anticipated change. I have consistently repeated that warning.
  There are now—and there were not when the Select Committee reported—not four, but 39 television channels available in this country. Terrestrial Channel 5 is due to start on 1 January next year and eight new Granada satellite channels are due to come into operation in October this year. So soon we shall have 48 channels, and there are many more to come—this is just the beginning. Digital compression, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, on-demand services and interactive services have not begun yet, but they will become increasingly dominant in the television scene.
  Already the BBC's share of the television audience has fallen to 43 per cent. Cable and satellite now account for 10 per cent. of viewers. The country's streets are being dug up by cable companies. Satellite is expanding the whole time. There is no doubt that the audience for terrestrial television will fall and that the audience for the newer technologies will rise. Even Mr. Birt, Director-General of the BBC, has claimed that the BBC will have no more than 30 per cent. of the television audience by the end of this century, which may be an optimistic claim.
  The new television scene is demonstrated by the fact that all attention in television competition is now focused on the rivalry not of the BBC with ITV, as was the case until recently, but of all terrestrial television—Channels 1 to 4—with satellite and cable. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to last week's House of Lords vote on listed events. The controversy over such events and the discussion about the supply of news to Channels 3 and 4—whether it shall continue to be provided universally by ITN or whether BSkyB shall have an opportunity to make some, if not all, provision—demonstrate that the shadow of the newer technologies looms over the increasingly antiquated technology of terrestrial television.
  After all, what recourse will terrestrial television have if, with reference to the argument about sporting events, satellite or cable television companies, with their large sums of money—cable companies are backed by immensely rich transatlantic conglomerates—decide to emulate Ted Turner in the United States of America, and

  1191
  buy a Premier League football club or a major rugger club and obtain exclusive rights to the televising of their games?
  In that new environment, with choice proliferating and with the BBC audience share becoming ever smaller, as we discuss these documents, we must ask ourselves what claim the BBC has for the special consideration provided by this agreement, especially in relation to licence funding. The BBC is in no doubt. Its bosses claim that they are the custodians of public service broadcasting and that that is why the BBC is special.
  There is no doubt that the BBC invented the concept of public service broadcasting. It was emulated by ITV and by reputable broadcasting organisations throughout the world. The concept of public service radio and television is a priceless legacy created by the BBC's founders and the people who were then in charge of the BBC over several decades. The question is whether the present-day BBC is worthy of the public service legacy that it created. I doubt it more day by day.
  Although the BBC arrogates to itself the benefits of the public service broadcasting legacy, especially total access to licence funding, I fear that there is accumulating evidence that that legacy, which is precious in terms of standards, is being wantonly frittered away and that, more and more, the BBC is becoming just another broadcasting organisation, jeopardising quality standards in the quest of the fool's gold of audience ratings.
  Let us consider some examples—for instance, the "Panorama" interview with the Princess of Wales. I am not among the people who criticise the BBC for obtaining and transmitting that interview—it was a legitimate broadcasting initiative. That interview, however, had nothing to do with public service broadcasting and had everything to do with seeking and obtaining an opportunistic scoop. It could just as appropriately have been broadcast on ITV or on the Sky One, Sky News or UK Living satellite channels.
  That interview could just as appropriately have been printed in any of this country's tabloid newspapers, which would have loved to be able to print it exclusively. Tabloid journalism has never claimed to operate on public service criteria. It meets what it regards as popular demand. That is not what the BBC should be about.
  Let us consider the transmission on Saturday evenings of the lottery results. That transmission could appropriately appear on any other television channel, terrestrial or otherwise. It would more appropriately appear on one of those channels because it is a huge commercial for Camelot—it provides millions of pounds' worth of free publicity for a commercial organisation.
  Mr. Maxton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is true of the BBC—that it is not only a public service broadcaster, but a broadcaster of entertainment? "EastEnders" could equally be shown on ITV or on Sky. So what? What point is my right hon. Friend is trying to make?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am trying to make the point that entertainment of a high standard is also public service broadcasting. My hon. Friend's implication that only the solemn and boring programmes are public service
  1192
  broadcasting is inaccurate—high-quality, popular entertainment reaching large audiences is equally public service broadcasting, and "EastEnders" is a good example. Providing popular entertainment, watched by millions, is different from departing from the concept of public service broadcasting.
  The BBC is becoming a vehicle for massive exploitation by commercial organisations. For example, it is providing free publicity to companies that sponsor sport. The Select Committee on National Heritage examined those issues and it made recommendations, which the Government unwisely rejected and about which they will have to think again. The Committee was told by corporate sponsors that they would prefer the events that they sponsor to be transmitted by the BBC because the audience—and, therefore, the free publicity that they obtain—was, for the time being, much greater than that provided by the BBC's non-terrestrial rivals.
  There is no doubt that the recent deal that will enable the BBC to televise future series of Olympic games has nothing to do with public service broadcasting, but everything to do with the wish of the International Olympic Committee—an increasingly tawdry commercial body—to obtain the largest possible audience for its many sponsors. The BBC may reply that, in television, it is simply responding to the compulsions of current conditions—if that is so, it proves my point. The BBC might add that its public service ethos is safeguarded on its radio wavelengths. Last month Mr. Duke Hussey, the BBC's chairman, said the following in relation to BBC Radio:
  "It is the most distinctive part of the BBC and the BBC must be distinctive to justify the licence fee."
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I was not present for the earlier part of his speech. Does he include Radio 1 as part of the public service element of the BBC?
  Mr. Kaufman: Yes, I do. Popular entertainment of a proper standard that is aimed, in particular, at young people—whether it is Radio 1 or Radio 2—can be a good example of public service broadcasting. However, that does not mean that it must necessarily be a good example.
  I agree with Mr. Hussey that BBC radio must be distinctive in order to justify the licence fee. However, BBC radio is not as distinctive as it ought to be, and it is becoming less distinctive. Therefore, according to the criteria laid down by the chairman of the BBC, it is justifying the licence fee less and less.
  Radio 4 still has many high standards—it has not yet been ruined—but constantly its standards are reduced or assailed. It has an exceptionally loyal audience. However, I know from correspondence that I receive that that audience is regularly affronted by what is being done to Radio 4.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maxton: Your right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Kaufman: I look for friends in the House wherever I can find them. I wish to complete this section of my speech before I give way. Paragraph 3.3 of the agreement states:
  "The Corporation shall transmit an impartial account day by day prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament."

  1193
  That is a sine qua non of the agreement, yet an account of debates in the House is now only partly available: at night it is broadcast only on long-wave; the morning account, far from being an impartial account of the proceedings, has become the equivalent of a journalist's parliamentary sketch rather than a report; and it is not available on FM. That being so, I believe that the BBC is not maintaining the standards that are required by the document.
  Many other changes are being made to reduce the standards of Radio 4. For example, the team at "Gardeners' Question Time" has had to seek refuge on Classic FM. There has been a huge reduction in the audience of "The Financial World Tonight", and it has been sent on to the trunk tundra of Radio 5. Other changes are being made, and are deeply resented by the loyal audience of Radio 4.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) first.
  Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman talked about how loyal audiences of Radio 4 have diminished and he made comparisons between popularism and public service broadcasting. Does he therefore welcome—as I do—the introduction of Paul Gambaccini on Radio 3, who is increasing the audience and widening its age group? The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are very interesting. Does he suggest that if the BBC is not a public service broadcaster, it ought to be privatised, given the financial and technological changes that are taking place?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall refer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question later. With respect to the former part of his intervention, I can immediately respond to it. However, I have to dispel the false impression that the hon. Gentleman has given, that the programming to which he referred has increased the BBC's audience. Indeed, when the Select Committee asked the BBC about that, it claimed that it had no figures one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman is an apologist for facts that are not available.
  What has happened to Radio 4 is nothing compared with what has been done to Radio 3—it was once the epitome of high standards, which were copied throughout the world. During the Christmas recess I visited Prague, which has a wavelength called Classic FM modelled on BBC Radio 3. I then went to Jerusalem, which has a wavelength called the Classic Voice, also modelled on Radio 3. Unfortunately, those stations are not modelled on Radio 3 as it is, but Radio 3 as it was.
  Radio 3 was once the epitome of high standards, which were copied throughout the world, but is has been so debased and vandalised that it is scarcely worth transmitting. It has been turned into a famous composer's latest hits wavelength. For the first time ever, this year a majority of its hours will be devoted to commercial compact discs instead of live or in-house recorded music. Last year, 49 per cent. of Radio 3's output was on CD and 51 per cent. was in-house and live music. This year, 55 per cent. of the output of Radio 3 is commercial CDs. Mr. Nicholas Kenyon has sent a letter to Ms Gillian Reynolds, the radio correspondent of The Daily
  1194
  Telegraph, saying that the BBC's objective is to maintain a peak of 46 per cent. of live and in-house music—that is, there will be 54 per cent. commercial CDs. Radio 3's first six hours every weekday are now devoted to disc jockey music.
  At the same time, the BBC's patronage of live British performance shrinks. Figures that the Select Committee had to force out of the BBC show that for the money spent on the hour-long weekday disc jockey programme introduced by Paul Gambaccini, the entire repertoire of Scottish Opera, Opera North and Welsh National Opera could be broadcast live each year. Would not that be a better way of dealing with the regional issues to which the right hon. Member for Conwy referred—fostering and assisting our great regional opera companies instead of putting on a disc jockey programme?
  At present those excellent companies hardly get any broadcasts. Mr. Gambaccini gave the game away in an interview in last week's Radio Times:
  "I had a specific mission to invite Today listeners to stay with the BBC rather than go to Classic FM".
  That is not what Radio 3 is about or what BBC radio ought to be about.
  The BBC ought not to use Radio 3 as a marketing tool instead of as an entity of intrinsic worth. I am sorry to say that it is time for Nicholas Kenyon, the controller of Radio 3 and a very nice man, to be removed from a position in which he has done great damage. If it is not halted and reversed, that damage may prove irreparable.
  The more one examines what is happening to the BBC, the more it is clear that what was once a unique and precious institution is now becoming just another broadcasting organisation—with a great past, certainly; still with a considerable number of high spots, indubitably. Partly the change is due to a deliberate abandonment and degeneration of standards; partly it is due to circumstances beyond anyone's control —the development of worldwide multi-channel communications. That is a trend that the BBC not only cannot resist but would be unwise to resist.
  The BBC is changing fast and I am in favour of the changes that it is making in television. It already has two major satellite channels that broadcast to millions abroad. BBC Prime is a subscription service; BBC World is funded by advertising. In today's press it is reported that, on BBC World, the BBC has signed its first television sponsorship deal and is to put out a programme sponsored by Air Canada. That is the way broadcasting is moving. Those two BBC channels are no longer solely BBC channels; they are conducted in partnership with major commercial organisations, including Pearsons here in Britain, the huge conglomerate of Cox Communications in the United States, and Nissho Iwo in Japan.
  There are further plans for satellite cable services to the USA. In a letter yesterday the BBC gushingly told me that
  "subject to the successful conclusion of current negotiations with a substantial well known media player, we will be launching some very exciting new broadcast and multi-media developments before too long."
  They will be for the United States.
  The BBC claims that those services are financially ring-fenced and not funded by the licence, but that is nonsense. On BBC Prime, as with the BBC's participation in the United Kingdom satellite channel UK Gold, many

  1195
  of the programmes transmitted are past or present successes funded by licence payers. On BBC World, the news material is provided by BBC's worldwide news staff, again funded by the licence.
  I do not criticise the BBC for that development. Indeed, it is inevitable as the boundary between the BBC's licence-funded and commercially funded services begins to disappear. But those developments do raise questions about the BBC's future. On the one hand, its share of the domestic audience is falling and will continue to fall—the director-general admits as much. On the other hand, the BBC's commercial activities are increasing, will continue to increase and should continue to increase.
  The BBC is no longer solely a publicly funded public service broadcasting organisation. It is an increasingly commercial organisation which, with decreasing justification, lays claim to public funding through a regressive tax which—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy pointed out—is increasingly the subject of public debate and controversy. Regardless of whether licence funding is appropriate, I do not see how Labour can indefinitely defend a regressive tax which has its greatest impact on the poorest and which results in a disproportionate number of women on low incomes being prosecuted, fined or sent to gaol.
  The day must inevitably come when the payers of that tax will rebel and when the BBC's commercial activities will first erode and then remove its claim to be a publicly funded organisation.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's line of thought with interest and attention. His vision of the decline of the quality of the BBC may be starkly realistic. Is he coming to the conclusion— I suppose he will tell me to wait for it—that the decline is irreversible? Does he believe that the mere removal of Mr. Nicholas Kenyon would stand against those ineluctable forces of history? Or does he think that something can be done by way of the language of the charter or the agreement, to sustain and support the standards of quality that he so realistically states are being eroded?
  Mr. Kaufman: I believe that there are two parallel trends. The first, which I deplore, is the trend towards the deliberate degradation of some of the BBC's output. That could be stopped if the BBC had the will to stop it—it is an internal decision of the BBC. I fear that these documents of themselves can do nothing about the problem, because the BBC, unlike the ITV companies, is wholly unaccountable.
  At the same time, I believe that the technological trend is irreversible. Nothing can be done about it; but I do not think that the technological trend inevitably involves a degradation of standards. Properly organised, the high public service broadcasting standards for which the BBC has stood for more than 70 years can be protected within the technological changes that are under way.
  The day may come when the BBC's presence in the public sector will become anomalous and possibly difficult to justify. What is more, the BBC's loss of audience will mean that it has to struggle for its place in the communications market. That is why I have long
  1196
  advocated that the BBC should forge partnerships with major players in the national and international communications arena. With Pearsons, the BBC already has a worldwide partnership. I am conceited enough to point out that it is a partnership that I began advocating long before the BBC moved in that direction, so I am delighted about it. But I believe that the organisation should cultivate other partnerships too—with the ITV companies, for instance, because, as relatively small franchise holders on one terrestrial channel, they are increasingly vulnerable.
  The BBC should consider partnership with BSkyB, with which it already shares coverage of, for example, Premier League football. Above all, the BBC should cultivate the possibility of a partnership with BT. Given that United States-owned cable companies are allowed to poach BT's telephone subscribers, the Government's failure to allow it to participate in television transmission is unacceptable. The Government's failure to remove legal restrictions on BT as a broadcaster is an act of purblind folly.
  Mr. Maxton: Is it not an even greater disgrace that, in some areas, American cable companies are refusing to supply television channels unless the subscriber takes a telephone as well?
  Mr. Kaufman: At the same time as imposing such a restrictive agreement, those cable companies are whining and wailing at the conditions that BSkyB imposes on them, because they want to broadcast the channels that BSkyB—risking huge losses—pioneered. Cable companies want the best of all worlds, whether in comparison with BSkyB or with our own British telephone company BT. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has therefore pledged that a Labour Government would remove the restrictions on BT.
  The BBC as we have known it for more than 70 years is bound inexorably to change—probably beyond recognition. To maintain and to rescue the public service broadcasting standards for which the broadcasting world is indebted to the BBC, it must change and grow, but, at the same time, it must preserve the public service ethos created for it by its great founders.
  The agreement is weak. As I said to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), unlike ITV, which is tightly regulated by broadcasting legislation and will be further regulated by the Broadcasting Bill when it is enacted, the BBC is subject to no real regulation at all. The agreement commits the BBC to
  "the maintenance of high general standards in all respects",
  but it contains no mechanism whatever to prevent those standards from being debased, as I regret in some respects they are. The Secretary of State talked about the pledges being a contract between the BBC and its listeners. I would be much more confident about a contract if it were between the BBC and the Government, who provide its funding with great largesse.
  Once the agreement is passed by the House, those in charge of the BBC can do whatever they like with the organisation. They can treat it as their toy and plaything, as Mr. Kenyon of Radio 3 certainly does. We are approaching the end of a period that has generously assumed the BBC to possess a sense of responsibility,

  1197
  which it does not always show now as much as it should. Soon, the BBC will become subject to the much tighter control of the marketplace. I very much hope that the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, will be the right man to steer it safely into that marketplace.
  Meanwhile, we need to examine the agreement and decide on it, taking into account the fact that it may be the last BBC charter that the House will be asked to approve.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I declare an interest as a member of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, the National Union of Journalists and the British Actors Equity Association.
  I am saddened that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not present. I happen to know that there has recently been illness in his family. I hope that that is not why he is not here, but if it is, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) would give him our good wishes.
  Between now and 31 December 2006, when the charter will end, there will be enormous changes in the communications industry. There will be the change from analogue to digital picture transmission, changes in the installation of cable, changes from the delivery—I suspect—of programmes by satellite as programme services to delivery systems, the introduction of electronic newspapers into our homes that will give us fully interactive services, wider screens, and much more.
  That process of change will be quite difficult to manage. I suspect that, between now and 2006, we will have to introduce a communications commission to take over the regulation of what is rapidly becoming an integrated industry. It is vital that, between now and 2006, British broadcasting has a firm cornerstone. That is why I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), together with—I acknowledge its contribution—the National Heritage Select Committee, have put together a package that goes a long way towards meeting the likely needs of the next 10 years of change.
  The BBC is regarded as a benchmark for excellence worldwide, and notwithstanding some of the criticisms that have been levelled and some that I shall level myself, that reputation has justly been not only earned but maintained. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC provides universal coverage, which no other company in this country provides, and it provides it free-to-air. It provides two excellent television services and five radio services.
  I rose to challenge the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), because I was sorry to hear him refer to the "tundra" of Radio 5 Live. I always understood him to be young at heart if not in body. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and I are engaged in a monitoring process as part of a monitoring panel for Radio 5 Live. I happen to be a regular listener, anyway. I criticised the introduction of Radio 5 Live, because I did not believe that it could work. I am not sure when the right hon. Gentleman last listened to it, but it offers a multitude of varied programming that is worthy of anything that the BBC has ever done. It is a very good service, and I commend it to him.
  1198
  One should not, of course, omit BBC local radio services and BBC Worldwide Television. The former BBC World Service established the BBC's worldwide reputation for honesty, integrity and editorial soundness. BBC Worldwide embraces BBC Radio—the former World Service—BBC publishing, BBC learning, BBC World television, which, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, is the BBC's 24-hour international news service, and BBC Prime, carrying entertainment throughout Europe. That is a very impressive tranche of programming.
  BBC World also transmits an Arabic television channel. Some of us were privileged a couple of weeks ago to go to the BBC and watch a simultaneous translation of BBC world news international television into Japanese—a quite extraordinary feat, which I am absolutely convinced will be of immense value not only to the reputation of the BBC in the far east but to UK Ltd. for the service it provides to many potential Japanese investors in this country. That whole world service generates about £72 million a year, of which £53 million goes back into programming and £19 million is invested in the further development of BBC Worldwide.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the far eastern BBC service is no longer being broadcast by a satellite transponder to the People's Republic of China?
  Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend knows me extremely well, and anticipates my next move in this chess game.
  One of the reasons why the BBC has such a reputation is that it has never, like Mr. Murdoch, sold out editorial control. I happen to be a journalist, and I believe that all reputable journalists would, if necessary, probably die for editorial control. I find it despicable that Murdoch, to get Star Television into the far east, has effectively said to the Chinese, "You take my programmes and you edit them how you like. I don't care, as long as I make the money."
  The BBC has never acted in that way, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has rightly said, it has paid a price. For the moment, it is excluded from an area of the world. It is, however, our hope and the hope of the BBC that, before long, the company will be able to renew that service and to broadcast into China as it can broadcast to the rest of the world.
  I have expressed a couple of times the importance of the BBC's editorial integrity. That is underscored in the agreement, and, to some extent, in the charter. The charter says that one of the duties of the BBC is
  "To collect news and information in any part of the world and in any manner that may be thought fit."
  I have some slight reservations about that. Given modern journalists' practices of electronic eavesdropping, telephoto lenses and the like, I seriously question whether we should say to any journalist—I am a journalist—that journalists should be able to use any manner that they think fit. That opens up a potential Pandora's box.
  Far more significant is the reference to editorial control. Under the heading "Programme Content", the document says that the BBC shall
  "keep under review the Home Services with a view to the maintenance of high general standards in all respects and in particular in respect of their content, quality and editorial integrity".

  1199
  I say with some sadness that I believe that Auntie's slip is showing. I fear that we are witnessing a gradual decline into fundamental editorial dishonesty within the BBC.
  I say that with great sadness, because I believe that most journalists working within the BBC are people of considerable personal integrity. However, the pressures of modern journalism and the voracious appetite of the media to get the story on air—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gale: Not at this point: I will in a moment.
  The need to fill the programme, to get the story and to yank out the soundbite, is leading to the practice of taking what people say completely out of context. Not a single hon. Member present this evening has not experienced that personally. All qualifications are removed from what people say, and the material is broadcast in a manner that fits the pre-ordained nature of the story that the editor has determined. That is not honest journalism.
  Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I quite understand why there was some delay in his giving way. I appreciate the fact that he has given way, because he is making an important point. Does he agree that the cause of what he describes is that the BBC has it in mind that, for some reason or another, it has to compete with commercial television? My opinion is that it should not have even to think about competition. Is that not the problem?
  Mr. Gale: Journalists and programme makers are competitive by nature; never mind that they are competing with the commercial services: they are competing with each other. Journalists are as good as their last story, or as their last programme in radio or television. If journalists are not as good, there are a lot of keen young men and women coming right up behind them who want their jobs.
  If one wants to make a name for oneself, one has to blaze a trail, and be sensational. That is part of the problem, and that is why I opposed televising the House. What we often have is "Match of the Day", with edited highlights. Almost everything is taken out, and we are just left with the sexy bits. It gets worse than that.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his criticism of the standards in BBC journalism and in broadcasting journalism generally? He will surely accept that, as a generalisation of the way in which BBC journalists work, what he has said is a gross distortion of standards. If he wishes to make that claim, which may occasionally be true, he should cite examples and be specific. He must recognise that what he said, which was a generalisation, was appalling, and an unjustifiable slur on the quality of radio and television journalists.
  Mr. Gale: That is an excellent soundbite, and I am sure that it will be used on "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament", because the BBC will like it. Unfortunately, it is not the truth. The truth is—the
  1200
  hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) knows it—that he stands like a moth in front of a candle on College green, he has a television camera pointed at him, he records a three-minute interview, and eight seconds is used. That eight seconds is taken totally out of context and without qualification. It may or may not reflect what he said or intended to say, and he knows that as well as I do.
  The hon. Gentleman wants chapter and verse; I will give him chapter and verse. Three weeks ago, I conducted an interview for the BBC with one of its own people. That interview was sanitised, criticisms of the BBC were taken out of it, and the last question and answer were hacked off completely. It was an interview recorded as live. The convention is that, if one records that way, the piece is broadcast in exactly the form in which it was recorded, without editing.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gale: No, I will not.
  The agreement was—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked for an example, and I am giving him one.
  The agreement was that the piece was recorded as live and would be broadcast as such. Not only was the piece sanitised, and not only was the end cut off, the front cut off and a bit taken out of the middle, but my final question was removed from the end of the interview and inserted in front of a question to which it did not relate in the middle of the interview.
  I respectfully suggest that that is dishonest broadcasting. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I have made a complaint to the Director-General of the BBC; I made it immediately. What may surprise him—it surprises me—is that I am still waiting for a reply.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman declared his interest at the beginning, and said that he was an experienced broadcaster. Frankly, I am astonished that he was fool enough to submit himself to such treatment, which is habitual to the BBC which, if it records anything, has a great tendency never to broadcast it intact, but to chop it about to suit itself. That is why some of us will never do any recorded work for the BBC.
  Mr. Gale: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. We all know that we do recorded interviews. Increasingly, people in industry, people in the trade unions and people in this House say exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said—it is a sad comment. They say, "I dare not allow this to be recorded. I will only do it live."
  We tend to find that programme makers—this is not a party political comment, for heaven's sake—are interested fundamentally in controversy, because that is what makes good broadcasting. The dishonesty creeps in when the fixer rings somebody up and says, "Will you take part in this?" One says yes, but one is not told the context in which one will be interviewed or details of the person or people who will suddenly be sprung on one.
  What I say to the House—and, more particularly, to the BBC—is this. I have worked for the BBC; I spent many happy years working for an organisation for which I still

  1201
  have tremendous admiration. I have already said that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a benchmark for editorial integrity and quality throughout the world.
  I want Auntie to remain that way, and that is why I believe that the editor-in-chief—the Director-General of the BBC, John Birt—must address his editorial standards now, before the cancer takes root too deeply to be rooted out. With the advent of digital editing, it is technically possible literally to make anybody say anything. We have to know that the public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom is above and beyond any form of possible reproach.
  I touch fleetingly on the word in the charter that nobody has yet mentioned—"research". We should pay tribute to the immense research work that BBC technicians have done in the past, and are doing now. Way back in the mists of time, there was the radiophonic workshop and all that. Coming to the present day, the BBC was first with digital audio broadcasting. It is pursuing, and will pursue, the broadcast of digital terrestrial television. It is pursuing multi-media services, including educational CD-ROMs. I could go on, but I do not need to. We should not overlook the immense value, not just to the corporation, but to the country, of the BBC's research and research engineers.
  Again, I touch fleetingly—not because I do not value it highly, but precisely for the reverse reason—on local radio. Somewhere in the documents, there is a reference to the BBC providing a number of "local sound services", and that is it—it is kicked into touch. However, for many people in this country, BBC local radio provides a genuine public service alternative to commercial radio stations.
  Commercial radio stations do a first-rate job in the context for which they were created, but BBC speech-based local radio is undervalued and underfunded. It has always been, and still is, the training ground for many of the BBC's best reporters. It is where they cut their teeth and make their mistakes. We all know that from personal experience. That is where I cut my teeth and made my mistakes, and I was shouted at by people like me for doing so. I believe that we should all value that service highly. I say to the BBC management: "I do not believe that management values the service highly enough."
  Radio 4 long wave has been mentioned in this debate. I understand the predilections of those who prefer normal programming to cricket, but I do not share them. The charter clearly separates the home service's broadcasts to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man, the territorial waters, ships and aircraft, and the World Service's broadcasting to the Commonwealth and to other countries.
  Radio 4 long wave is a home service, and is intended for home consumption. There is no question about that. However, there is a large expatriate community and an increasingly large number of business travellers and tourists throughout the European Union who rely heavily on Radio 4's long wave broadcasts to keep in daily touch with home, with their bases and businesses. The BBC has fought that battle once and lost, and I hope that it will not fight it again. It would be very unwise to remove or tamper with that service.
  Regional broadcasting has been mentioned in the debate. Some hon. Members here tonight have heard my views in the BBC General Advisory Council. I have
  1202
  nothing whatever against regional broadcasting. The BBC has excellent network production centres in Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, Belfast and north of the border, which have established reputations for specific services.
  For example, I doubt whether there is a broadcasting organisation in the word that is capable of producing the type of natural history programmes that have come, and continue to come, out of Bristol. It makes eminent sense to keep that programming there. However, I cannot understand the burning desire to pick up a team of actors and take them from Shepherd's Bush—where they have probably been rehearsing anyway—up to Glasgow, Manchester or Birmingham, or down to Bristol, simply to make something in a studio there and pretend that it is a local production. That is not what regional broadcasting is about.
  Mr. Maxton: I specifically asked John Birt, when he recently appeared before the Select Committee, whether that simply meant uprooting people from London and taking them into the regions. He assured me that it did not, and that regional production in Glasgow meant using actors and staff from Glasgow to make a production that would then be shown on the network television.
  Mr. Gale: I have no quarrel with that at all; the hon. Gentleman and I are at one. I am saying that we need to be careful. We all want to avoid expensive tokenism. It is very costly to pick up a team of London-based actors and actresses and move them somewhere else simply to try to pretend that we are filling those studios, particularly if a local production company has been contracted by the BBC to make programmes. I can only say good luck, because regional broadcasting is not about the token shifting of people.
  I am taking slightly longer than I had intended to, but I have given way several times. I should like to mention the licence fee, for which I have fought.
  I am pleased that the BBC will continue to be funded by the licence fee, because it is the most sensible way to provide money for this peculiar animal. Paragraph 42 of the White Paper said, I think absolutely correctly:
  "Few dispute that the licence fee is an oddity."
  One must have a licence to pay for all United Kingdom services, but in fact it pays only for the BBC. It goes on:
  "Viewers must pay the same, irrespective of their means or whether they want to watch BBC programmes."
  I find nothing wrong with that, except that it is unsophisticated. As we move into the next generation of technology, it will be possible to pay the licence fee—not pay-per-view, please, or subscription—to watch television at home by smart card. That will prevent the nonsense of imprisoning people for the non-payment of licence fees. I am not suggesting that those people should have a free ride, and I have never believed that anyone should be able to watch free television at the expense of someone else. In those circumstances, that would be straightforward evasion.
  Once we have smart cards, other things will become possible. I should like the Minister to consider that possibility for the future. It is time for the House seriously to consider, in the light of new technology, licensing every receiver. I do not mean licensing just every television, but also every video recorder.

  1203
  The licence fee, give or take a few pounds, is £90 a year, which is very cheap for the viewing and broadcasting enjoyed. On a unit cost of £30 per receiver, since the average modern household probably has two television sets and one video recorder, that would be £90 a year. The old-age pensioner who has only one television would pay only £30. The mugs in the House—I am one of them—who have more receivers of various types dotted around the place, would pay much more, as we should.
  One would obviously have to create special provision for hotels, guest houses and other places that need multiple receivers. The basic principle of having a lower unit cost but charging per unit can and should be considered in the light of the potential for encryption.
  Mr. Fabricant: I have some doubts, as does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whether the licence fee can be sustained indefinitely. I should like to ask my hon. Friend how his system of licensing every television set and video recorder would be enforced. A television detector van can detect one or possibly two television sets working in a house at any time, but it cannot easily—I would argue that it is physically impossible—detect a video recorder.
  Mr. Gale: I did say, in the light of modern technology. In the next 10 years, every new television will have an encryption box built into it, with a common interface. It will be possible to plug a card into that common interface to provide any one of many services, one of which should permanently turn the television set on or off.
  It is now possible individually to address every receiver by signal, and the receivers will know whether the licence—the pay-per-view, if one likes—has been paid. Also, people who cannot afford to pay a lump sum down payment might be able to pay their licence fee in weekly or monthly instalments. The BBC does not like that possibility, because it believes that it might create uncertainty about how much revenue it will receive. I do not believe that that would happen, but it is a possibility.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) asked why the Government voted against the sports proposals tabled by the Opposition in the other place. There are two answers to that, both of which are absolutely straightforward.
  The first is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has made it plain that she wants to go out to consultation and to listen, not only to one vested interest—the viewer who wants his televised sport free—but to another interest, the sports providers. She wants to try to find a pathway through that maze before reaching a conclusion. The other place was therefore not the place to table the amendment. The second answer is that the amendment was badly drafted and misunderstood, which is why their Lordships voted against it.
  I passionately believe that the solution is what the BBC has dubbed "unbundling". It is necessary to create four categories of auction: the first would be for live transmission; the second for full repeat coverage rights; the third for highlights; and the fourth—this is very important and has been overlooked—for radio. Radio
  1204
  rights are terribly important for those who are blind or sick, for travellers and for others who cannot physically watch television sets.
  Once the live rights have been sold, what happens if they go to an encrypted channel? That does not necessarily mean Sky, because in a couple of years' time we could well find Carlton premium digital broadcasting terrestrially, so it means any subscription or pay-per-view service. The House has the right to say that, if the live rights go to one of those, the immediate full repeat rights shall be sold by auction to the highest bidder, which may be ITV or the BBC, but which must be a free-to-air, universal-coverage terrestrial station. The edited highlights could be sold to anyone else in precisely the same way.
  The only criticism of that proposal that I regard as serious involves the question of how the technology is to be provided. The answer is that the physical coverage of the event, whatever it is, can be provided in precisely the same way as the European Broadcasting Union provides coverage of winter sports, skating, the Eurovision song contest and so on. The original owner of the rights—the Football Association, Aintree racecourse or whatever—contracts with a broadcaster—the BBC, ITV, Sky or an independent broadcasting company—to cover the match, and those who use the rights thereafter can put on their own commentary.
  I am afraid that the listed events system has had its day. It has never seriously worked. One man's pleasure is another man's poison. What Labour Members want to watch I may not want to watch, and I may not even want to watch what people on the Government Front Bench want to watch, either. It is not possible to satisfy everybody. However, it is possible to create arrangements whereby everybody has the opportunity at some point to watch the event free to air. Surely that is what we seek to achieve.
  I shall make three quick final points. First, the charter mentions violence, and it is right to do so. The BBC has said that it supports the idea of a 9 pm watershed, not a 9 pm waterfall. However, given the introduction of video recorders and time-shifting, the watershed is effectively no longer reliable, so it is much more incumbent upon the broadcasters to ensure that whatever they broadcast, at whatever time of the day or the night, does not offend standards of taste and decency, and is not violent.
  I should like to put down a marker for the Minister. I hope that, when we are dealing with the Broadcasting Bill, he will seriously consider the perpetuation of the "must carry" regulations for terrestrial broadcasting on cable. As more and more people acquire cable, they will increasingly receive their programming by cable alone, without an aerial or satellite dish of any kind. At that point, it will be vital that the public service channels—certainly the BBC; we can argue later about whether "must carry" should apply to independent television too—be perpetuated on a free-to-view basis on cable television.
  Finally, concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the lack in the pledges of a definition of the provision for children's programming on television and radio, and for education, especially schools services. The charter says that the BBC must provide
  "a high standard of original programmes for children and young people".
  Such programming is most important, on two counts. Both schools and people at home have relied heavily, and will continue to do so, on a high standard of public service

  1205
  broadcasting specifically created for children and young people. Those young people will be the viewers and radio listeners for the BBC of tomorrow. We need to look after them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I must point out that, although I have no power to limit speeches, unless Members are willing to limit their speeches voluntarily there will be many disappointed Members left at the end of the debate.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) cares a great deal about broadcasting, so it is understandable that, on one of the rare occasions—it may also be a formative occasion—on which we can discuss the BBC, he wants to adopt a somewhat encyclopaedic approach. Although I speak for my party as its sole contributor to the debate, I shall try to be a little more brief. That is partly because, although we are debating what is called a draft agreement, I believe that the die has already been cast. I understand that the motion before us is to approve the agreement, and if the House does so, it appears to me that that will be the end of the matter. If the Minister wishes to intervene to clear up that question now, I shall be happy for him to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that this could be the last occasion on which we debate a charter and an agreement. I hope that that is true. In the world into which we are moving, I do not believe that that will be an appropriate way in which to legislate for the BBC.
  The present mode of legislation grew up in an age in which there were great concerns about the impartiality of television. It was felt that the power of the BBC was such that it was appropriate, and constituted a safeguard of its independence, to adopt the solemn procedure of the charter. That is inappropriate now. We need the opportunity to make provision for a much more detailed framework for public service broadcasting, which will provide much closer control and accountability than the present three tiers of accountability—the charter, the agreement and the pledges.
  When an independent television or radio station breaks the terms of its agreement or the programming code, the Independent Television Commission can take punitive action against it, ranging from a formal warning, through the imposition of fines to, in the most extreme cases, the revocation of the company's licence. Those powers have been used—for example, in December 1994, the ITC fined Granada Television £500,000. The radio authority has similar powers, and has fined several radio stations for breaking the programme code. No such sanctions, however, can be applied against the BBC. Although the rules have the status of a legal agreement, the BBC cannot be fined because in effect that would be to fine the licence payer.
  If the BBC's qualities, which are evidently, and almost universally, recognised to be in decline, are to be sustained in the face of the competition that is growing at
  1206
  an exponential rate—digital broadcasting, multi-channel choice and new information technology—the frail framework now provided will not do.
  I find the failure to define the role of the governors adequately, and to recognise the primacy of their role as public trustees of the BBC's impartiality as set out in the charter, one of the most disappointing of the many disappointing aspects of the process of re-establishing the BBC with a new charter. There was an opportunity to distinguish clearly between the role of the governors as regulators and trustees of the public interest, and the responsibility for strategy and management, which should properly fall to the aptly named board of management, in close collaboration with the national broadcasting councils. Clear thought should be given to the role and powers of the board of governors, acting as regulator, to deal with matters such as one of the more disgraceful episodes over which Marmaduke Hussey presided.
  It is hail and farewell time, and I say farewell to Marmaduke Hussey with scarcely a tear in the een. I refer to the "Panorama" programme—not the one with Princess Diana but the one in which the BBC, three days before the local elections in Scotland, decided to interview the Prime Minister. That showed a notable absence of sensitivity not only to Scottish general opinion but to the opinion of its own broadcasting council in Scotland. The governors should have intervened, but they did nothing about it.
  In collaboration with colleagues in the Labour party, we had to take the BBC to court because the governors had so failed in their duty to sustain impartiality. We took them to court and, of course, we won. That shows the need for greater clarification of the regulatory role of the governors. It is highly undesirable that something as fundamental as the impartiality of the BBC should have to be challenged in court to sustain it.
  The new structure of BBC broadcasting described in the draft agreement sets out some provisions on programming that are far from going in the direction pointed out by the former Secretary of State for National Heritage in the previous debate on the matter. He, understandably, advocated that there should be much greater precision about duties and that performance should be measurable. That framework has scarcely been provided for in the agreement.
  Attention has been drawn by more than one hon. Member to the inadequate statement in the agreement about regional broadcasting and the not wholly convincing response from the Secretary of State. When she speaks of paragraph 2.2 of the draft agreement providing for two television services
  "which may include regional variations",
  she really means that one service "must" or "shall"; the other does not need to. It is a distortion of the plain meaning of the language. I hope that that will be attended to by the BBC, but if the matter were ever to be tested in a court, I cannot see that there is any ambiguity about it. The Secretary of State's reluctance to accept amendments to the charter and agreement is an inappropriate inflexibility.
  When these matters were discussed in another place, it was said that the views of the upper House would be considered and weight would be given to what was said. Are we to understand that what is said in this House is not to be given any weight?

  1207
  There is a plain error in paragraph 2.2(c), which refers to
  "an additional sound programme service for general reception in each of Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively and two additional sound programmes for general reception in Wales".
  Scotland has two services for general reception, Radio Scotland and Radio nan Gaidheal, which is the same allocation as for Wales. The BBC has pledged, in this rather ephemeral document, to retain those services and their frequencies but there should be a requirement that they be protected against any future change in commitment.
  It seems almost impossible to get the issue of programme making clear in the minds of those responsible at the BBC. The statement of pledges goes no way towards meeting the general feeling in the House the last time that we debated BBC matters that it was appropriate that all parts of the United Kingdom should make programmes for viewing by the rest of the country. In fact, the whole approach of the BBC has been to treat regionalism as being about the provision of core local programmes covering such matters as local news and local parliamentary affairs. It does not recognise that it is important that drama made in all parts of the country should be seen on the network or that sport in all parts of the country should be available on all parts of the network. Comedy and other programmes made in different parts of the country on many other aspects of our multi-cultural society should be carried on the network. At present, not even lip service is paid to that. It should have been inherent in the new structure.
  In the debate on 9 February last year, the then Secretary of State quoted this passage from the White Paper:
  "It is important that the BBC should make and commission a reasonable proportion and range of its national output, as well as programmes for local audiences, in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and in the English regions. An undertaking to do this should be included in the new Agreement, and an analysis of hours and range of output made in different parts of the country for broadcasting locally and throughout the United Kingdom should be included in the BBC's Annual Report."
  He then commented:
  "I expect that the BBC will want to include some precision about the nature of that understanding in 'Promises to Audiences', so that there are yardsticks against which the audience and Parliament can test its delivery of the general principle that will be set out in the agreement signed between the Government and the corporation. "—[Official Report, 9 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 479.]
  Since that aspiration, which I endorsed and strongly supported, was expressed, we have had the BBC's response in its illustrative statement of pledges of November 1995. There was nothing quantitative about it. It said virtually nothing about those matters, although it referred to dedicated programmes of regional journalism, regional television news summaries, weekly current affairs programmes and so forth. I do not know whether the BBC is disingenuous or whether it has a strong centralist impulse—it is probably the latter—but it falls far short of what the House would regard as an appropriate part of public service broadcasting. It will be to the great detriment of broadcasting in Scotland if that is not recognised.
  The role under the charter of the national broadcasting councils of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been to control policy in their countries. That power is
  1208
  felt by many to be the foundation of their authority. It is not granted to them under the charter that we are considering; instead, they are required to advise and assist. That is a significant change and powers similar to those missing from the national broadcasting councils turn up in article 7(1)(d) of the new charter, which requires the governors to consult the national broadcasting councils on any issue concerning funding, programming and resources and to take due account of any representations that they receive.
  That transfer of a power to the governors establishes for the first time a direct constitutional link between them and the national councils and relieves the problem of conflict of interest for the national governors—they no longer have to represent the board of governors and their council. It places the initiative firmly in the lap of the governors and does not require them to incorporate any representation from the national council. The draft charter requires amendment to give national councils the power to initiate a strategy and objectives for their country.
  On the question of advice and consumer input, under the current charter, the General Advisory Council forms panels to select members of the national broadcasting councils. The draft charter abolishes the General Advisory Council and transfers the power to select members of the national broadcasting councils to the governors. Once again, that would seem to enable the governors to fill the councils with compliant appointees and to take away from consumers, the regions and the nations a truly representative nominated membership. That is another area in which the charter ought to be amended before it reaches its final form.
  The Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, told the House on 9 January 1995 that England would have 10 regional councils and that, together with their chairmen, they would constitute the English Regional Forum. Many people understood him to be saying that that organisation would effectively become the national broadcasting council for England and be given constitutional status within the charter, but that is apparently not the case. Clause 13.1 of the draft charter states:
  "The Corporation shall appoint in each area of regional television output in England a council to be known as the Regional Advisory Council."
  It does not mention the English National Forum, which has already been established by the BBC. With no constitutional status, the forum is powerless and England is bereft of a national body within the structure of the BBC. That is not fair to England and can only encourage the continuing centralisation and the metropolitan character of the BBC. That ought to be attended to before the charter is given effect. The draft charter, rather than strengthening the regional voice of the BBC, seems carefully constructed to draw power to the centre. If it continues in its current format, it will prevent the BBC from achieving the goal of effective regional and national decision making and programme producing.
  The structural weaknesses are probably the single most serious feature of the complex documents that we are considering. There is still time to change them and, for that reason, I have concentrated on that issue. Although a general debate on the BBC could encourage one to embark on many other matters, I shall mention only a couple more.

  1209
  At this time, the question of the independence of the BBC is important. I was not pleased by the manner in which the Secretary of State appointed the new chairman of the governors, Sir Christopher Bland. I understand that she looked into the precedents and decided that it was appropriate for her to make the appointment without consultation. Undoubtedly, she appointed someone who has great qualities and experience of commercial broadcasting, which will be of great service to the BBC. I also believe that there is no reason to fear that Sir Christopher will not be entirely objective—in a political sense—in the way in which he conducts himself in his new role. In a position of that kind, however, it would have been sensible to have reached some agreement, and consultation should have been held before the appointment. It would have strengthened the position of the governor from the beginning.
  A second matter is the position of the arts and the BBC's role as a sponsor. The corporation spends about £300 million per annum and there are huge pressures on it to reduce its funding of orchestras, for example. I profoundly hope that those pressures will be resisted. I would have liked the fundamental documents to have done much more to spell out the BBC's commitment to the live arts and to new art. That commitment has played a distinguished role in the past and been a major contributory factor to the BBC's worldwide reputation.
  I share the views of the hon. Member for North Thanet about the inadequate provision of production targets for the BBC in education. If Channel 4 can operate against targets on quality and duration, I see no reason why the BBC should not similarly be prepared to do so.
  This is a significant turning point in the history of the BBC. Its control of the airwaves is slipping away from it, its hold on the licence fee is loosening and it is clearly torn between broadcasting to a mass audience and broadcasting quality programmes to a small audience. It does not always satisfy those conflicting challenges. Sometimes, I do not even think that it knows where it is going when dealing with those questions. In spite of all that, the BBC still commands the support of many people in this country and is admired in other countries, as it develops its image through commercial collaboration abroad. I wish it well and hope that, in the time that is left, the Secretary of State will strengthen the accountability structures and provide much more precise measurement yardsticks to ensure that the quality that we have valued is retained—I think that the Minister hoped for that when he last spoke on the subject.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) kept his word. His speech was briefer than that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who took half an hour. The hon. Gentleman took only 23 or 24 minutes. He and I were in the same college 40 years ago. He was serious then; he is still serious 40 years later. I could not cheer him up then and I do not think that I can do so now. Why on earth cannot he be a little more full of zest and enthusiasm?
  There are some wonderful things going on. The Secretary of State mentioned the brilliant BBC series, "Pride and Prejudice". With it I would bracket the brilliant "Middlemarch" production two years ago, which related
  1210
  to a similar period. The producer, who is my near neighbour—he lives about 300 yds away—Dr. Louis Marks, is chairman of the Hampton Court Green residents association. The BBC produces a plethora of superb travel programmes, features of all sorts, music, plays and more. By and large, it continues to uphold its very high standards.
  I do not share the pessimism of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the condition of Radio 3. He talked as though it had come out of some golden age and was getting worse. I agree with him in that I, too, do not like to hear an announcer with a transatlantic accent, an oily voice and a mental age of 12 introducing Beethoven. I prefer a more dignified announcer on Radio 3, but that just happens to be my taste. I greatly resent the removal of "Composer of the Week" from 9 am, when I was able to listen to it in my bath, to 12 o'clock, when I can hardly ever hear it, which I deplore. The BBC promenade concerts constitute a marvellous festival of first-class music which is second to none in the world. They are broadcast live on Radio 3 every night in the summer season.
  I wish that we could have more live broadcasts of orchestral concerts at other times of the year, as we used to. They have gone out of fashion. They have been largely replaced by discs. No doubt cost has something to do with that, but live concerts, with the audience clapping and coughing, have an electric feel about them that one cannot quite get from a recording.
  We should be enormously proud of the BBC's achievements. However, I share the view expressed in the Select Committee on National Heritage's report of November 1995, in which I took an active part, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)— I hope that he might catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this will be the last 10-year charter.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned that there are now 38 channels, that there will be 49 by the end of the year, and that the share of the four—to become five—terrestrial channels is diminishing with the arrival of the large number of cable and satellite channels, but he did not mention that, in five or 10 years, or perhaps even sooner, people will be able to dial their telephone, receive any video on cable and have the cost put on their telephone bill. The notion of a daily menu of four or five fixed channels provided by the authority and from which the viewer chooses one, will wither away. People will choose what to have, much as they do now with videos through the possession or borrowing of a cassette, but in future the video will be able to come along a wire.
  I do not see how the BBC will be able to retain its present audience share, however good it is. Its share is bound to diminish and, when it does, the public will not wear paying a licence fee of the order of £100 when most of them are not watching it. That change is bound to occur, and so I believe that this will be the last 10-year licence.
  I welcome the reference in the document to the BBC's impartiality, which is important. I know that the BBC is enormously proud of it and that it tries hard at election time to treat the political parties fairly. The "Today" programme falls short of that aim, which is due to the BBC's tendency—to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet referred—to try to keep up its audience ratings. One way to do that is to create artificial

  1211
  personalities for the interviewers, question masters or programme introducers. They are almost encouraged to try to build up their own public. The interviewer then begins to think that he is nearly as important, or even as important, as the person being interviewed. The "Today" programme employs the appalling practice of fading out whoever is being interviewed whenever the interviewer wants to ask another question. That is extremely annoying, it is bad behaviour, and it shows bad taste on the part of the BBC. It should be stopped forthwith.
  While I am on the subject of impartiality, Opposition Members have mentioned the appointment of Sir Christopher Bland as chairman. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to it. Opposition Members have gone a little over the top on the subject. We should not forget that the deputy chairman of the BBC is Lord Cocks who, for many years, was a distinguished Labour Chief Whip and much respected in all parts of the House. That was his life—he is far more of a political animal than is Sir Christopher Bland.
  I was a member of the Greater London council from 1967—the year that Sir Christopher Bland was elected to it. In 1967, there was a political landslide. A Labour Government had been elected with an increased majority in the spring of 1966, but by the spring of 1967, when the Greater London council election took place, one of the periodical and sudden sea changes that take place in British public opinion had occurred and there was an enormous swing to the Conservatives. The GLC was elected to consist of about 80 Tory and 20 Labour members. The swing was so unexpected that, about two months before, in February or March 1967, Ladbroke had offered odds of 500 to one against a Tory majority on the GLC of more than 20. Two months later, the actual Tory majority was 60.
  Christopher Bland was a young man aged about 28 or 29 who stood in Lewisham and Deptford, which was a multi-member constituency. He could not have expected to be elected, but there was a totally surprising massive landslide and he was elected for three years. He took his position seriously and became chairman of an education sub-committee of the Inner London education authority. I believe that, since ceasing to be a member of the GLC in 1970, he has taken no active part in the politics of any political party. One would hardly expect intelligent people in their 20s not to have some sort of political opinion. The combination of Sir Christopher Bland and Lord Cocks will be politically impartial.
  Dr. Moonie: We are not questioning the impartiality or otherwise of Sir Christopher Bland. We are questioning the wisdom of the Government making such an appointment without consulting the Opposition parties. Were we to do the same thing in a few years' time and, hypothetically, appoint Lord Banks of Newham, a former Labour councillor, to the head of the BBC, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might rant and rave about it.
  Mr. Jessel: I do not think that that will happen. I respect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his intelligence and wit. He was a colourful chairman of the GLC about 15 years ago, but I do not think that he would expect to become the chairman of the BBC. He is a totally different sort of personality from either Lord Cocks or Sir Christopher Bland.
  1212
  I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the "taste and decency" provision in the document. I do not mind a bit of vulgarity on television or radio programmes as long as it is funny, but the vicious violence that has become so common in the news and other programmes is bad for children. I am glad that the charter and the associated document are likely to curtail that.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your patience and I shall now sit down to give others the chance to speak.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I much enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), but it would have been even more enjoyable to hear him perform, with all his customary brilliance, as a musician. As he knows, I hold his skills and achievements as a musician in high admiration.
  As a member for many years of the BBC's General Advisory Council, it may be thought by some that I have an interest to declare in this debate. But there is no payment for membership of the GAC. Indeed it could be argued that to give that form of public service is to incur costs, not to inflict them. Nevertheless, the experience is seen as eminently worthwhile by those, from all walks of life, who have had the honour of serving on a council set up to advise the best public broadcaster in the world. So the only interest I need declare today is the public interest.
  In intervening in the debate, my purpose is to assert the public interest in common access to sport. Majorities have rights as well as minorities and love of money must not be allowed to take precedence over the love of sport. Over 30 million people cannot see Sky, but they ought not for that reason to be excluded from access to sporting events that are an undoubted and unquestionably important part of our national heritage.
  In particular today, I want to move the debate on access to sport forward from the victory achieved in another place on 6 February by my noble Friend, Lord Howell, in protecting access for mainstream broadcasters to such major sporting events as the FA Cup final, the Wimbledon finals, the Grand National, the Derby and the rest of the "Crown jewels" of British sport, as they have become known.
  While none of us wants to understate the importance of that victory in the Lords, which I am sure this House will soon confirm, all of us must accept that the future of the "Crown jewels" is not the only issue of importance in protecting common access to sport. There is also the critical issue of "unbundling" and the question of what is loosely called, 'Must Carry'/'Must Offer'/'EasyFind'. The new charter establishes the BBC as a licence fee funded universal service. In future, however, cable or other delivery systems could start excluding BBC services if they wished to give more weight to commercial cable broadcasting. This would damage the BBC's position as a universal broadcaster and undermine its new charter.
  To avoid that happening, we must now ensure that, where a subscription channel such as Sky Sports holds all rights to a sporting event that is not among those listed in the Lords' "Crown jewels" amendment of 6 February, the right to TV or radio highlights are not hoarded by that channel. All of us know that sports bodies want to maximise their revenue, but that need not mean excluding sporting events that substantial numbers of people want

  1213
  to see from being shown live on mainstream channels or in highlight programmes like "Match of the Day", or perhaps from being heard on live radio.
  As of now, where there is a strong media player in the field, with bottomless pockets and a virtual monopoly, they are in a strong position to say to the sports bodies what they will and will not offer and to insist on all rights for that amount. That is why we need regulatory adjustments to open up sport to all viewers and listeners. The BBC suggests—and I agree—that where a subscription channel has live rights, the rights for highlights or for radio transmission will have to be sold on to other channels with a universal audience.
  The ITC should have responsibility for regulating this and it could be done in the conditions it imposes by the terms of its licences on subscription broadcasters. Moreover, the ITC could be made responsible under the Broadcasting Bill also for regulating the BBC, should it come to have a minority subscription channel in the future, as much as BSkyB. So it will not be a case of preferring one channel to another. Similarly, the Radio Authority could regulate the radio channels while the Director General of Fair Trading would have the ultimate sanctions. I am not suggesting that these changes should be retrospective. Thus there will be no question of existing contracts being hit.
  What I propose would help sports bodies by creating a new set of secondary sporting rights. There would be live rights on TV; there would be recorded rights and rights to highlights; and there would be live radio rights. No large media owner would any longer be able to tell the sports rights holders that he would negotiate only if all rights were sold to him. Sports bodies would be able to negotiate in different markets and achieve the best price in each.
  As well as working in the interests of sports bodies, the revised system would be more viewer/listener friendly and take away from all broadcasters rights to claim exclusivity in transmitting events of national interest. That is the best long-term bet to stop monopolies emerging. While it would be nice to believe the market would protect sports bodies and viewers and listeners alike, sadly we already have cases where satellite channels refuse to sell rights on to more mainstream broadcasting like, for example, the Ryder cup.
  Lord Howell in the Lords debate on 6 February exhibited the exclusive contract agreed between Sky Sports and the golfing authorities for last year's Ryder cup in which are written the words:
  "For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no BBC broadcast of this event",
  thus excluding tens of millions of people. That is the writing on the wall in terms that could hardly be more stark or more serious. It says it all.
  The arrival of sports channels on satellite and cable television widens opportunities for viewers of sports events. Increasingly, however, major sporting events are no longer available to be shown on terrestrial television, which the viewers who are excluded see as abuse of power by a fortunate minority. Excluding the majority has clear implications for the future of British sport. If sporting events are available only to a small minority of viewers, fewer people will be motivated to become actively involved in sporting activities and, as every Member of this House knows, there will always be a
  1214
  significant minority of people who will not be able to afford subscription services. That minority includes young people who will be increasingly denied access to the role that sport can play in the encouragement and development of skills.
  I turn now to the issue of 'Must Carry'/'Must Offer'/'Easy Find'. The new charter establishes the BBC as a licence fee funded universal service. In future, however, cable or other delivery systems could start excluding BBC services if they wished to give more weight to commercial cable broadcasters. This would damage the BBC's standing as an universal broadcasters.
  Over the next 10 years, as new distribution stems fragment the audience, the BBC's future as an universally available public service broadcaster will become increasingly dependent on its ability to reach audiences through all available distribution systems. This issue is not dealt with in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will address it in winding up today's debate.
  If all audiences are to be guaranteed access to core, licence-funded BBC services over the life of the corporation's new charter, the digital world will need to guarantee 'Must Carry' status to those channels on wire-based systems and 'Must Offer' status through satellite conditional access boxes. 'Must Carry' and 'Must Offer' regulations would ensure that, in the multi-channel environment, publicly funded channels were available as a matter of course via all delivery systems, and without the need for viewers to buy additional equipment. It is important for the Government also to recognise, just as the United States Government have now done, that public service networks must be given a prominent placing on any future electronic "programme navigation" system.
  Much more will have to be said about these issues when the Broadcasting Bill comes to the House, but today's debate must not conclude without a clear response from the Government to the concerns they arouse, not only on both sides of the House, for happily this is not a party issue, but all across this country.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). He was right to say that many such issues are not party political. That is clear in the National Heritage Select Committee, where divisions of opinion are never on party lines.
  We have the opportunity today to discuss the BBC agreement. Let us take a brief opportunity to look at the BBC as it exists at present. Some 95 per cent. of United Kingdom households watch or listen to the BBC for at least two hours a week. The average United Kingdom household watches or listens to BBC programmes for 48 hours a week. The BBC is the biggest producer of programmes in Europe, with half a million hours per year of home grown programmes on television and radio. BBC television broadcasts more than 13,000 hours of programmes in the United Kingdom every year.
  However, nothing stands still. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) who said that technological advances ought to lead to the establishment of some form of communications commission—rather like the Federal Communications Commission in the United States—to examine all forms of electronic communication. In future there will be a

  1215
  greater overlap than exists at present between text, picture and other information which travels downline to computers, and what we know today as broadcast television. The two will become indistinguishable.
  For that reason, I disagreed with my hon. Friend when he said that modern technology would lead to a licensing system for each television set and video recorder in the home. I argue that, by the time televisions and video recorders are fitted with such a device, it will become irrelevant. I am drawn more to the argument put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  Mr. Maxton: The other right-winger.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman may refer to him in that way. The right hon. Gentleman said that the licensing position will become unsustainable—and it will. The BBC maintains that it will be able to hold on to about 30 per cent. of its audience in 10 years' time. I do not agree—not because of any fault on the part of the BBC, but because technology is changing and there will be a plethora of other broadcast as well as narrowcast media. In those circumstances, the BBC—or any other organisation—will be unable to retain a large chunk of the audience. For that reason, the right hon. Member for Gorton is correct: the licence fee will be unsustainable.
  That fact was reflected in the report of the National Heritage Select Committee, which said that, although some hon. Members view privatising the BBC as a very attractive proposition, it would be impossible at present. The Committee heard evidence from representatives of Independent Television, Channel 4 and independent local radio stations. They said that, if the BBC were to try to raise even part of its £1.8 billion income from advertising, it would destroy existing commercial radio and television stations. That is absolutely correct.
  With regard to transmission facilities, I am pleased to see that site sharing will continue—whether the BBC operates its transmitters or whether it is done through another privatised authority. That is tremendously important. One of the great advantages of terrestrial broadcasting in this country is that our transmission is broadcast on 625 lines and in PAL. That is far superior to the American system, which is broadcast on 525 lines in accordance with the National Television Standards Committee. The joke in the broadcasting industry is that NTSC stands for "never twice the same colour".
  The French system is called SECAM and, apart from the French, it has been adopted only by the Algerians and the Russians. I am not sure what SECAM stands for in French, but in the broadcasting industry it is said to stand for "something essentially contrary to the American method". In this country we have the PAL system, which means not only "phase alternate line" but "peace at last". The point is that PAL and 625-line television is the best form of non-high-definition terrestrial transmission. It is made even better by the fact that, because of site sharing, one needs only one small UHF aerial directed at a single point to pick up all transmissions. I am pleased that site sharing will be maintained.
  I flag the point that I made by way of intervention to the Secretary of State earlier today. I should be very disturbed if BBC television transmitters were sold lock,
  1216
  stock and barrel to National Transcommunications Ltd. There is nothing wrong with NTL—as I said earlier, it is a world leader in research and development in digital terrestrial and digital satellite transmission. I like to think that I was possibly the person who transformed the Independent Broadcasting Authority's engineering division—before it was privatised and became NTL—into a commercial operation.
  At that time, I was running a company called MBI Broadcast Systems, which was based in Brighton. We had a factory in Cornwall and an assembly plant at a lovely village called Small Dole in Sussex. We tendered to build and design radio studios in Uganda, Indonesia and other countries. For the information of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), BBC radio stations in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness and Stornoway were equipped by my company before I sold it. That reminds me that I should declare an interest in the debate, as I have an ad hoc relationship with the BBC through a technical and marketing consultancy.
  Although we supplied that equipment, we did not have expertise in studio-to-transmitter links. I approached the engineering division of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which decided to enter into an arrangement with my company. It was decided that, if the company won the contract, the IBA would get a fee. We won the contract and the IBA received a fee—which I think was its first commercial venture before it was later privatised and became the NTL.
  Rightly or wrongly, some ITV and independent local radio contractors argue that NTL's prices are a little high. They would be bound to say that. If there is to be competition, there must be at least a duopoly—the privatised BBC organisation competing against the NTL. As I said to the Secretary of State, whether or not there is a Monopolies and Mergers Commission, there should be an amendment to say that when the BBC transmission facilities are privatised they cannot be acquired by NTL.
  Dr. Moonie: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get a duopoly operating when the two organisations share 75 per cent. of the transmitters?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. They do not share the transmitters: they share the transmitter sites. That is very different. They are two separate organisations and they rent from each other. I shall not bore the House with the mechanism by which the system operates at the moment. It is irrelevant whether the BBC transmission engineering department, which is based in Warwick, is owned by the BBC or whether it is a privatised organisation as it would continue to operate in the same way. However, it would be in competition when leasing out transmitter facilities at the transmitter sites.
  The agreement is very brave in the way that it approaches the BBC digital multiplex. It would have been easy—and rather facile—to say that the digital multiplex could provide six, eight, 10 or 12 channels. There have been developments in the past few months and we know that as many as 16 or even 32 channels can be provided on one multiplex. It is good that the issue remains open.
  It is also encouraging that the BBC is obliged to carry its existing terrestrial services on the digital satellite multiplex. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the difficulty of receiving Radio 4 on long

  1217
  wave. We should not forget that some parts of the country have difficulty receiving terrestrial BBC or ITV. That is a particular problem in Scotland and in Wales, where it is difficult to get universal coverage—although about 98 per cent. of the population is covered by terrestrial television.
  I am also pleased that there is a commitment in the agreement to continue the BBC research and development department. I visited its headquarters at Kingswood Warren in Surrey only recently. The BBC is a world leader in television and radio research. I especially wish to commend the team who are working on a system called dynamic chromakey. If you thought "Jurassic Park" was good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, watch this space. Incidentally, the television and computer equipment which generated the graphics for "Jurassic Park" was made in Reading. Although Spielberg is based in the United States, much of the hardware for film, radio and television is manufactured in the United Kingdom and shipped out to the United States.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about sporting facilities and listed events. The Labour party was rather cynical when it brought forward its recommendations in the House of Lords. The Labour party brought the question of sport into the debate very early, when the debate was really about developing digital technologies and other opportunities. A vote was forced even while there was consultation under way.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way as I have been told to hurry up. I am sure that hon. Members will be heartened by the fact that I am dropping a lot of the pages of my speech on to the Bench.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton was the only Member to mention another important point. The agreement is a fine document, but in my opinion much of it is unenforceable. It leaves many of the powers to the governors of the BBC. The governors are fine, decent, upstanding men and women, but I do not believe that that is enough. As with the Scott report, if I may mention that, justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done.
  I know, because I have friends in the corporation, that when people make complaints to the BBC they are treated very seriously, but the complainants do not always know that. We now have a golden opportunity. The National Heritage Select Committee has recommended that the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission be merged, and that will now be done. I am pleased that the Broadcasting Standards Commission will be formed, but it must also be made ultimately responsible for controlling the BBC. I know that no serious argument against that has been proposed in the Department of National Heritage, either by officials or by Ministers. One argument put forward concerns symmetry because the BBC already has a board of governors. That is nonsense because the Independent Television Commission supervises ITV and the Radio Authority supervises independent radio. Yet we still say that the Broadcasting Standards Commission should be a last resort for complaints. The same should apply to the BBC.
  At the moment, the Broadcasting Standards Council considers matters of taste and any viewer can make a complaint. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  1218
  deals with unfairness, but a particular viewer must make a complaint. The situation should be widened so that the Broadcasting Standards Commission not only considers both areas but anybody can make a complaint. The tired old argument from the civil service that the new body will be flooded with complaints is fatuous and non-philosophical. The body that deals with newspapers was not flooded with complaints, although newspapers are far greater offenders than the BBC or ITV or independent local radio.
  I shall sit down now—red in the face, but confident that my hon. Friend the Minister is not like the Labour party which, like the Trustees Savings Bank, likes to say yes, but like the Midland Bank, which likes to listen.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I wish to make some quick points about the Scottish situation. I found the Secretary of State's response on regional television extremely unconvincing. If she intends that one BBC channel should have a regional element and the other not, that is how the clause should be written.
  I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about Radio Nan Gaidheal. I also agree with what has been said about the Scottish Broadcasting Council and the need to revise and make the council's powers much clearer. I am not happy about the governors appointing the council. Although it has been said that they will consult various organisations, the charter does not actually state that—and I believe that it should.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy will agree that once we have a Scottish Parliament, after the next general election, we shall expect the Scottish Parliament to have a say in the appointment of the council. I also expect it to have a major say in the appointment of the national governor for Scotland. It is totally wrong to have a national governor for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, but not for England. There should be a governor appointed as the national governor for England in addition to the other governors. Otherwise, the implication is that all the governors are English governors and the national governors are tagged on at the end. That is not right.
  On the question of sport, there is an argument which says that sporting bodies have an absolute right to market their sport for the maximum price that they can get from television. That is a perfectly valid argument. However, if that happens, the sporting bodies cannot turn round and say to Parliament and the Government that they want money from the taxpayers to fund their sports. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot take enormous sums from BSkyB and show their sports to only a tiny section of the community and then expect the rest of the community to fund their sports through the lottery or the tax system. If the taxpayers fund sport, they are entitled to a say in how that sport is shown on television. The solution is as simple as that, and we must endorse it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an important point. It is extremely sad that Members on both sides of the House have talked about the next 10 years being the last 10 years of the BBC and, however good we think it is, we are looking at its end. The BBC is the best broadcasting company in the world. I have 60 channels on my cable at

  1219
  home and I spend 95 per cent. of my watching time, which may be limited, watching BBC. I very rarely watch cable; if I do, I watch old films, sport or, of course, old BBC programmes which are regurgitated by the cable companies.
  The BBC is best. If one wants to watch good television in the United States, one tunes to the public service channels, which broadcast BBC programmes. They show ITV as well, but those programmes are good because of the quality of the BBC. Our job is not to destroy a national asset over the next 10 years, but to preserve it. That is the job of any responsible person who believes in the future of broadcasting.
  Everyone accepts that there will be major technological change. My wife, children and friends would say that I am a techno-nut. I am the person in our house who knows how to work the computer and video—it is not the kids. I go for every gimmick and gizmo that comes out: I love them—I think that they are wonderful. However, people confuse the development of technology with its accessibility and use, which are on a much longer time scale. There are people in this country who, because they cannot afford anything else, still watch the black and white television that they bought 30 years ago. Some parts of the country cannot receive NICAM transmissions. Other rapid technological developments will take time to be taken up. The consumer will say, "I can see that the picture is a bit better, and I accept that I could receive 200 channels—but that will cost me £300 or £400 a year; I may also have to pay monthly for the channels that I want, and I am not prepared to pay that much." The time scale will be longer even than 10 years before terrestrial television as we know it disappears completely. Many people, particularly poorer members of society, will continue to require it.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about the licence fee, when he questions why poor people should pay it. It will be poorer people who will continue to watch BBC terrestrial channels. I disagree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy because I do not think that it is right to impose a five-year limit on the fee: it should last 10 years—for the full period of the charter—and be renewable thereafter. One thinks of the quality of the BBC in terms of its public service commitment and of the entertainment and drama that it produces—not just series such as "Pride and Prejudice", but "A Mug's Game", "All Creatures Great and Small" and "Last of the Summer Wine".
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: I would rather not. I have only two minutes left.
  One cannot separate the BBC's high quality programming from the licence fee. The two are inseparable. Independent funding that has nothing to do with the marketplace allows the BBC to concentrate on quality programming, rather than on selling itself in the marketplace—as it would have to do, if it relied on the market for funding. Get rid of the licence fee and you get rid of the BBC and the high quality entertainment to which not only this country has become accustomed but which increasingly perceptive audiences in the
  1220
  United States, Australia, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries want. The BBC must retain a funding system, such as a licence fee, in one form or another, although there may be different methods, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) suggested.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton that it was a mistake not to allow BT to be a broadcaster, and that we ought to combine the BBC and BT into a broadcasting company. The difference between us is that my right hon. Friend sees such a venture as being in the private sector, whereas I see it in the public sector.
  Mr. Fabricant: Old Labour.
  Mr. Maxton: Absolutely.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I will impose a ten-minute rule on my speech.
  Mr. Maxton: Less now.
  Mr. Thompson: Then I shall have to impose an eight-minute rule. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly.
  Earlier, it was said that the subject of the debate does not appear to follow party lines. I found myself agreeing with part of almost every speech. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will be astonished to know that I was able to agree with him and, at the same time, with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), although I am not sure how that was achieved. It makes the point, however, that this debate has not been conducted along party lines. As time has gone on, I have realised that the key word is the "agreement"—on which we are voting tonight, if I understand it correctly—between the Government and the BBC, but we are allowed also to comment on the draft charter.
  One thing has disturbed me—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me on this. I will support the motion with a little reluctance because I have the feeling that there will be no change in the draft as a result of the debate. If we have open government—if that is not an issue today, what is—it is important that the Government listen to such debates.
  Irrespective of the time that I have to make any points, hon. Members have made many good points, with many of which I, as a non-expert, agree. My first plea to my hon. Friend the Minister, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that they assure the House that it will be possible to amend the charter as a result of those good points, even though, in statutory terms, that does not have to happen.
  I want to refer to two issues. One was raised indirectly by the hon. Member for Cathcart when he referred to the Scottish Broadcasting Council. As I made clear in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am concerned about local consultation.
  One of the reasons why I wanted to speak in the debate even though I am not a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage is that, in the longer term, the media and communications are the issues confronting the country. All hon. Members have strong views about the

  1221
  media because we deal with or run away from them so much—we either confront them or not, but they are the issue. Therefore, although we are discussing only the BBC, the question of the media is vital to Parliament. That is my other excuse for wanting to participate in the debate.
  In my early years, I was brought up in Writtle in Essex and I therefore have a link with the BBC. It may be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Not quite, but it is close.
  Mr. Thompson: Very close. I was born in Writtle, which has a link with Marconi, with the BBC and with Freddie Grisewood. I am old enough to remember him. I am not sure how many other hon. Members do. I get enthusiastic about such characters. I was brought up with the great BBC tradition and the fantastic reputation that it had over the years, and still has. If I make some critical comments, as some of my colleagues have done, that should not override the BBC's good reputation down the years. That shows the wisdom of the people involved in it from 1926, when it all began.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about local radio and television. I support his remarks. More resources should go into that. We have our own local station, BBC Radio Norfolk, which does a good job with its talk shows and with interacting with the public. I pay tribute to local radio and television stations.
  We are debating the draft charter and the agreement. Listen though I might, it has been difficult to tie the debate to those agreements. I have read them. I am not a lawyer and, after 12 years in Parliament, I am as baffled by the language of these things as I was 12 years ago. I agree with the comment on that subject. I have no idea whether all this is enforceable.
  The charter and, I think, the agreement talk about the BBC being an independent public service. I support hon. Members who have said that the BBC must maintain its independence. That is important.
  I support those who say that the public service element is vital to any debate about the BBC—that is where I found myself sympathising with a great deal that was said by the right hon. Member for Gorton. It is all very well to write the public service into the charter, or into the agreement, but we are not debating that element of the BBC. Until the 1970s, we all knew what was meant by public service. We then had the Annan report, which was the beginning of liberal pluralism. I do not have time to develop that theme. However, for those hon. Members who are interested, I recommend a book written by James Curran and Jean Seaton entitled "Power without Responsibility". Liberal pluralism is still with us, and it means that broadcasting should cater for a full range of groups and interests in society, rather than offer moral leadership. That debate has not yet been resolved.
  Because of the time constraints, I shall not embark on the section of my speech that deals with moral leadership. If I had, I might have been tempted to talk about the Church of England, the family, politicians and the Nolan report. We must continue the debate about public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet has
  1222
  pointed out, these days high standards do not always prevail in journalism. I support everything that he said in that regard. It is a problem and we shall have to talk about it—I note that no one is sitting in the Press Gallery—until people sit up and take notice.
  I refer briefly to the issue that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of my speech: the local consultation process. I support the concerns that have been expressed by various speakers, but we seem to have national councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and regional advisory committees for England. I do not think any work has been done on this: someone has forgotten to get it right. It is deliberate Government policy—I hope that my hon. Friend can give a good explanation for it. We currently have a perfectly good English Regional Forum, but it is not in the charter or in the agreement. The local radio advisory councils—perhaps they should include television, but that is a pedantic point—should be in the charter because they are doing magnificently good work. I know of people who serve on those bodies.
  My hon. Friend will know the arguments because they have been debated in the other place and they have been referred to tonight. I have not been reassured by the debate. The Government are doing a good job in relation to the media generally—I am happy about the Broadcasting Bill and about a great deal else that they are doing. However, the charter and the agreement are not being done properly.
  I hope my hon. Friend will reassure me on the question of local accountability and local consultation, because I am not satisfied on that point. I also hope that he will reassure us that the points that we have made will be considered and, if necessary, the charter will be redrafted.
  9.13 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: A number of hon. Members have mentioned Scotland in passing. I shall address the extent to which the BBC is currently meeting—or not meeting—the needs of Scottish listeners and viewers. A number of obvious fundamental truths emerge when we look at it from this perspective. I shall start with centralism in the BBC, which has been mentioned. The BBC is essentially a deeply centralist organisation. For example, before the White Paper was published, the BBC centralised control of its technical resources in a London-based resources department. That took no account of the different circumstances facing Scotland and Northern Ireland, where access to resources outside those of the BBC is somewhat different from that of London. The result of that exercise was the closure of BBC Scotland's design, wardrobe and make-up departments, with a loss of more than 80 jobs—and, equally importantly, the loss of a significant resource base.
  Most of my criticisms tonight will be directed more at the central body of the BBC than at its outlying organisations. At present, the BBC makes only 3 per cent. of its programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—areas inhabited by 17 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. I know that the Government have recognised that as a problem, but thus far nothing concrete has been done to redress the balance. The BBC has promised that broadly one third of its programmes will be made outside London. That is a shallow promise, since various categories of programming—news, parliamentary reports and sport—are excluded.

  1223
  The net result is that only an extra six hours a week of television programmes will be made outside London, taking the network contribution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from 3 to 4.2 per cent.—not a remarkable improvement.
  When attempts at decentralisation are made, they often fall foul of the deeply ingrained southern-centred management. The Derek Jameson show on Radio 2 relocated to Glasgow, but only in so far as the principals of production and presentation commute by shuttle. That is not what most people would regard as real decentralisation.
  At this point I should remind the House, in case anyone is unaware of it, that the BBC raises more in licence fees in Scotland than it spends there—dare I say it, a form of tartan tax. I note that clause 2.2(a), already mentioned several times this evening, of the BBC agreement says that the two television services may include regional variations. I would certainly echo the view of others that the word "may" should be altered to "must" or "shall".
  Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's assurances given in the House, she must know that what will be held in law to be binding will be what is in the agreement, not what has been said here. Ultimately, what is said here is regarded as fairly irrelevant in any court. If that is not true of the English courts, it is certainly true in the Scottish courts.
  The centralisation of the BBC gives serious cause for concern in the important sphere of news and current affairs. At present, 97 per cent. of news and current affairs seen on the BBC in Scotland comes from London, where there is clearly a great struggle to come to terms with the four-party system that has operated in Scotland for almost 30 years. That is not to mention the apparent ignorance of—or possibly deliberate indifference to—the fact that in Scotland local elections frequently take place at different times from English ones—hence the debacle of the "Panorama" row last year, which resulted in the BBC being interdicted by a Scottish court. In London, it has probably been forgotten that Scotland has a different legal system too.
  While I am on the subject of ignorance, I might also point out that clause 2.2(c) says that the BBC will provide one sound service in Scotland. Which service will that be—Radio Scotland or Radio nan Gaidheal? Or did someone forget that there are two services in Scotland? Perhaps, on the other hand, this is laying the ground for a future change of policy at the BBC. The difficulty for the Secretary of State is that what is actually said in the agreement is what will be relied on in future.
  Under the current charter, the national broadcasting councils have a policy control function, but under the new charter their powers are redefined as "to advise and assist". This is yet another centralising move that effectively takes power out of the hands of broadcasting councils and gives it to the governors. As the governors also have the power to appoint the broadcasting councils, I am afraid that the suspicion arises that this move is intended to remove the possibility of any radical voice being raised. It also confirms the governors' power over those councils.
  I support the recommendation of the Broadcasting for Scotland campaign that three things should be included in the charter. First, a completely independent selection
  1224
  panel for appointments should be established in Scotland, and, indeed, there should be panels for Wales and for Northern Ireland. Secondly, broadcasting councils should be given the right to initiate a strategy and determine policy and objectives within each of their countries. Thirdly, broadcasting councils should have a duty to inform audiences in their country of BBC policy and it effects. England should have its own broadcasting council as well.
  In the slightly longer term, no successful broadcasting company can operate without the control of its own schedule and finances. Until that happens, BBC Scotland will struggle to represent honestly the Scottish viewer and listener—not only in Scotland but in the wider world. Speaking as one listener of Radio Scotland who rates it very highly, I feel that some of the doom and gloom of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the radio services in the United Kingdom might be moderated if he were lucky enough to live within transmission range of Radio Scotland, which clearly he is not.
  I understand that the BBC's motto is that nation should speak unto nation. The UK is not one nation but several. I want the voice of Scotland to be truly heard.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Lady represents the Scottish National party, which believes in Scotland becoming an independent nation. Does she therefore believe that Scotland should have a separate broadcasting corporation from the BBC?
  Ms Cunningham: Frankly, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should doubt that that is what we want. Of course we do. I see that some hon. Members are smiling. I wonder whether they would smile at or mock so much other small countries with their own broadcasting capabilities such as Ireland and Denmark.
  BBC Scotland has excellent staff and it retains the vestiges of audience loyalty, which may, for all I know, be disappearing in other parts of the United Kingdom. I insist that it needs management, financial and scheduling autonomy. Those demands for autonomy are shared by a wide range of groups in Scotland, which is by no means confined to those of my political persuasion.
  Three immediate changes would assist that desired autonomy. First, the BBC news and current affairs could agree to BBC Scotland having its own 6 o'clock news, taking only what it wants, and indeed only what is relevant or of interest, from the London-based service, and ignoring what is irrelevant. It is not parochial to say that much of what we see on the 6 o'clock news is news for south of England viewers.
  Secondly, BBC Scotland could empower the controller of Scotland to schedule and finance his own operation from licence fees. Thirdly, the Scottish national governor could be given power to have an effective governing body, nominated from Scotland and with effective control of BBC Scotland's policy. BBC Scotland should be allowed to serve those whom it understands best in the way that best suits them.
  Obviously, from my point of view, only independence can provide the ultimate and best solution. In the interim, profound change is needed, but there is no sign of it in the flawed charter and agreement, which seem only to be attempting to reassert London's control.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I have listened carefully to the debate and I thank those who spoke immediately before me for shortening their remarks in order to give me an opportunity to participate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), I found something in almost every speech with which I could agree, but I did not expect that the speech with which I would most agree would be that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  I suspect that there is almost universal agreement among hon. Members that we are fortunate because our television companies produce some of the finest programmes in the world. The standard by which they are judged was set by the BBC and it remains the case that the quality of television around the world is judged against the benchmark set by the BBC. That is not to say that the BBC is beyond criticism—and I intend to say one or two critical words. Nor is it automatically true, as the BBC sometimes appears to think, that the licence fee is a bargain no matter what level it is set at, but it would not be right if I did not make it clear that I am an admirer, and regular viewer and listener, of the BBC.
  Some have argued in the past that the BBC should be forced to earn its living in the private sector in the same way as many other state-owned companies have been forced to do. My support for the principle of privatisation is second to none. I strongly believe that it is not the business of government to own and attempt to run commercial enterprises engaged in the supply of products for consumers, be they television programmes, motor cars or telecommunications, but the BBC is primarily not a commercial body. Its remit is not to make a profit come what may, but to broadcast public service programmes. The yardstick by which it should be judged should not be popularity, but quality. Its objective should be to expand the choice available to the viewer and listener beyond that which has mass popular appeal. That can be the only justification for a state-owned and publicly subsidised broadcasting company.
  The company should concentrate on providing programmes that would not be available on commercial channels; it must genuinely be a public service broadcaster. Some might think that that is not an especially controversial view—indeed, some might regard it as a statement of the obvious. It is not. Many in the BBC regard it as absolutely heresy. They have been brought up in the belief that the BBC has to offer something for everybody and that it can justify the licence fee only by ensuring that all those who own a television set find something in the BBC schedules that they want to watch or listen to.
  The result is that award-winning dramas and documentaries are interspersed with soaps and game shows. "Panorama" and "Middlemarch" share a channel with "Neighbours" and "Pets Win Prizes". I believe that the view of many in the BBC is deeply flawed. Public subsidy is legitimate if it is used to broaden choice through the purchase and production of programmes that are not obviously popular. Public subsidy should not be used to finance a ratings war with ITV.
  I am not, of course, saying that the BBC should set out deliberately to broadcast programmes that the majority will not wish to watch, but its focus should be on its
  1226
  public service obligation and not on beating the competition. Sadly, all too often, the reverse has been the case. Every year, we have seen the BBC and ITV trying to outbid each other for the Hollywood blockbuster that will enable one of them to win the battle for Christmas day. Perhaps the best example was the competition for the right to screen the result of the national lottery. Using licence fee payers' money, the BBC was determined to secure the rights, no matter what the cost. It is difficult to see how that fits the description of public service broadcasting, especially as there can be no doubt of ITV's willingness to screen the result if it had not been outbid.
  The schizophrenia is not confined to BBC television; it is just as great in BBC radio. When Radio 3 was the only national classical musical station, it was right to concentrate on the more popular classical pieces, but Classic FM has proved that a station offering Beethoven and Elgar rather than Tippett and Schoenberg can operate commercially without public subsidy. As a result, Radio 3 should not try to compete with Classic FM, but concentrate on lesser-known works and more difficult composers who would otherwise never be heard.
  The same point applies equally strongly to Radio 1. In London and the south-east, commercial channels offering popular music now include Capital, Capital Gold, Heart, Virgin, Country, Kiss FM, Jazz FM and many more. Outside London, there are numerous local stations. As each one came on air, it was inevitable that Radio 1 ' s audience would decline, but, despite the editorials in The Sun, that should not be a cause of criticism or concern. Instead, it allows Radio 1 to offer a platform for new bands and other forms of popular music, such as acid house, rap and heavy metal. [Laughter.] I am not declaring an interest.
  In both radio and television, spectrum scarcity and the consequent limitation on the number of channels have meant that the BBC has had to take account of mass popular taste and audience demands but, with the advent of satellite and cable, with a fifth terrestrial channel in sight and with the prospect of an explosion of choice, the BBC must concentrate more and more on its prime responsibility—public service broadcasting. If it does not, but wants to compete for ratings like everyone else, it should do so on an equal basis with the private sector.
  The second issue that I should like to mention is that of political bias. I welcome the fact that the new agreement incorporates the section on impartiality in the Broadcasting Act 1990. It is clearly sensible that the BBC should be bound by the same provisions as Channel 4 and the ITV companies, but I am still concerned about how that provision can be enforced.
  It is easy for politicians to complain when they feel that a story on the "Today" programme has been unfair or unbalanced. News and current affairs must remain balanced and impartial because broadcasters know that Central Office and Walworth road will be timing politicians, to the very second, to ensure that coverage is fair. I am concerned that bias is present in other spheres of programming that is more insidious and, therefore, more damaging.
  I had intended to give examples but, unfortunately, time does not permit me to do so. I shall just say that I welcome the provision in the new agreement to extend the requirement of impartiality, but I have some cause for concern because the agreement states:
  "The Corporation shall:—

  1227
  (a) draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules".
  I had hoped that the rules would be clear, but we have instead an agreement that talks about a code giving guidance as to the rules. That sounds far too imprecise to me. My first hope is that, as soon as a code is drawn up, it will be placed in the Library so that we can scrutinise it, preferably in good time before the House debates the Broadcasting Bill.
  I have had one or two words of criticism of the BBC, but I shall end by repeating that I believe that it is one of the finest broadcasting organisations in the world and that its strengths are many. My aim is to ensure that its present high standards are maintained.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: This has been a welcome and interesting, if short, debate on which there has been considerable agreement among hon. Members about some aspects of the BBC. The BBC is an extremely important part of our national life and our media, and it is crucial to the quality and the range of public debate. According to an Independent Television Commission survey, probably more than 70 per cent. of people use it as their main source of international information. It is important to our cultural life and as our voice abroad. The BBC is also present in an expanding area of the world's economy, and it is important to the economy of this country.
  There is general agreement on those aspects of the BBC, and the Secretary of State made many of those points. We welcome that, but in the past few years the Government have had a funny way of showing the support and enthusiasm for the BBC that the Secretary of State mentioned. I welcome what I took to be her conversion, because every year in the past few years the Government have cut funding to the BBC and to the World Service, and it has happened again this year.
  The Government have squeezed the editorial staff of the BBC and raided the offices of BBC Scotland to seize the Zircon tapes. There has been a general hostility, if not scepticism, from the Government and from many Conservative Members. If the Secretary of State has had a conversion and has a new attitude towards the BBC, we welcome that. This debate is a good test of the quality of the new charter and of the genuineness of the Government's avowed enthusiasm for the BBC.
  The Government must accept some of the dissatisfaction that hon. Members have expressed about the status of this debate. The Secretary of State said outside the House that she will take hon. Members' views on the charter into account. Some hon. Members have also quoted the letter of the chairman of the BBC, Marmaduke Hussey, in which he made it clear that the Government have said that the charter is unamendable.
  The two statements cannot be reconciled. If the charter is unamendable, the views expressed by hon. Members in this debate will not be taken into account, which tends to reduce its significance and importance. The Minister may say—he may give an assurance—that at least the BBC, in its ability to amend its statement of pledges and contract with the public, will take into account the views of hon. Members. That would be welcome, but the Government
  1228
  have made it clear that they will not take into account those views in the wording of the charter, and they have not put themselves in a position to do so.
  As hon. Members of all parties have said, these are important matters because we are entering an important period—one of new competitors, cable television and, from next year, Channel 5. Alongside new technologies there will be changes in society. They will be very important years for broadcasting, and we must get things right. Unless we have the right structure, the right charter and, especially, the right quality of programmes, we shall not be able to respond to those changes.
  Much has been said about the quality of programmes. In view of the debate in another place a few weeks ago, there has inevitably been much reference to the significance of listed events. This may be a small issue, but it is a resonant one and it reveals the balance between the involvement of the BBC, the market and the pricing of programmes that have to be bought in.
  I hope that the Minister of State will tell the House whether the Government intend to accept the will and intention of the other place, if not the exact wording of the relevant amendment. Most of us agree that the amendment was not perfectly drafted—my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said that—but I hope that the Minister will say that the Government intend to find a way to amend the Broadcasting Bill themselves. Will they withdraw their previous statements, given to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and others, that this is simply a matter for market forces? It clearly is not, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government recognise that fact.
  When the Government draft a better amendment, perhaps they will consider the experience of a country such as Australia, which has handled the matter much more successfully, wittily and constructively. There are other ways to reconcile the market and the public interest. The Government still have a little time—but not much—to come up with an Australian-type model or some other solution.
  Behind much of today's debate lay the question of public service broadcasting and what we mean by it. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) discussed it. What we mean by public broadcasting is a difficult topic and it changes over time. There are tensions between the size of audience, the size of public investment and the quality and popularity of programmes.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton is right to say that a public broadcaster, receiving money from taxpayers and licence payers, must be a generalist broadcaster and be as concerned with high quality in popular entertainment, comedy, soaps or game shows—there is a big difference between the best of those and the lazy, sloppy and unthinking ones—as it is with high quality in the specialist programmes.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) made an interesting speech. It was good to hear from the Conservative Benches an intelligent speaker making a clear statement in favour of what the BBC can contribute to specialist broadcasting. I believe, however, that he was wrong to push it so far and to say that that was to the exclusion of a more populist and generalist approach. The two can be reconciled. There is

  1229
  room in an organisation such as the BBC—in its national, regional and local programming—to supply the specialist needs, which the hon. Gentleman rightly said are important, and to show a wide range of the highest quality popular entertainment programmes. That is not a contradiction, and it cannot afford to be. I believe that the BBC now understands that, and it is important that it should.
  There are other ways of testing public service broadcasting. We have not yet dealt thoroughly with the BBC's contribution to education. Most of us think that we are lagging behind our competitors. There will be an enormous premium on skills for the next generation, and the contribution of the BBC, as the universal broadcaster, will be crucial. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) rightly alluded to that fact.
  The Government must acknowledge the fact that education investment for the BBC is going down. Next year, new television education programmes are to be cut by 20 per cent., from 113 hours to 90 hours, and new radio education programmes are to be cut by 37 per cent., from 144 hours to 88. For night-time schools transmissions, new programmes are to be cut from 37 hours to a ridiculous five hours.
  Can the Government and the BBC be serious about our universal national broadcaster contributing to skills and quality? They are missing something if we are to cut the hours of educational broadcasting. That is wrong. Will the Minister answer my questions tonight, and respond to the education debate? He must realise that there is something seriously wrong.
  The Minister must also realise that serious reservations have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about regionalism. The right hon. Member for Conwy rightly drew the distinction between the words "may" and "shall". Although he raised the issue, he was rather easily satisfied on the point, and backed off rather quickly.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), in a different way, raised other real problems concerning the genuineness of regionalism, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) also questioned. It is no good taking a broadcaster to Manchester from London to do a programme. That is not regional broadcasting.
  The figures cited by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) were stark and correct, and they bear repetition—85 per cent. of network programmes are still made in London. The BBC says that it is serious about regionalism and about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that figure shows that something is wrong.
  It is ridiculous that, although 17 per cent. of the population live and pay their licence fees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only 3 per cent. of programmes are made there. There may not have to be an exact correlation between the two, but that is too great a discrepancy. The people of our islands who live in those nations have a right to be aggrieved.
  The extremely imprecise commitment that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross mentioned—that broadly one third of programmes are to be made in the regions—is not good enough for a universal national service. What do the Government intend to do about it? Will the Minister of State make a note, and respond to
  1230
  that question? Is he satisfied with the speed, the commitment and the genuineness of the BBC's move towards regionalism?
  Something else that we have not talked about tonight, which constitutes an equally good test of the quality of public service broadcasting, is the World Service. Everybody agrees that it is a jewel, and a huge international influence, but if that is so, why have the Government cut its funding? The Voice of America and Radio Moscow are our competitors. If the Government are serious about getting our voice across in the developing world, cutting the funding makes no sense.
  That is not simply a cultural matter but has economic repercussions. We get contracts where our voice is clear and strong and our influence is felt. The Government are fools to themselves to cut investment in the voice of Britain abroad, and a service for which we are trusted and known throughout the world. What they are doing is crazy.
  The universal service is also reflected in the quality and range of public involvement in the charter and in the actions of the BBC. We have not paid enough attention to that. The present situation is far from satisfactory, so I hope that the Minister will answer a few of the following questions.
  Why has the BBC abolished the General Advisory Council? Why is it merging the regional advisory councils with the radio councils? We do not yet know how many regions there will be. The Minister of State said a year ago in the House that there would be 10, but that has not yet been confirmed. Is that the right figure? If not, how many will there be? What will their role be, and what is to be the role of the English National Forum?
  I repeat the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy asked: why are the members of the national broadcasting councils to be chosen by the governors and not, as in the past, by the General Advisory Council? As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross rightly said, that is a different form of centralisation, and is undesirable and unwelcome. The BBC is a public corporation, and it should be seen to be involving and responding to the public. One way of doing that is through the advisory structures, but the tentacles through which the BBC can listen formally to the public are being slimmed down. That cannot be right. The structural changes mean that it will listen less. Hon. Members, regardless of their political persuasion, will not consider that satisfactory or desirable.
  Hon. Members agree that broadcasting is entering a new age and that society is changing. In both respects, the charter, though welcome, is modest or even timid. It is fine as far as it goes, but it is not likely to last. Is it really the framework for the broadcasting future? How will it respond to change when we are settling the agreement before we have settled other broadcasting structures in the Broadcasting Bill? It is being done the wrong way around. How will the agreement respond to new commercial structures when there is no review of the capital structures? If the BBC is to be expected to live in a more commercial world, that makes so sense. It is ridiculous that we should not even discuss the restrictions on borrowing, which will remain as they are.
  Why, if the BBC is going into a new broadcasting world, will it do so with fewer skills? It is reducing, and has reduced dramatically, its investment in training. What

  1231
  other employer entering a new technological world would slash its training as the Government have forced it to do over the past few years?
  Will the charter be responsive to a changing society? Our society is changing its views on our nations, the regions and our identity. We are more multi-cultural than we were when the previous charter was written. We are falling behind on education and training. Those are big social changes and none is reflected positively in the charter.
  We welcome the charter because, at times, it has seemed that it might have been a lot worse, but the Government must demonstrate tonight and over the next few months that they are not complacent and that they will take an intelligent and imaginative view. There are questions to answer and the Government must demonstrate the commitment and support that they have said that they will give. If they do not, the BBC is not, as it should be, safe in their hands.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) gave in the midst of the qualifications with which he rounded off his speech. I appreciate the general support, and some qualifications and criticisms, from both sides of the House. In the short time left, I shall answer as many points I can. I do not object to having only a short time to answer, because it is important that as many hon. Members as possible should contribute to such an important debate.
  I shall start with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who made a point that was also raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie)—that is the fifth different pronunciation of the name of his constituency that he has had to suffer. They asked about the status of the documents that we are considering.
  The first, the royal charter, is not amendable by either House of Parliament, but had any criticism of deep substance or a proposal for change emerged in the other place or from tonight's debate, it would have been possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to include it in the charter. We shall consider what has been said about the charter—I shall come to the agreement in a second—and decide whether any changes should be made.
  As regards the agreement, there is a most extraordinary parliamentary convention, which I must admit makes sense to me thanks only to the good offices of the House. When the agreement was debated in the other place, it was a draft agreement, but it could not have come back to this House under Standing Order No. 55 as a draft agreement. It had to come back as an agreement or contract and a contract has to be signed. It was therefore signed a week after the debate in the other place. It came back to this House in a state where an amendment could have been put down, but it would have been up to my right hon. Friend and me to take it away again and bring it back to the House. It is a peculiar status. We shall consider that and decide whether there is anything that would justify the House being asked again to run through
  1232
  this interesting debate, which is itself the end of many other debates such as those on the White Paper. Anyway, that was really just to help the House.
  I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy for the real courtesy with which he always puts his points. It is much appreciated on Government Benches. He rightly discussed the changing landscape of broadcasting. That is what is behind everything that we are debating and discussing tonight. It is indeed changing. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, we are not having the licence fee for the full 10 years of the charter, but merely for five years because things may change so much that it would not make sense.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned the tremendous changes in technology—in a technological passage of which I could not understand the detail, although the strategy was very clear—saying that, within a few years, one could find out whether anyone was using a video recorder or a television set.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy mentioned the important matter of television sporting rights. The House will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put forward the document "Informing the Debate" precisely because we want a debate, we want it to be informed, and we want to discuss the matter when the Broadcasting Bill returns to the House.
  I heard the arguments with no surprise, because they have been aired many times, not least between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and myself. I told him on 20 November that I wanted the matter to be discussed during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, which is the proper place to discuss it. That is what I said and that is what will happen. As everyone who has the interests of sport at heart will realise, there are important arguments. People who have been used to watching sport "free-to-air" want to go on doing so. On the other hand, the sports governing bodies get a tremendous amount of money from television—90 per cent. of funding for cricket, I think. Of the 32 rugby league clubs, 26 are pretty well insolvent. If it were not for the money that comes from television, they would be in a serious position. A difficult series of arguments have to be balanced.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sproat: No, if my hon. Friend will excuse me. He is as knowledgeable as anyone in the House on the matter, but I have only nine minutes in which to wind up the debate. I pay tribute, however, to the assiduousness with which he has pursued his views on the matter.
  A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, mentioned the English regions and the English National Forum. We are suggesting this to the BBC: we believe that it should be independent and independence means that one does not tell it what to do all the time. As far as the English regions are concerned, we believe that it is right to go that far down the road of saying, "Here is the way in which we think you ought to structure it." There is an English National Forum, and if the BBC in its wisdom decides that it wants to keep it as a kind of equivalent to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland national councils, it

  1233
  may do so. If it wants to keep the radio councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North wishes to do—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sproat: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I have only a few minutes and he has made his argument powerfully. The BBC can keep the radio councils if it wants. That is what independence means and that is why we did it.
  On the appointment of the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, I fully understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did not impeach or impugn his neutrality. I am sure that most hon. Members understand perfectly well that Sir Christopher will be absolutely apolitical as chairman of the BBC. A number of hon. Members made the criticism that we should somehow have consulted the Labour or the Liberal Democrat parties and that it was discourteous of us not to do so. The fact of the matter is—I checked this out—that the appointment of the chairman of the BBC has never been the subject of consultation. I do not necessarily rest my argument on that as a matter of principle, but it is certainly a matter of practice.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who probably has more experience in these matters than anyone else in the House, spoke from that deep experience; he spoke powerfully of the importance of regionalism. All that I can say without going into details is that we entirely agree and there is nothing in the agreement or the charter to prevent the BBC from doing exactly what my right hon. Friend wants. When the statement of pledges is finally produced, I hope that there will be pledges covering many of his points.
  We already have an outline statement of pledges—I totted them up and there are currently about 88. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do not regard those as sufficiently specific—they are not yet good enough—but we expect the BBC to come forward with specific pledges. One of the most important duties of the governors, which has been made specific for the first time in the charter and the agreement, will be to monitor the situation—and I do not mean monitor and then do nothing. In the annual report or another similar document, they will say, "Here is what we promised last year; here is what has happened over the previous 12 months. We have succeeded or we have failed—if we have failed, here is how we shall put matters right." There will be an increase in accountability—we must see how it works. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that it is a powerful new way of pinning down the BBC.
  I know that many hon. Members in the debate have said that many splendid promises are being made and there are good intentions and aspirations, but they have questioned whether they can be guaranteed to happen. They cannot be guaranteed, but if the BBC says, "Here is what we intend to do," at the beginning of the year and "Here is what we have done," at the end of the year, viewers and listeners, as well as Members of the House, will be able to see exactly what the BBC has achieved.
  1234
  The right hon. Member for Gorton said that he feared that the BBC was becoming just another broadcasting company without much distinction from any other commercial broadcasting company. I agree with him to the extent that that must not be allowed to happen. The BBC's first duty is to be a public service broadcaster. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's slightly visionary—I use the word in an admiring sense—and accurate view of the future. I remember that that view appeared, valuably, in the first paragraphs of the Select Committee report. We are entering into a new world of commercialisation and the BBC can benefit greatly from commercialisation. From memory, I recall that it currently generates £300 million a year from its videos, books, magazines, merchandising and cassettes. With BBC World, BBC Prime and the joint ventures that are to come, much more money can be invested in the public service broadcasting side of the BBC.
  I agree that in any such accountancy transactions, there will always be matters of transparency, which must be rigorously audited—they will be. For the first time, a strict requirement has been placed on the BBC governors to ensure that that auditing is right, transparent and accurate—they have the legal responsibility for it. Hon. Members may say that the governors have always had that responsibility in one sense. Yes, in one sense they have, but we are nailing it down for the first time. Incidentally, it is the first time that the independence of the BBC has appeared in the charter; we have always assumed it, but now we are going to make it an imperative.
  In an extremely powerful and well-informed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) criticised some of the BBC's editorial practices. He gave the absolutely shocking example of when one of his questions was transposed in a programme, so that it became the question to another answer. In the latest 1993 issue of the BBC's "Producer's Guidelines", every producer is specifically required to have regard to what the BBC calls "straight dealing". If my hon. Friend can prove that what he said happened, it is entirely contrary to the "Producer's Guidelines".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) asked about the rules. "Rules" is a slightly misleading description of the "Producer's Guidelines". Mr. Birt says in his introduction that there are not many rules in the "Producer's Guidelines". However, a copy of the present guidelines is in the Library of the House of Commons and as soon as the new code is produced—which I do not expect before the Broadcasting Bill—I shall place a copy in the Library. My hon. Friend and all those who mentioned taste, decency and impartiality should know that we shall have the opportunity to discuss those issues in the Bill when we discuss the new Broadcasting Standards Commission.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Cm. 3152), dated 25th January 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.

  Housing (Hyndburn)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Greg Pope: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of housing in Hyndburn. I am also grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to this short Adjournment debate.
  There is no doubt that housing is the most important issue facing my constituents, and I welcome the opportunity to highlight their growing needs. On the surface, my constituency must appear a good example of the ideal of a home-owning democracy, as more than four out of five of my constituents are owner-occupiers. However, the issue is not the level of home ownership, but the quality of those homes. The sad fact is that many houses have become sub-standard, or even unfit for human habitation, for a number of reasons.
  First, most of the housing in Hyndburn was created during the industrial revolution. Although it served its purpose at the time by providing a rapidly expanding work force with roofs over their heads, it was built with an eye on the clock and on the purse. Inevitably, corners were cut.
  Much of the original housing still remains today, along with the growing associated problems. Some 18,000 of the 35,000 properties in my constituency were constructed before the first world war. Poor original construction has led to widespread problems that are evident in much of the old, terraced housing. The problems include subsidence, due to poor or absent foundations.
  The Minister can imagine the difficulties, given the hilly Pennine terrain. The houses suffer buckle walls due to old heavy stone guttering, leaning chimneys and sagging roofs that cause the structures to move out of square. The latter problem has created particular difficulties that can affect entire terraces and make individual action impossible. In addition, structural problems have undoubtedly been compounded by financial restraints.
  The relative prosperity created by a thriving cotton industry in Lancashire in the 19th century meant that many people could buy their own cheaply built house for the first time. That must have seemed ideal for many lower-income families who could purchase their own homes and avoid the grip of the rent man. Now, as then, low pay is endemic in east Lancashire. Although most people are more than able to meet their mortgage repayments and other outgoings, few could have foreseen the amount of money that is required to make the essential repairs to properties that are rapidly deteriorating.
  My constituents are rightly proud of their properties. When I raised the issue in the House on a previous occasion, the leader of the Conservative group on my local council accused me of insulting people's little palaces. That kind of patronising remark does not take us any further forward. I am not criticising people's home decorating—the home owners are not at fault. I am criticising the structures of those buildings. The longer that essential repairs are left undone, the more serious the problems will become, and the more expensive they will be to remedy.
  1236
  The decay of the properties was unavoidable, and private sector housing in Hyndburn is in a mess. Some 9,500 homes in my constituency require statutory intervention, as they are considered unfit to live in. A further 5,500 properties require assistance in order to prevent them from becoming unfit for habitation. In all, 15,000 houses require urgent attention. In 1996, 15,000 families in my constituency are living in unfit or sub-standard housing. That is nothing short of a disgrace and a scandal.
  Every week in my surgeries, I meet people whose housing situation is desperate. They are unable to remedy the problems themselves or to receive assistance from the local authority. The link between poor housing and poor health is apparent. As Florence Nightingale noted more than 100 years ago:
  "The connection between health and the dwellings of the population is one of the most important that exists".
  That was true then, and it is equally true now. Hundreds of millions of pounds must be spent in order to repair defects to about 15,000 properties and to ensure that my constituents have decent housing.
  No one—certainly not me—expects that amount of money to be made available. However, the fact remains that the funding and resources available to the local authority have been cut in the past few years. Hyndburn borough council now receives only a tiny fraction of the resources necessary to redress the problem. It is clear that many of the 15,000 properties will no longer be standing by the time the council receives anything like the money it requires to repair them.
  The Government have placed Hyndburn council in a dilemma. Until now, local authorities have had a mandatory duty to pay housing improvement grants to owners whose properties fail the fitness standard. If one's house is unfit for habitation, one must receive a grant by law. It is not legal for local authorities to institute a queuing system.
  However, that does not address the problem in areas such as Hyndburn where the resources do not match the call on those resources. There is no doubt that many people could take the local authority to the ombudsman and force it to pay the mandatory grant. However, the council cannot pay out money that it does not have. If it sought to do so, I am sure that the Minister and other Conservative Members would be the first to complain, and the council would face a surcharge. It is a no-win situation, in which the real losers are my constituents.
  The Government are in the process of extricating themselves from the mess by attempting to remove local authorities' mandatory duty to provide home improvement grants during the passage of the Housing Bill, which is presently in Committee. That is all well and good for the Government, but I think that I am entitled to ask where it leaves my 15,000 constituents. They cannot get a grant from the local authority when they are legally entitled to it; how on earth will they get such a grant when that legal requirement is removed? It is important to raise the subject, as something must be done before it is too late.
  Some housing is already beyond repair, and houses have been demolished. It is obviously cheaper to repair and extend the life of existing properties than to demolish them and attempt new build.

  1237
  The local authority is doing all it can. With the money that it has received in recent years, it has launched two successful projects, one in Scaitcliffe and one in East Accrington. The council has shown some ingenuity in progressing its urban renewal programme. The East Accrington renewal area has received priority status since the scheme's inception and considerable improvements have been achieved in the East Accrington area. Many properties have been improved and provided with modern amenities, satisfactory water supplies—there is a problem in east Lancashire with lead pipes—and many other improvements to the structures. Funds can now be freed to target other areas and that is a tangible success.
  In some instances, however, the housing is beyond repair. In those circumstances, clearance is the only option. Due to lack of funds, the council cannot afford to do that on the scale that is required. That has caused some areas to become seriously neglected and many houses stand empty. That is a genuine problem, which I hope the Under-Secretary will address.
  Some people are caught in a trap. They cannot sell their property, which is falling into disrepair for structural reasons that they cannot afford to remedy. It is impossible for them to sell. In areas earmarked for clearance, clearance blight shows up on any search that is done when the property is put up for sale. People are trapped in decaying properties, and that is a growing phenomenon in my constituency. Privately owned homes are simply abandoned, deserted, and left to fall into rack and ruin.
  Hyndburn is an innovative local authority, and it recently submitted a bid for a demonstration project, in partnership with the Portico housing association, which would have provided money for improvements, demolition and new build on vacant land. Sadly, that bid was not successful. Tomorrow, Hyndburn council will submit another bid, in partnership with the Bradford and Northern housing association. If successful, that will provide funds to tackle the growing problem of deserted, empty, privately owned properties. I urge the Under-Secretary to support that scheme when it is submitted tomorrow.
  As I said, the vast majority of properties in my constituency are owner-occupied. Council housing forms only a small percentage—less than 12 per cent.—of the total properties in the borough. Many of those council houses are suffering problems. Some improvements have been made, and we have had some successes with the estate action programme, which has now stopped.
  In passing, I wish to express my gratitude to the Department of the Environment via the Under-Secretary for the estate action programme in Trinity street in Oswaldtwistle, which has upgraded properties. I also pay tribute to the work done by the residents who campaigned for estate action money, and to Councillor Sheelagh Delaney, who worked tirelessly on that programme.
  We still have 850 council houses that require a substantial investment to reach a minimum standard. It will obviously cost of lot of money to ensure that they are brought up to standard and the money is desperately needed. The Government have given no sign that they will be of any assistance. The Government are seemingly content to deprive my constituents of the basic right to live in modern and acceptable housing.
  It is a self-evident truth, to anybody who visits Hyndburn or considers its problems, that it faces an extremely serious housing problem which will continue to
  1238
  deteriorate unless measures are taken quickly. Despite the best efforts at renewal, the number of unfit and sub-standard houses is putting an intolerable pressure on the funds of Hyndburn council. The limited resources mean that houses will deteriorate faster than they can be repaired. Eventually, the only alternative to the short-sighted policy of not providing resources now will be large-scale clearance and demolition.
  The problem is not unique to Hyndburn, although it is to east Lancashire. Hyndburn and its neighbouring authorities of Blackburn, Pendle, Burnley and Rossendale are special cases, resulting from a higher percentage of home ownership, history of low earnings and a poorly constructed housing stock, with the majority of properties having been built before the first world war. Those factors taken together should indicate to the Department that east Lancashire is a special case, which I hope the Minister understands. Decent housing should be available to all, and that right is currently denied to many of my constituents.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) has raised some important issues relating to housing generally and to Hyndburn in particular. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain Government policies to assist with the problems that the hon. Gentleman described.
  There are a number of policies relating specifically to housing renovation grants, including proposed reforms, that will be of assistance in meeting some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the condition of private sector housing stock in Hyndburn, given the historical context. There is a long tradition of owner-occupation in Hyndburn, as elsewhere in north-east Lancashire, and the numbers of people owning their homes are significantly above the regional and national averages. Home ownership in Hyndburn is about 80 per cent. The majority of those homes were built before 1919 in Hyndburn's industrial heyday, to house workers employed in local mills. Those properties were built with one eye on the clock and one eye on the purse. It is not surprising that many are deteriorating. That is the legacy of Hyndburn's industrial past.
  While it must remain a fundamental principle that home owners are primarily responsible for repairing and maintaining their own properties, there is a long-standing tradition of Government assistance for private sector renewal in particular, for helping owners whose houses are unfit and who cannot afford the necessary repairs. The Government remain committed to that principle. The forthcoming Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill seeks to create a grants framework within which the work of renewing areas of unfit private housing can take place. We are certainly maintaining our commitment to the tradition of helping private sector home owners of the type that the hon. Gentleman described.
  The stated aim of the Government's housing policy is to bring a decent home within the reach of every family. In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I draw his attention to our plain commitment to do so in last year's White Paper "Our Future Homes", which took stock of how far we had progressed towards that aim and set the context for the next decade.

  1239
  We can take the availability of housing capital resources as a starting point. They remain substantial, and housing investment programme allocations for 1996–97 will amount to £1.217 million, which is a good outcome for housing under the current financial constraints. There are a number of other sources of grant for local authorities. They will be able to bid for £30 million under the housing partnership fund, which is aimed principally at bringing empty properties back into use, and £60 million is available under cash incentive schemes to help tenants move from social housing to owner-occupation.
  In addition, in 1996–97, local authority housing will benefit from £260 million for estate action programmes—the hon. Gentleman fairly drew attention to the assistance that housing in Hyndburn has received from the estate action scheme—and £89 million is available for housing action trusts. Both housing action trusts and the estate action scheme are part of the single regeneration budget.
  In addition to those sources of grant, in 1996–97, more than £1 billion is available to housing associations under the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. Public resources alone will be unable to cope with the ever-increasing demand for capital investment in housing, and, increasingly, local authorities will have to be innovative in seeking to attract additional resources into housing, principally from the private sector.
  The Government are committed to the continued provision of social rented housing at affordable rents. "Our Future Homes" emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to improve the condition of social rented stock and to diversify its ownership through voluntary transfer to new landlords. That positive process has resulted in many improvements, especially for tenants.
  The Housing Bill includes measures to introduce new types of social landlord, who can bring in private finance to improve their estates and to keep rents affordable. That will enable a wider range of non-profit landlords, such as local housing companies, to provide social housing. Local housing companies would offer a new way for local authorities to attract private investment into social housing, and they could take on existing social housing through transfers.
  As I have said, transfers provide clear benefits to tenants. Their new landlord is in the private sector. Unlike local authorities, that landlord can borrow outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement. Investment in repairs and improvements can be made while rents remain affordable, because the price paid for the properties by new landlords takes account of both their present condition and the investment that is needed. Repairs can be carried out and the debt repaid within affordable rent levels.
  Hitherto, most transfers of the type that I have described have been in shire districts, although most "problematic" estates are in urban areas. A new estates renewal challenge fund has been established to help specifically to improve large-scale, poor-quality council estates by facilitating their transfers to housing associations and to other new landlords such as local housing companies.
  Such transfers may be difficult without additional financial support to offset negative valuations that require an injection of capital through the housing authority or
  1240
  direct to the new landlord to enhance the value of the stock, so that it is a long-term, viable proposition, or to offset poor asset cover where the value of the property is insufficient to provide cover for the borrowing that the new landlord would need to take on. Some public investment may be required before or after transfer.
  The new fund is substantial. It will be worth £314 million over the next three years. Local authorities have been invited to bid for resources in 1996–97, and, although that timetable may be too short for some authorities, I ask them to consider working up bids for future years. In addition, I urge all authorities, as part of the annual housing investment programme bidding process, to consider whether the estates renewal challenge fund might help them to deal with their problematic council estates.
  The hon. Gentleman drew particular attention to the problem of serious disrepair and unfitness in private housing stock. As I have said, much of Hyndburn's housing is characterised by rundown terraced housing built many years ago, sometimes to dubious standards. According to the local authority's own figures, some 9,500 properties are statutorily unfit for human habitation—about 30 per cent. of the total private stock in Hyndburn. That leaves some owners unable to repair and maintain their homes. Clearly, in those circumstances, the case for selective clearance needs to be carefully considered by the local authority.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned two renewal areas in Hyndburn, first in west Accrington and more recently at Scaitcliffe. Those renewal areas have encouraged a comprehensive and focused attempt to deal with rundown housing. Both areas demonstrate the benefits of proactively targeting resources to specified capital grant on an area basis, rather than responding reactively to unsolicited applications for grants pepper-potted around an area.
  There must be realism about the resources that will be available to deal with these issues.
  However, the public purse is limited in what it can afford. There is no ducking the conclusion that demand for grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has far outstripped the available resources. Hon. Members should consider that that Act introduced and promoted a strategic and an area-based approach to investments and to improvements. In particular, it promoted the creation of renewal areas that local authorities, such as Hyndburn, have established where possible.
  The Act instituted a coherent range of grants aimed at inadequate housing occupied, in the main, by poor people. It also introduced a grant to give systematic help to disabled people. These provisions have provided a considerable amount of help to poor people and to disabled people. Most importantly, they have offered local authorities help to implement renewal strategies for targeted areas to ensure that the available resources achieve impact and give value for money. Judging by the description that the hon. Member gave of some areas in Hyndburn, this approach could be valuable.
  Practical experience of operating the regime has, in some respects, been less than a total success. It has provided local authorities with a good range of tools for tackling renewal. However, mandatory grants have proved difficult to control and predict. That is the feature to

  1241
  which hon. Members should pay particular attention. The applications for grants have come from all areas, not necessarily the target area within which the local authority is seeking to achieve results through concerted action.
  Individual grants have often led to a pepper-potting of improvements, to a loss of impact and, most crucially, to an undermining and slowing down of progress on area-based activity by pre-empting limited specified capital grant resources. Because of the inability to direct the flow of applications, some authorities have attempted to prioritise them.
  The Government's commitment to helping poor people in inadequate housing to repair and maintain their homes is undiminished, but the regime within which that process takes place has to recognise that resources are necessarily constrained, and that there is an overriding need that it should support area-based renewal. In other words, local authorities must have the flexibility and freedom to use resources to best effect without being hampered and frustrated by unsolicited demands for grants that, by law, they have to meet.
  That is the background against which I invite the hon. Gentleman to see the Government's proposals. These proposals seek to reform the renovation grants system for home owners and landlords in a way that will leave local authorities such as Hyndburn free to act strategically in key areas.
  Mr. Pope: I am concerned about the Minister's argument about local authorities being hampered by people making unsolicited applications for home
  1242
  improvement grants. No one wants to see a return to pepper-potting, which was a waste of public money. However, a mechanism must be put in place for people who live in terraces that are in an appalling state of disrepair but do not fall within the renewal area. I am all for targeting resources, but I hope that the Minister has something positive to say to thousands of my constituents who do not live in renewal areas but live in poor housing.
  Mr. Clappison: The new system has been widely welcomed, and it will enable local authorities to act strategically. The Government propose to simplify the rules to the group repair schemes, which will allow the flexible implementation of them. The rules will also apply to flats. Local authorities will also be able to continue to give help for minor repairs, improvements and adaptations through home repair assistance to the elderly, infirm and those on means-tested benefits. That will simplify and replace the minor works assistance scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the competitive scheme in Hyndburn. However, he will be aware that £3 million has been allocated to Lancashire through that scheme. The Government propose a number of policies and programmes that will specifically be of assistance to his constituents and will deal within the constraints we all face with the problems he described. Local authorities will be able to act strategically and to help many private sector owners, particularly those who are poor or disabled, to meet the needs for repair that the hon. Gentleman has described.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Youth Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total public spending on the youth service by each local education authority(a) in cash terms and (b) as a proportion of the total local authority budget for each year since 1979; and what estimate he has made of the figures for (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97.[14656]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed the available information in the Library of the House.

  Water (Pesticides)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the costs to the water industry of removing pesticides from water in 1994–95. [14642]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services estimates that £200 million was spent on treatment to remove pesticides from drinking water supplies in England and Wales in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the costs to the water industry of removing(a) nitrates, (b) phosphates and (c) pesticides from water. [14647]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services estimates that the costs to the water industry up to 1994–95 of removing nitrates from drinking water supplies in England and Wales is £150 million, and pesticides £600 million. No equivalent estimate is available on the cost of removal of phosphates.

  Water Regulations
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the annual costs to the water industry of complying with the existing water regulations. [14646]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services estimates that the cost to the water industry in England and Wales, in order to meet the requirements of the water quality regulations, in the period 1990–91 to 1994–95, was around £2,600 million.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the costs to the water industry of complying with the water regulations in 1994–95. [14641]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services estimates the cost to the water industry in 1994–95 in England and Wales, in order to meet the requirements of the Water Quality Regulations, was around £500 million.
  660

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by region the total number of dwellings started by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) new town development corporations and (d) other public authorities in each local authority area in England in each year since 1979; [15067]

  (2) if he will list by region the total number of dwellings completed by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) new town development corporations and (d) other public authorities, in each local authority area in England in each year since 1979. [15068]

  Mr. Curry
  Local authorities' primary housing tasks are now the efficient management of their own stock of housing and enabling other organisations to provide new housing. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

  The publications "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Area: 1980 to 1989" and "Local Housing Statistics" show estimates of housebuilding starts and completions. They cover each local authority area and each new town development corporation area in England. They show starts and completions by sector, including activity by local authorities and by housing associations.

  "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Area: 1980 to 1989" shows figures for the period 1980 to 1984. "Local Housing Statistics" shows figures for 1979 and later years: issue number 59 covers 1979; number 103 covers the years 1985 to 1990; number 105 covers 1991: number 106 covers 1992; number 110 covers 1993; and number 114 covers 1994, the latest year for which annual figures are available. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  However, the starts and completions figures do not show all the new and additional social lettings made available by housing associations each year. In particular, lettings provided by renovation are rehabilitation and by shared ownership and incentive scheme programmes do not feature in the housebuilding statistics.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum allocated to each English local authority from central Government resources in each year since 1974. [13822]

  Mr. Curry
  I have placed the available information in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the total amount of(a) useable and (b) set-aside capital receipts held by each local authority in England at 31 March 1995. [15066]

  Mr. Curry
  A list by region of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts for each English local authority at 31 March 1995 was placed in the Library of the House in response to the question of Monday 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 85 from the hon. member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).

  Figures for the amounts of set aside capital receipts are not available. These form part of the provision for credit liabilities, which is reported to the Department, but which also includes amounts set aside from revenue.
  661

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the rules regarding payment of non-domestic rates by businesses being run while in receivership; and if he will make a statement. [14997]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In general, any non-domestic property which is in beneficial occupation is liable to a non-domestic rate. However, a number of recent court cases have cast doubt over the ability of local authorities to recover rates where a receiver or administrative receiver has been appointed.

  We believe that companies which continue trading while in receivership should also continue to pay their on-going liability for rates. We are considering possible measures to make it easier for local authorities to ensure that this is done. We will issue a consultation paper later this year.

  Minewater Discharges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the cost of eliminating(a) minewater pollution and (b) minewater discharges on a regional basis; and if he will make a statement. [14935]

  Mr. Clappison
  Discharges from operational mines are regulated in the same way as other discharges to controlled waters. As regards pollution from abandoned coal mines, the Coal Authority, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, is in the process of assessing the cost of dealing with water pollution at a number of key sites. So far as discharges from other types of abandoned mines are concerned, it has not been practicable to make a general assessment of the cost of eliminating them. However, in the case of watercourses affected by discharges from the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall, I understand that the National Rivers Authority has so far spent approximately £9 million on the treatment of minewater, and is currently assessing the cost of that treatment in the future.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of minewater pollution with particular reference to discharges produced by abandoned mines; and if he will make a statement. [14934]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the last six months, my Department has received three representations relating to the provisions on pollution from abandoned mines in the Environment Act 1995.

  Urban Waste Water Directive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated number of overflows requiring work to meet the requirement of the urban waste water directive; and at what cost,(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the north-west region; what funding his Department will make available; and if he will make a statement. [14936]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services, when he set new price limits for the industry in July 1994, made provision of more than £1 billion for 662
  the upgrading of over 2,400 combined sewer overflows in England and Wales under the urban waste water treatment directive. The details of the programme of works are matters for the companies and the local offices of the National Rivers Authority.

  Anti-social Neighbours
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had on the issue of criminal anti-social neighbours. [13858]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Bill now before Parliament includes a range of legislative measures to help landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. Discussions on this topic continue between officials in the relevant Government Departments and the local authority associations.

  Bury and Oldham Borough Councils
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take in relation to Bury metropolitan borough council following the notices served on it on 12 June and 29 August 1995 and to Oldham metropolitan borough council following the notice served on it on 15 August 1995 for anti-competitive behaviour in assigning certain services in-house. [15649]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 12 June and 29 August 1995, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State served notices on Bury metropolitan borough council, setting out his view that the authority had acted anti-competitively during a competition for refuse collection, street cleaning, public convenience cleaning and highways maintenance work worth £1.95 million per annum. On 15 August 1995, my right hon. Friend also served a notice on Oldham metropolitan borough council setting out his view that the authority had acted anti-competitively during a competition for the north-west area (area 2) building maintenance contract worth approximately £1.5 million per annum.

  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the authorities' responses to the notices.

  Bury withheld information from private contractors relating to depot facilities and to the available vehicle fleet. In my right hon. Friend's view this was unfair as it made it impossible for private contractors to put in bids for the work based on the same information as was available to the in-house team. He has therefore today given the authority a direction which requires it to re-tender the refuse collection, street cleaning, public convenience cleaning and highways maintenance work by 14 October. It must seek his consent if, at the end of the re-tendering process, it plans to assign the work to its direct services organisation.

  Oldham required prospective contractors to undertake to submit a TUPE bid—one incorporating the present staff's terms and conditions—if they were given the TUPE information. In my right hon. Friend's view, private contractors who have been given details of the present terms and conditions should still be allowed the freedom to bid using different assumptions because the

  663
  in-house team can revise the way in which it delivers the work and it is unfair to deny this to some of the bidders. He has therefore today given the authority a direction which requires it to re-tender the north-west area (area 2) building maintenance contract by 14 October. The direction bars its direct services organisation from undertaking the work in future.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he will make available to those local authorities which are to be reorganised on 1 April and which were asked to reconsider whether the reorganisations in their area could be implemented more economically. [15858]

  Mr. Curry
  The councils of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull city, Bristol city, Bath and North East Somerset and York district were asked to reconsider their estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1996–97. On the basis of the revised information provided by the five authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts to allocate towards such costs in 1996–97. The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £ thousands rounded

  Authority

  1996–97

  Cumulative total 1995–96 and 1996–97

  East Riding of

  Yorkshire Council

  7,000

  8,200

  Hull City Council

  3,000

  6,000

  Bristol City Council

  3,500

  6,500

  Bath and North East

  Somerset Council

  4,000

  5,810

  York District Council

  3,500

  6,050

  I shall make a further announcement about the allocations to authorities for which reorganisation orders have not yet been made.

  Water Companies (Delayed Payments)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about North West Water's delayed payments for work undertaken by local authorities on the company's behalf. [13202]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: None. Any arrangements between water companies and local authorities are a matter for the individual parties concerned.

WALES

  Teachers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time equivalent teachers were employed by each Welsh education authority in:(a) January 1991 and (b) January 1995. [14039]
  664
  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following table. Figures refer to school teachers only. Teachers in further and higher education establishments were employed by local education authorities in 1991 but by 1995 the majority were employed by the institutions themselves. Comparisons between the two years would not therefore be meaningful.

  Number of full-time equivalent school teachers

  Number1,2

  Local education authority

  1991

  1995

  Clwyd

  3,707

  3,212

  Dyfed

  3,527

  3,570

  Gwent

  4,038

  4,049

  Gwynedd

  2,299

  2,232

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,302

  5,443

  Powys

  1,234

  1,184

  South Glamorgan

  3,733

  3,831

  West Glamorgan

  3,632

  3,464

  Total

  27,472

  26,984

  Notes:

  1 At January each year. Includes teachers based in schools, peripatetic teachers, advisory teachers and teachers in occasional service.

  2 Full time equivalent teacher numbers are shown to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Form 618G.

  Health Service
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions(a) wards and (b) departments of hospitals have been closed in Wales in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996; and if he will list the hospitals. [14802]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not held centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to request the Welsh health planning forum to review the future supply and demand for hospital beds. [15124]

  Mr. Hague
  The responsibility for ensuring that the NHS has the appropriate number of beds to meet the needs of the population rests with health authorities. Health authorities regularly review the bed capacity available in their areas and through the contracting process and in discussion with NHS trusts balance the provision between emergency, planned and continuing care.

  The Department's contract with the Welsh Health Common Services Authority for the services provided by the Welsh Health Planning Forum expired last year.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the supply and demand for paediatric intensive care beds in(a) Welsh hospitals and (b) in adjoining English specialist hospitals serving adjoining areas of Wales; how many paediatric intensive care beds there are in each Welsh hospital which has them; how many beds are (i) installed but are not currently staffed and (ii) under construction; and if he will make a statement. [15141]
  665
  Mr. Hague
  There is currently one paediatric intensive care facility at the cardiac unit at the University hospital of Wales. Other demand is met by adult units.

  My Department has asked all health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales to work in partnership to review against assessed need the adequacy of the current provision for intensive and high dependency care facilities, including the requirement for dedicated facilities for children. Health authorities are due to report the outcome of this exercise, including action to address any deficiencies, by the end of this month.

  Mr. Glyn Davies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the payments of(a) salary, (b) expenses and (c) other emoluments to Mr. Glyn Davies in respect of membership of (i) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (ii) other public appointments between 1985 and 1995. [15221]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not readily available. I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [14015]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February. [14017]

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

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many directives have been passed through the Council of Ministers in each of last five years. [13906]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: The Commission's most up-to-date figures for the number of Council directives in the last five years are:

  1991: 68

  1992: 93

  1993: 66

  1994: 49

  1995: 31.

  Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will call for a further report into the case of Ghazanfer Ali who is detained in prison in Mirpur city in Azad Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [15348]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that Mr. Ali, a Pakistani national, has now been formally charged with murder and the illegal possession of arms and that he is making regular appearances in court. The next hearing are 666
  scheduled for 24 and 29 February. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will continue to monitor his case on humanitarian grounds.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the presence and activities of the armed forces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [14918]

  Mr. Soames
  Force levels in Northern Ireland are kept under continuous review and will remain appropriate to the security situation and to the need for UK bases.

  Kevin Duncan
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations to the court were made on behalf of Kevin Duncan, a serving soldier in the Highlanders, in respect of his sentence for a drink driving conviction in January. [15075]

  Mr. Soames
  It is normal practice, as in the case to which the hon. Member refers, for an officer to accompany all soldiers to civilian court appearances to provide character references, job descriptions and details of pay and allowances. Information is also offered to the court about military matters which it may find helpful in its consideration of the case. The conduct of the court's proceedings is a matter for the court itself.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight Capacity
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what spare freight capacity exists on the rail routes running north from London. [14741]

  Mr. Watts
  I am informed by Railtrack that considerable spare capacity exists.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first learnt of the alleged irregularities involving work by Union Railways on the channel tunnel rail link. [15162]

  Mr. Watts
  I was first informed by Union Railways of the alleged irregularities on Tuesday 6 February.

  There is no suggestion of any connection between the alleged irregularities and the evidence Union Railways has presented to the Select Committee considering the Bill, or of any connection with the competition to select the private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link project.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the inquiry into the alleged irregular processes involving Union Railways is to be completed. [15163]
  667
  Mr. Watts
  The inquiry into the alleged irregular processes involving Union Railways began on Wednesday 7 February and is expected to take several weeks to complete.

  Dial-a-Ride Service (London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the dial-a-ride service in the London area. [15297]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are committed to the continued provisions of a dial-a-ride service in London.

  Motor Vehicle Licensing Offices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are employed at the Coventry motor vehicle licensing office; and what provision for transfer of staff to other licensing offices when the Coventry office closes has been made. [15218]

  Mr. Norris
  There are currently 22 staff employed at Coventry vehicle registration office including job sharers and part timers, a member of staff on secondment from a neighbouring VRO and five casual staff. Permanent staff have given the opportunity to say if they would want to transfer to a neighbouring VRO. Every effort will be made to effect whatever transfers are necessary.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to close the Leicester motor vehicle licensing office. [15216]

  Mr. Norris
  As part of the rationalisation of DVLA's local office network, Leicester vehicle registration office will close later this year and the work will be transferred in stages to neighbouring VROs such as Nottingham, Peterborough and Birmingham. The VRO' s customers including motor dealers, will be consulted so that their needs can be taken into account when making these revised arrangements.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles were registered at(a) Coventry and (b) Nottingham motor vehicle licensing offices in each of the last six years. [15217]

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows the number of new vehicles registered at(a) Coventry and (b) Nottingham vehicle registration offices over the last four financial years excluding those intended for personal and direct export. The information is not readily available for the earlier periods as it was compiled on a different basis.

  Coventry

  Nottingham

  1991–92

  46,233

  46,015

  1992–93

  72,677

  44,230

  1993–94

  72,696

  48,463

  1994–95

  68,773

  50,171

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from vehicle manufacturers in Coventry regarding the closure of the Coventry motor vehicle licensing office; and what proportion were in favour of the closure. [15219]

  Mr. Norris
  None.
  668
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation his Department held with motor vehicle manufacturers in Coventry regarding the closure of the Coventry motor vehicle licensing office. [15220]

  Mr. Norris
  In August 1994, it was announced that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was to close all its local offices, including Coventry, by 1997. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Retail Motor Industry Federation were informed through their normal links with the agency. No consultation was undertaken with individual manufacturers. A later review completed in January showed a continuing need for a local office presence and although 40 of the 50 offices will remain, open 10—including Coventry—will still close by 1997.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlay his Department's decision to close the Coventry motor vehicle licensing office. [15213]

  Mr. Norris
  In August 1994 my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member to announce the closure of the vehicle registration office in Coventry. Although a more recent review has recommended retention of 40 offices, the one in Coventry is still planned to close.

  The overall aim is to reduce the network's operating costs and to match its size to the expected future work patterns. In the case of Coventry, the lease on the premises had expired.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra provision he has made for increases in registration at the Nottingham motor vehicle licensing office from March. [15214]

  Mr. Norris
  Motor dealers who currently use Coventry vehicle registration office which is to close in March have been asked to indicate which vehicle registration offices they would prefer to use to conduct their business in future. That consultation is currently taking place and when complete will indicate what additional work will move to neighbouring offices such as Birmingham, Nottingham and Northampton. Resources will be adjusted to take account of any increases in order to maintain service standards.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average capacity of a motor vehicle licensing office in respect of the issue of vehicle licences. [15215]

  Mr. Norris
  The capacity of each office varies according to the size and population of the area for which it provides services and the mix of those services, in particular the mix of work between registration and licensing work and vehicle excise duty enforcement. A national average capacity based on licensing work handled by the 50 local offices in 1994–95 would be around 94,000 licences per office per year.
  669

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when construction work will start on the modernisation of the west coast main line. [15298]

  Mr. Watts
  It is Railtrack's intention to invite tenders and award the main works implementation contract later this year.

  A programme of initial modernisation work is being planned to commence this summer and will be targeted in those areas from which the greatest benefits can be gained.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Offices, Bradford and Leeds
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many personal interviews took place at the Bradford probate office in each of the last five years to date; how many personal interviews took place at the Leeds district probate registry over the same period; what were the opening hours of both offices during this period; what representations have been received, to date, to the proposal to close the Bradford probate office; how many such representations have been(a) supportive of and (b) opposed to closure. [15347]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Max Madden, dated 15 February 1996:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about Bradford Probate Office and Leeds District Probate Registry.

  The number of personal interviews at Bradford Probate Office for each of the last five years are as follows:

  1991: 229

  1992: 209

  1993: 287

  1994: 281

  1995: 309.

  The number of personal interviews at Leeds District Probate Registry for each of the last five years are as follows:

  1991: 1,035

  1992: 1,145

  1993: 1,235

  1994: 1,309

  1995: 1,348

  Bradford Probate Office is open to the public for interviews on the first and third Thursday of each month. Interviews can be arranged between 10.15am and 3.40pm. Leeds District Probate Registry opens Monday to Friday, except bank holidays, between 9.30am and 4pm.

  The only representation received to date about the proposed closure of Bradford Probate Office has been from Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, the Honourable Member for Bradford South, who is opposed to the proposal.
  670

TREASURY

  Incomes
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the total income before and after tax and national insurance and (b) the average earned and unearned income in 1995–96 and 1996–97 of (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 70 per cent., (v) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers and (vi) all taxpayers. [14251]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates are given in the table. Total income relates to income subject to tax and excludes non-taxable incomes such as certain social security benefits.

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  Total income before income tax and national insurance £ million

  Total income after income tax and national insurance £ million

  Average total income before income tax and national insurance £ million

  1995–96

  Top 1

  34,300

  22,400

  133,300

  Top 5

  81,600

  56,000

  63,400

  Top 10

  121,500

  85,700

  47,200

  Bottom 70

  176,100

  146,100

  9,800

  Bottom 10

  11,700

  11,100

  4,600

  All taxpayers

  407,700

  315,500

  15,900

  1996–97

  Top 1

  36,100

  23,700

  140,300

  Top 5

  85,800

  59,200

  66,600

  Top 10

  127,600

  90,800

  49,500

  Bottom 70

  182,300

  151,900

  10,300

  Bottom 10

  12,500

  11,700

  4,800

  All taxpayers

  428,100

  334,300

  16,600

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of a single European currency on the United Kingdom economy. [14950]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 8 February 1996,Official Report, column 363.

  Taxation
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 186, if he will set out the effects of the flat rate tax for income exempt from taxation in £1,000 increments from £3,000 to £10,000 on the basis of (a) a single tax exempt amount per household, (b) a shared tax exempt amount per couple and (c) both (a) and (b) with an additional £2,000 tax exempt amount for married couples only. [14947]

  Mr. Jack
  Such an analysis of the effects of introducing a flat rate of income tax on a joint or household basis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  671

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rate taxpayers are at present in(a) occupational pension schemes, (b) personal pension schemes and (c) executive pension schemes. [14665]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Latest available estimates are that about 1.3 million members of occupational pension schemes and some 0.5 million members of personal pension schemes are higher rate taxpayers. A separate figure for executive pension schemes is not available.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many environmental appraisals were produced by his Department using the guidance contained in the Department of the Environment's "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [15113]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: None.

  Child Care Disregard
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions he has made of the effect the proposed increase in the child care disregard will have in 1996–97(a) on the number of women who will take up the disregard and (b) on the flowback to the Exchequer from bringing more women into the work force. [15222]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  We estimate that, on average, between 5,000 and 10,000 families will benefit from the increase in the child care disregard. The behavioural effects of the increase, and the pace at which they occur, are uncertain. No specific assumption has been made as to the flowback to the Exchequer.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements have been made for(a) distribution of the Scott report within the civil service and (b) access to legal support and representation for civil servants criticised by Lord Justice Scott. [14841]

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies of the Scott report will be obtained by Government Departments in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of civil servants. Legal support for civil servants criticised in the report will be given where their Department concludes that such support is appropriate

  Fire Safety Review
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on each of the recommendations contained in the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement in the United Kingdom. [15398]
  672
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have been considering the findings of the review and the views expressed by interested parties, including the deregulation task force. It has also been further considering the fire safety aspects of the EC framework and workplace directives. An announcement on both will be made soon.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Belarus
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been committed to the Republic of Belarus to assist with the(a) medical, (b) agricultural and (c) other consequences of the Chernobyl incident; what resources will be committed in 1996–97; and when the Government propose next to review the level of assistance required. [15181]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In 1986, the UK was the first country to respond to the United Nations' resolution on the Chernobyl accident. We have since contributed to international study and assistance programmes to Belarus and Ukraine through the EU, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organisation and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's Nuclear Safety Account. The first priority of these programmes has been to ensure the safety of other nuclear installations in the region. Since 1991, 236 million ecu, around £180 million, has been committed via the EU' s programme of technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States, to which the UK contributes 16 per cent. We also provide financial and technical expertise to international projects in the region on radioactive contamination, feasibility studies for cleaning up contaminated areas, and radiological training. Bilateral assistance to Belarus in dealing with the environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident is through the environmental know-how fund, and during 1996 and 1997 we will continue to examine suitable projects directed at the rehabilitation of the area.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inquiries he has undertaken to establish whether Russian troops serving with British forces in Bosnia have been involved in atrocities in Chechnya. [15390]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no inquiries about whether the Russian troops, who are deployed in the American sector, have served in Chechnya.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a member of Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow last visited Chechnya. [15385]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Two members of Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow last visited Chechnya from 25 to 26 May 1995.

  British Council Staff
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff
  673
  are employed at each British Council office; what changes have taken place in staffing levels since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [14471]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council currently employs 1,173 staff in the UK—excluding the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, CBEVE—and 4,985 staff overseas in 229 offices in 109 countries. The number of staff employed in each overseas office is not immediately available. I will, however, write to the hon. Lady giving the detailed figures.

  Since 1990, the number of British Council staff working in the UK—excluding the CBEVE—has been reduced by 30 per cent. from 1,687 to 1,173. Over the same period, the number of British Council staff working overseas has increased by 13 per cent. from 4,390 to 4,985.

  These changes reflect the fact that the council is now operating in 109 countries compared with 90 in 1990 and has over the same period implemented radical efficiency measures to reduce the number of its headquarters support staff.

  Gibraltar (Pensions)
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on pensions in Gibraltar. [15753]

  Mr. David Davis
  We remain in close touch with the Gibraltar Government on the question of pensions. Discussions are continuing.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for primary and secondary legislation passed since 5 April 1995 which measures were subject to a compliance cost assessment; and what was the compliance cost in each instance. [13640]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 14 February, Official Report, column 578.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which grades, appointments and other positions are covered by the Senior Salaries Review Body; and what are the three lowest salaries and the appointments to which they apply. [14626]

  Mr. Newton
  The Senior Salaries Review Body advises the Prime Minister on the remuneration of holders of judicial office, senior civil servants and senior officers of the armed forces. It can also be invited, from time to time, to advise on the pay, pensions and allowances of Members of Parliament and Ministers.

  For the SSRB' s three main remit groups, the lowest salaries and the appointments to which they apply are as follows. The salaries are those which will be payable from 1 April 1996.
  674
  £38,000

  Entry point to Senior Civil Service (minimum of pay band 1).

  £65,655

  Two star officers (Rear Admiral, Major General, Air Vice-Marshall).

  £62,018

  Judiciary Group 7 (Chairmen, Independent Tribunal Service; Chairmen, Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales, and Scotland); Chairmen, Value Added Tax Tribunals; District Judges; District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division; District Judges (Northern Ireland); Immigration Adjudicators; Masters and Registrars of the Supreme Court, Masters of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland); Metropolitan Magistrates; President, Pensions Appeal Tribunals; Provincial Stipendiary Magistrates; Resident Magistrates (Northern Ireland); Vice President of the Value Added Tax Tribunals (England and Wales); Special Commissioners of Income Tax).

  1Excluding salary leads for individual posts.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many oral statements have been made by the Secretary of State for Wales in each Session since May 1992 and what was the total length of time taken in making these statements and replying to questions. [1709]

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 December 1995, c. 27]: I regret that the information given was inaccurate and should have read:

  Number of statements made

  1992–93

  16

  1993–94

  2

  1994–95

  1

  128 October 1992, 14 December 1992, 1 March 1993, 1 April 1993, 14 June 1993, 19 October 1993.

  The total length of time taken in making the statements and in replying to questions was six hours 20 minutes. I have written to the hon. Member expressing my apologies for the error.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [14073]

  Mr. Boswell
  The management of MAFF' s IT is in many cases the responsibility of local units. Consequently, not all records of any such transactions would be held centrally. There is insufficient time to gather the information requested from anywhere other than central records.

  MAFF did charge for computer capacity in respect of the processing of grants and subsidies payments for the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland. The computer processing component of the total charge was approximately £50,000 per annum, and the contract came to an end in July 1994.
  675

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [14573]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry owns or leases 45 empty buildings. Most of these are surplus storage depots in the process of being sold. However, five were designed as, and still are, residential properties, but these are either due for disposal or awaiting new tenants.

  The Ministry does not insure its buildings; as a general rule the Government carry their own insurance risk.

  The Ministry does not pay uniform business rates to local authorities. Instead contributions in lieu of rates—CILOR—are paid to the Inland Revenue's Crown property unit. The amounts paid in the last three years in respect of empty properties are set out below.

  1993–94: £7,403

  1994–95: £57,208

  1995–96: £53,194

  The 1991–92 and 1993–94 CILOR payments, any reduced community charge/council tax on empty dwellings and the costs of securing empty property could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  MV Caroline
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the MV Caroline was used for the purposes of feeding, watering and resting live animals, and declared as such on respective journey plans during the period 18 January to 25 October 1995, for the purposes of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994. [14455]

  Mrs. Browning
  Yes.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to recover the costs awarded in favour of the Ministry in the case between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Live Sheep Traders Ltd., Live Sheep Traders (Ireland) Ltd. and Roger Ernest Mills. [14634]

  Mrs. Browning
  This matter was referred to a taxing master of the Supreme Court for adjudication. The Ministry is now seeking to recover the costs awarded.

  Imported Animals and Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many deaths of animals and birds have occurred at the animal quarantine station at Heathrow airport for each year since 1989. [8777]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The animal quarantine station at Heathrow airport—AQS—has informed me that the number of deaths of mammals and birds, including those dead on arrival, at the AQS is in the table.
  676

  Birds

  Mammals

  1989

  1,483

  0

  1990

  906

  5

  1991

  528

  22

  1992

  723

  43

  1993

  861

  31

  1994

  286

  5

  1995

  407

  29

  Upland Areas (Support Grants)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the total sums paid in support grants to upland areas in each of the last three years. [13012]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: The total of support grants paid to upland areas are not separately recorded. However, the total of direct subsidies paid to livestock producers in the less favoured areas in the United Kingdom is estimated at around £550 million in 1993 and in 1994 and about £600 million in 1995. These estimates cover only payments under the sheep annual premium scheme, suckler cow premium scheme, beef special premium scheme and hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his officials on the quayside at Dover returned a vehicle carrying sheep to a local lairage on Friday 2 February; if a prosecution is to be brought in respect of the animals involved; and if he will make a statement. [14328]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: This consignment was returned to premises close to the port of Dover because two of the sheep had eye discharges and a more detailed inspection was required. The sheep were unloaded under official supervision and they were inspected the following morning. No serious welfare problems were revealed at this inspection, although 20 sheep had ear tags missing. After rest and a further inspection, at which three sheep were rejected as unfit to travel, the remaining animals were permitted to continue their journey from Dover on Monday 5 February 1996. These events are being considered by officials in consultation with Kent county council.

  Hill Farmers
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional assistance his Department has the power to offer west Cumbria's hill farmers following the recent adverse weather conditions. [14815]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The EC rules for the provision of hill livestock compensatory allowances, the main form of aid payable specifically to hill farmers, already provides compensation for the permanent natural handicaps affecting farming activities. There is no provision to pay allowances in respect of abnormal weather conditions. However, the Department's staff at the Carlisle regional service centre have been in contact with the local farming community and Cumbria

  677
  county council to co-ordinate assistance where required. Activity is mainly centred around the need for early road clearance to allow for milk tanker access to dairy units.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average contract cost for an Office for Standards in Education nursery school inspection at the latest date for which figures are available. [15125]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Ofsted registered nursery education inspectors there are currently in England. [15126]

  Mr. Squire
  The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill makes provision for the registration by Ofsted of a new body of nursery education inspectors. Registration itself cannot begin until the Bill has been enacted and brought into force.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she had made of the average contract cost, in phase one of the voucher scheme, for an inspection under the auspices of Ofsted of(a) a nursery school, (b) a playgroup and (c) under-fives provision in primary or infant schools. [15127]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department is presently in discussion with Ofsted about the cost of inspection contracts.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cash value of the capital repairs backlog in schools in the grant-maintained sector; and when she will publish the findings of the Funding Agency for Schools conditions survey of grant-maintained schools. [15128]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Schools Inspections
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the original estimate for expenditure on inspection of schools in 1995–96; and what is the present budget. [15088]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the money sum and proportion of the standard spending assessment or its 678
  equivalent, allocated to each English local education authority in (a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1990 and for latest available year, for education purposes; and what was the actual expenditure and proportion of the local authority's budget spent on education in each of those years. [13821]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am placing in the Library tables that show for each local education authority, for the financial years 1990–91 and 1993–94—the latest available—total standard spending assessments and education SSAs, and total expenditure and education expenditure. Data in a similar form are not available for 1974 or 1979. Both SSA and spending figures include provision for grant-maintained schools. These figures have not been adjusted on account of any change in functions between the two years.

  Computer Networks
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all(a) Internet and (b) other computer network, sites or bulletin boards operated by her Department or containing information supplied by her 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. [14229]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment maintains an Internet site. This world wide web site was first made available on 24 April 1995 and is frequently updated. The address for this site is"Intp://WWW.open.gov.ulddfee/dfeehome.htm".

  For technical reasons, some of the information on this site is held electronically at other sites, but all is available from the Department's home page. The Department has an Internet E-mail address-
  info@dfee.gov.uk.

  The Department does not operate any other bulletin board or supply information for inclusion on any other bulletin board.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are employed by the TECs; and what was the figure for each year since their establishment. [14254]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies and as such are not required to provide information on the number of staff they employ.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments by her current Department or its two predecessors since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14082]
  679
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following systems have been/are run for other Departments:

  Department

  System

  Value 1993–94 (£000)

  Value 1994–95 (£000) Dates

  Dates

  Central Statistical Office

  Retail Price Index

  315

  947

  Finished 1995

  Central Statistical Office

  Family Expenditure Survey

  325

  301

  Finished 1994

  Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development

  New Earnings Survey/Census of Employment

  80

  80

  Ongoing

  The above figures include the cost of developments, enhancements, support and process.

  Education (School Premises) Regulations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she received during the consultation for the Education (School Premises) Regulations; which local authorities wanted the minimum space requirements for teaching and learning removed; and if she will make a statement. [14319]

  Full-time equivalent of teachers in schools in Northamptonshire Local Education Authority area 1979–1995

  Position in January in each year

  LEA maintained1

  Grant maintained1

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  City Technology Colleges2

  1979

  3—

  2,105.7

  2,899.2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1980

  3—

  2,062.7

  2,977.0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1981

  3—

  1,962.0

  2,928.4

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1982

  3—

  1,979.7

  2,953.4

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1983

  3—

  2,034.2

  3,028.6

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1984

  3—

  2,024.4

  3,019.7

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1985

  3—

  2,041.0

  2,993.9

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1986

  16.0

  2,055.5

  2,998.4

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1987

  16.8

  2,036.0

  2,851.1

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1988

  15.4

  2,053.2

  2,806.7

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1989

  15.6

  2,066.8

  2,774.0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1990

  15.8

  2,116.9

  2,717.6

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1991

  14.9

  2,120.1

  2,633.1

  4—

  38.4

  4—

  1992

  16.0

  2,126.3

  2,517.2

  18.9

  194.7

  27.4

  1993

  16.0

  2,135.5

  2,130.8

  37.0

  549.2

  47.6

  1994

  16.6

  2,074.8

  2,097.5

  138.9

  615.1

  61.3

  1995

  16.2

  2,075.8

  2,119.1

  149.9

  628.1

  63.6

  1Qualified teachers only.

  2Includes all teaching staff.

  3Not available.

  4Not applicable.

  Asylum Seekers (Training)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if asylum seekers will be eligible for Government training programmes under the new regulations, with particular reference to training for work. [15172]

  Mr. Paice
  There is no change in asylum seekers' eligibility for Government training programmes. They are eligible for training for work or the Government's
  680
  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department and the Welsh Office sent some 1,500 sets of consultation papers to local education authorities, schools, and other organisations. We received only 119 responses, which is less than 8 per cent. of those consulted.

  Of local education authorities in England and Wales, fewer than two fifths replied. Among those which did, several supported the principle of non-statutory guidance. In particular, East Sussex and Wandsworth LEAs positively welcomed the proposed deregulation of statutory space requirements.

  We have given careful consideration to all the responses and intend to incorporate many of the detailed points raised into the final version of the regulations and the accompanying circular.

  Teachers (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time equivalent teachers were employed by the Northamptonshire local education authority, grant-maintained and city technology college schools in the nursery, primary and secondary sectors in each year since 1979. [14309]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  programmes for young people if they have been granted permission to work in the UK by the Home Office pending a decision on their application for political asylum. They must fulfil the other eligibility criteria for those programmes which apply to all UK residents.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total budget
  681
  for the access to work scheme in each of the last three years; and if she will give a regional breakdown of each national budget; [15331]

  (2) what was the average payment per client of the access to work scheme, in each of the last three years; and if she will give a regional breakdown of the average payment per client. [15332]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mrs. Helen Jackson, date 15 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the total budget for Access to work over the past three years and the average payment per client.
  Access to work was introduced in June 1994. The total expenditure for 1994/95 was £15.7 million which included some residual payments on behalf of the preceding Special Schemes for people with disabilities. The budget for 1995/96 is £13.4 million but this is likely to be exceeded by some £6 million. The Employment Service regional breakdown for these years is given in the annex.
  The average cost in 1994/95 was £1,513 per client. This includes people helped during 1994/95 under the special schemes that preceded Access to Work. Unfortunately the information we have for 1994/95 does not enable us to calculate regional average costs. The average costs for 1995/96 cannot be calculated until the end of the year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex: Access to work budgets—regional allocation

  £ million

  ES Region

  1994–95 expenditure

  1995–96 provision

  Northern region

  0.7

  0.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  1.5

  1.3

  East Midlands and Eastern region

  1.6

  0.9

  London and South Eastern region

  4.4

  3.9

  South-west region

  1.3

  1.0

  Office for Wales

  0.7

  0.9

  West Midlands region

  1.5

  1.5

  North-west region

  1.5

  1.7

  Office for Scotland

  1.1

  1.3

  Total

  15.7

  13.4

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people have benefited from the access to work scheme in each of the last three years; and if she will give a regional breakdown of national figures. [15330]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 15 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people benefiting from Access to Work.
  682
  Access to Work began in June 1994. During 1994–95 10, 394 people were helped, of whom 7,669 people benefitted directly from Access special schemes in April and May 1994, some of whom transferred to Access to Work. During the period April to December 1995, the latest month for which we have figures, 12,267 people benefitted. A regional breakdown of these figures is given in the Annex.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex: Access to Work beneficiaries June 1994 to March 1995

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  374

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  798

  East Midlands

  758

  London and South-east

  1,776

  South-west

  735

  Wales

  445

  West Midlands

  919

  North-west

  1,106

  Scotland

  758

  Total

  7,669

  We do not have a regional breakdown for the 2,725 people helped under the special schemes in April and May 1994.

  Annex: Access to Work beneficiaries April to December 1995

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  722

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,345

  East Midlands

  1,335

  London and South-east

  3,243

  South-west

  1,164

  Wales

  576

  West Midlands

  1,267

  North-west

  1,897

  Scotland

  718

  Total

  12,267

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the original budget of the Government's access to work scheme in 1995–96; [15203]

  (2) what is the estimated final outturn of the Government's access to work scheme in 1995–96; and what is the planned expenditure for the scheme for 1996–97. [15204]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 16 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the Access to Work budget for 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The original budget for Access to Work for 1995–96 was £13,434,000 and the current estimated outturn is around £19 million. The Access to Work budget planned for 1996–97 is £12,900,000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations have taken place with private employers about the access to work scheme; and what discussions have taken place in respect of employer's contributions. [15205]
  683
  Mr. Paice
  Discussions are being held with the principal organisations concerned with the future operation of the access to work programme, including ones representing the views of private employers. The discussions are wide ranging.

  Nursery Vouchers Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 320, relating to the appointment of Capita Manager Services Ltd. as contractors for the management of phase 1 of the voucher scheme for early years education, what was the number of tenders received; and what were the criteria, other than tender price, used in the appointment. [15346]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Three tenders were received. The principal criteria, other than tender price, used to award the contract were: the quality of proposals for issuing and redeeming vouchers; the strength of proposals to ensure security and control; and the ability to comply with the timetable for phase one.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer given on 8 February Official Report, column 320, concerning the statutory basis for the appointment of Capita Manager Services Ltd., at what dates in the contract the first advances on payments are due; and on what dates thereafter. [15345]

  Mr. Squire
  Payments were made on 11 December and 20 December 1995 to meet the initial costs of equipment and materials required for the issuing and redemption of nursery vouchers. The remainder of the contract cost will be paid in monthly instalments. These started in December 1995.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have notified her Department of their interest(a) in increasing their number of assisted places and (b) in using the assisted places scheme for the first time; how many extra places have been notified in the last available year; and if she will make a statement on (i) the numbers to be provided and (ii) the expected timetable of provision. [15445]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Over 400 schools have bid for over 7,400 new entry places from September 1996 as part of the expansion of the assisted places scheme in England, and more bids have been received for further places in 1997. Over 260 of these schools already participate in the scheme, and over 140 have applied for admission. These bids far exceed the scale of expansion necessary to meet the announced doubling of the total size of the scheme over time. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to announce the first allocations of new places for September 1996.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Skills Training Agency was first established; how many people it employs; what have been its total running costs to date; and what are the estimated running costs for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [15084]
  684
  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: The Skills Training Agency was established as a self-contained agency of the Department of Employment in 1985. It was transferred into the private sector in 1990. At that point, it ceased to be staffed by civil servants. The Department does, however, meet some residual costs relating to former staff and properties arising from the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency: for 1995–96 these are estimated at £1.8 million and for 1996–97 at £1.5 million.

SCOTLAND

  Agriculture Department
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current ratio of Scottish Office Agriculture Department staff is to the total number of farmers, partners and directors in Scotland. [12304]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The ratio of staff currently employed in agricultural divisions of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department to the estimated number of farmers, partners and directors in Scotland is approximately 1:43. This figure is based on recorded permanent staffing levels at 1 January 1996 and an estimate of the number of farmers, partners and directors in Scotland from the latest available information, at June 1995.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current target figure for the number of patients to be covered by general practitioner fundholding practices within each health board area in Scotland. [13252]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has not specifically set a target number of general practitioner fundholding practices for each health board area in Scotland. However, all health boards other than Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles have agreed with the NHS management executive an objective of achieving at least 30 per cent. coverage of the population by 1995–96.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many on-line terminals are currently functioning in the national lottery. [14256]

  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 its 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.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the exact amount of start-up costs(a) to public funds and (b) to Camelot for the national lottery. [14257]
  685
  Mr. Sproat
  Costs associated with the establishment of the national lottery fall(a) to Camelot Group plc, (b) to the Office of the National Lottery, (c) to my Department and (d) to lottery distributors.

  Details of costs incurred by Camelot Group plc. are a matter for Camelot. I have asked the Director General of the National Lottery to write to the hon. Member with information about the costs of Oflot and to place copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  The costs incurred by the national lottery distribution branch within the Department of National Heritage to 31 March 1995 totalled £247,000. It is estimated that these costs were predominantly for the setting up of systems and procedures for administering the fund. These costs were met from the national lottery distribution fund. Other costs of the national lottery division were met from the Department's administration vote. For the year ending 31 March 1995, these come to approximately £251,000.

  Funds drawn down from the NLDF by the 11 lottery distributors, to cover administration costs, totalled £5.049 million for the period to 31 March 1995. These costs have also been shown to be predominantly set-up costs.

HEALTH

  Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority cook-chill venture; and if he will make a statement. [14529]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Stuart Burgess, the chairman, for details.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Units
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of paediatric intensive care units in the North West and West Midlands regions, part of whose planned capacity is deemed to meet demand from north and mid-Wales; and how many beds in those regions are installed but not staffed. [15142]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are responsible for assessing health needs and I understand that the long-standing arrangements for the referral of critically ill children from Wales are taken into account in the planning and provision of paediatric intensive care units in the North West and West Midlands regions. There are currently 44 beds. Two more staffed beds will be brought into use next month.

  Residential Homes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average daily number and the number per 1,000 people aged 75 years and over, of (i) occupied geriatric beds, (ii) long-stay beds in NHS nursing homes and (iii) places occupied in(a) local authority residential homes, (b) voluntary residential homes, (c) private residential homes and (d) private nursing homes in England and Wales for the latest year for which information is available. [14660]
  686
  Mr. Bowis
  The average daily number of available national health service beds for elderly people in England in 1994–95 was 54,040 and the number per 1,000 people aged 75 years and over was 16. Beds in NHS nursing homes are not separately identified. Data on the average daily number of places in residential care homes or private nursing homes are not available centrally. The number of residents at 31 March 1995 and the number per 1,000 people aged 75 years and over are shown in the table.

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

  Occupied places in residential and nursing care homes, England, 31 March 1995

  All residents in homes for elderly people

  Residents per 1,000 people aged 75 or over

  Local authority residential homes1

  55,100

  16

  Voluntary residential homes1

  32,770

  10

  Private residential homes1

  132,740

  40

  Private nursing homes2

  115,550

  35

  Source:

  DH Annual Statistical Returns.

  Notes:

  1Excluding residents in dual registered homes, who are counted in the nursing homes figure.

  2 Predominantly collected as at 31 March 1995.

  Life Expectancy
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of average life expectancy(a) by region and (b) by health authority. [14807]

  Mr. Horam
  The average expectation of life at birth for 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, for regional health authorities of England and Wales, is shown in the table.

  Average expectation of life at birth from abridged life tables for 1992 Regional health authorities of England and Wales (in increasing order of male life expectancy)

  Health authority

  Expectation of life (years)

  Males

  Females

  North Western

  72.3

  77.6

  Northern

  72.4

  77.7

  Mersey

  72.9

  78.2

  West Midlands

  73.4

  78.7

  Wales

  73.5

  78.9

  Trent

  73.6

  78.9

  Yorkshire

  73.6

  78.8

  England and Wales

  73.8

  79.2

  North-east Thames

  73.8

  79.5

  South-east Thames

  74.0

  79.6

  North-west Thames

  74.5

  80.1

  Oxford

  74.9

  79.6

  South Western

  74.9

  80.3

  Wessex

  75.0

  80.3

  South-west Thames

  75.2

  80.3

  East Anglia

  75.4

  80.3

  By 1993, life expectancy for England and Wales has increased further by 0.2 years for men and 0.1 years for women.
  687
  Calculation of life expectancy at birth by type of authority and type of census ward will be published in "Population Trends" in spring 1996, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 921, how many of the 66,000 psychiatric hospital beds are in private hospitals; and how many of the 14,000 beds in residential units for mentally ill people are provided (a) by the private sector, (b) by the voluntary sector and (c) by local authorities. [15131]

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest figure for the number of beds in hospital and staffed residential units for mentally ill people is 89,158. The information about these beds is shown in the table.

  Number of available beds and staffed residential places for mentally ill people—England

  1994–95

  Local authority residential places

  4,747

  Voluntary sector residential places

  5,421

  Private sector residential places

  12,973

  Private hospital beds

  24,190

  NHS mental illness beds

  41,827

  Total beds and places

  89,158

  Source:

  Department of Health RAC5, RA13A, K036 and KHO3 returns.

  Fazakerley Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of elective surgical admissions to Fazakerley hospital, Liverpool, and the impact of the market forces factor in the funding formulae. [15132]

  Mr. Horam
  Fazakerley hospital is part of Aintree Hospitals national health service trust. The number of elective admissions to the acute surgical specialty in Aintree Hospitals NHS trust during 1993–94, the latest period for which figures are held centrally, was 21,1501.

  The purpose of the market forces factor in the weighted capitation funding formula for health authorities is to take account of the geographical variations in the cost of providing health services.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics1

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the discharging of patients from Fazakerley hospital under the care in the community legislation. [15133]

  Mr. Bowis
  Responsibility for the discharge of patients from Fazakerley hospital, part of Aintree Hospital national health service trust, under the care in the community legislation lies with clinicians. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust for details.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 715, what factors led to the introduction of the
  688
  Deregulation (Still Birth and Death Registration) Order 1996; and what account was taken of the additional expenditure burden on local authorities. [14043]

  Mr. Horam
  The White Paper "Registration: proposals for change" (Cm 939), published in 1990, recommended that it should be possible to register a death or still birth by means of a declaration made in a sub-district other than the one in which the death or still birth occurred. In 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) introduced a ten-minute Bill to give effect to these changes. The Bill failed to gain a Second Reading because of the pressure on parliamentary time. Finally, I am advised by the Registrar General that he has received many letters over the years from members of the public urging him to implement this particular proposal.

  There was also significant support amongst those consulted about the proposed deregulation order, including the local authority associations, for introducing the measure. It was acknowledged that the likely take-up of the facility for giving a declaration would be minimal. It was felt that the improvement to the service offered to the bereaved would far outweigh the burden of the small amount of any additional postage and telephone costs.

  Colney Hospital, Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to whether the proposed location of the planned Colney hospital in south Norfolk is in accordance with the advice in the Department of the Environment planning policy guidance notes 6 and 13. [15089]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a local matter. Planning permission for any hospital development has to be obtained from the local planning authority, which must take account of the contents of planning policy guidance notes. The planning application is a matter between the local authority and the trust.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much of the West Norwich hospital will be retained by the Norfolk Mental Health Care trust; what investment is proposed there; what parts of the West Norwich hospital will be closed by the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care trust if the proposed Colney hospital is constructed in South Norfolk district; and how much of the site is intended to be redeveloped; [15090]

  (2) if his Department has received a business plan for the proposed Colney hospital, South Norfolk district; and if he has yet responded; [15143]

  (3) what is the estimated cost of the proposed Colney hospital in Norwich; what is the expected annual cost to the NHS of the use of the hospital if provided by the private sector; and what expenditure on planning, design and site acquisition has been undertaken by the Norfolk and Norwich health care trust or its predecessor since the site was first identified; [15144]

  (4) what plans there were to retain the Norfolk and Norwich hospital at the time of the Colney hospital public inquiry in 1988; and if it was described as a second district hospital; [15145]

  (5) how many beds are provided in the existing NHS hospitals in Norwich, excluding Norfolk mental health care trust beds; how many beds will be retained within

  689
  the city of Norwich after the construction of Colney hospital; and how many beds will be provided at the proposed Colney hospital. [15146]

  Mr. Horam
  The provision of local services is a matter for local managers. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Stuart Burgess, chairman of Anglia and Oxford regional health authority, for details of the proposals.

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care national health service trust submitted its formal business case for building a new hospital at the end of January. Given the size of the proposed project, the business case will be considered by officials at both the NHS executive and HM Treasury before it is passed to Ministers for final approval. I cannot comment further until all aspects of the business case have been fully considered.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the running costs of the National Blood Authority in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; what is the estimated outturn for 1995–96; and how much they are expected to be in the next three financial years. [15354]

  Mr. Horam
  The published accounts of the National Blood Authority do not identify the cost of the headquarters organisation separately from those of the rest of the National Blood Service.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional costs and savings are expected to result from the reorganisation of the operations of the National Blood Authority; and what will be their principal sources. [15353]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of the estimated costs and savings from the reorganisation of the National Blood Service and their sources are set out in the document "Plans for the Future of the National Blood Service" of November 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of bills were paid by the National Blood Authority within 30 days of receipt on(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [15355]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Blood Products (Overseas Sales)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the sale of blood products to overseas customers. [15343]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Blood Authority may sell surplus blood products on a cost-recovery basis to any other country after national health service demand has been satisfied. This avoids waste of a valuable resource and keeps down costs to the NHS. The alternative would be destruction.

  Blood Service
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the price charged to hospitals in Oxford for blood products following reorganisation of the blood service will contain an additional charge to reflect the 690
  costs of transporting blood to and from the regional centres at Birmingham, Bristol or Southampton. [15352]

  Mr. Horam
  Charges paid by hospitals reflect the costs of collecting, processing, storing and distributing blood.

  The document "Plans for the Future of the National Blood Service" of November 1995, copies of which are available in the Library, recognises that relocating bulk processing and testing of blood away from Oxford and some other blood centres to other such centres will lead to some increases in transport costs, but it also points out that these extra costs will be more than offset by savings arising from the reorganisation of the service.

  Gender Dysphoria Syndrome
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the definitions of gender dysphoria syndrome recognised within the NHS. [15227]

  Mr. Bowis
  This syndrome is described in ICD 10—Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorder—under code F66.1 egodystonic sexual orientation and would be recognised by clinicians.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many diagnosed cases of gender identity disorder there are in the United Kingdom broken down to show (i) male-to-female and (ii) female-to-male trans-sexuals; if he will indicate the statistical assumptions underlying his calculation; and if he will make a statement; [15228]

  (2) how many citizens are currently being treated for gender identity dysphoria by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [15229]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Prescribing Records
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish list D data on prescribing records from 1991 onwards. [15225]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has a duty of confidence relating to the use of information derived from patient records and, following our usual practice, the information requested cannot be supplied at the level of detail of list D data because it is confidential.

  St. Charles Youth Treatment Centre, Brentwood
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will allow staff of the former St. Charles youth treatment centre in Brentwood, Essex, to continue occupation of their homes until an alternative use for the site is found; what plans he has to allow local homeless people to use accommodation on the same site on an interim basis; and if he will make a statement; [15374]

  (2) what plans he has for the use of the site and buildings of the former St. Charles youth treatment centre in Brentwood, Essex; and if he will make a statement. [15373]

  Mr. Bowis
  No decisions have yet been taken on the future use of the site of the former St. Charles youth treatment centre.
  691
  The residents remaining in the accommodation on the site have had their notice to quit extended from the required 14 days to six months.

  Hospital Admissions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) surgical, (b) adult medical, (c) paediatric, (d) intensive treatment unit—ITU, (e) accident and emergency and (f) other emergency admissions in each year since 1989–90. [12626]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The information that is available centrally from the "Hospital Episode Statistics" is shown in the table.

  Published data on emergency admissions have traditionally included, not only the first episode of care, but subsequent episodes of care for each patient within a patient spell.

  A more appropriate system has been developed which counts first episodes of care only. The information from this source is set out in the table. Information in this form is currently available only for the years 1993–94, 1991–92 and 1990–91. Data for 1989–90 and 1992–93 will be available in due course.

  Emergency admissions—NHS hospitals, England, by specialty

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1993–94

  Acute surgical

  1,194,296

  1,182,136

  1,241,728

  Adult1 acute

  non-surgical (adult medical)

  1,039,133

  1,047,224

  1,206,630

  Paediatric

  365,844

  386,301

  405,797

  ITU2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  A and E3

  (71,879)

  (71,558)

  (73,642)

  Other emergency admissions

  500,461

  503,965

  557,491

  1 Adult is defined as aged 15 years and over; adult acute non-surgical excludes those of 15's who are included in the paediatric specialty.

  2 ITU is not a recognised specialty in hospital episode statistics.

  3 Included in acute surgical.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arcadia Café, Portrush
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what firm proposals have been put to him by private enterprise for(a) the development and (b) the redevelopment of the Arcadia in Portrush; [14405]

  (2) what improvement or refurbishment works have been carried out to the Arcadia in Portrush in each of the last three years and the current year; and what sums were expended in each of these years; [14407]

  (3) what proposals he has for the future development or redevelopment of the Arcadia site in Portrush; [14406]

  (4) what investigations he has carried out into the structural soundness of the Arcadia in Portrush; what was the recommendation of the engineers involved; and when he expects to announce his conclusions as to the future of (a) the ballroom extension and (b) the rest of the building. [14404]
  692
  Mr. Moss
  The private sector made a planning application in 1991 to redevelop the site for student accommodation. Planning permission was refused and a subsequent appeal to the planning appeals commission was dismissed.

  No works for improvement/refurbishment have been carried out. During 1995, internal demolition works were carried out at a cost of £5,300.

  The Department of the Environment, Works Service, carried out a preliminary property survey in 1993 and a detailed property survey in 1995. These confirmed that the ballroom was in a poor state of repair and that it would be feasible to retain the former Arcadia café building.

  On 29 January 1996, the Department announced its intention to demolish the ballroom and invite development proposals for the cleared site while retaining the former Arcadia café building as part of any future development.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to select individuals for appointments to each(a) statutory and (b) non-statutory body and board in Northern Ireland. [14620]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In making public appointments, the prime considerations are an individual's ability or potential to contribute to the work of a particular body and the need for each body to have the range of experience and skills necessary to carry out its functions; individuals are appointed on merit.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for(a) orthopaedic operations and (b) coronary by-pass surgery in each health and social services hospital trust in Northern Ireland; and what was the figure 12 months previously. [14622]

  Mr. Moss
  The attached table shows the number of patients waiting for hospital treatment in trauma and orthopaedic surgery and cardiac surgery in each health and social services trust providing these specialties in Northern Ireland. The figures reflect the position as at the end of September each year. The waiting list details held centrally are not specific as to the nature of the patients' operation.

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  Cardiac surgery

  HSS trust

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Altnagelvin

  1994

  273

  88

  —

  Group1

  1995

  254

  108

  —

  Belfast City

  1994

  131

  5

  —

  Hospital

  1995

  131

  30

  —

  Greenpark

  1994

  2,079

  473

  —

  Healthcare

  1995

  2,020

  572

  —

  Mater

  1994

  1

  —

  —

  Infirmorum

  1995

  3

  —

  —

  Royal Group

  1994

  —

  —

  449

  1995

  3

  7

  460

  693

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  Cardiac surgery

  HSS trust

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Ulster, North

  1994

  51

  33

  —

  Down and Ards

  1995

  21

  22

  —

  1 Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals currently has shadow trust status and will attain full trust status on 1 April 1996.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for orthopaedic operations form the Down/Lisburn trust, Craigavon and Banbridge trust and Newry and Mourne trust; and what was the figure 12 months previously. [14623]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the membership of each(a) statutory and (b) non-statutory board and body established in Northern Ireland between 1 April 1973 and 31 March 1995. [14621]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Departments maintain records of the membership of statutory and non-statutory boards and bodies for which they are responsible. The provision of this information from 1 April 1973 to 31 December 1994 could be given only at disproportionate cost. The membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland on 1 January 1995 is in the Northern Ireland public appointments list, which is available in the House of Commons Library. This list will be updated at 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are(a) the criteria and (b) the procedures for public appointments. [14631]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All public appointments are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, by the well-informed choice of individuals who, through their abilities, experience and qualities, match the needs of the public bodies in question. Board members must be committed to the principles and values of public service and be prepared to perform their duties with integrity.

  The procedures followed by NI Departments when making public appointments are as follows:
  a specification is drawn up both for the appointment and for the person(s) required to fill it;
  a field of candidates is identified by a combination of using the central appointments database, advertising (where appropriate) and consultation with interested outside bodies;
  candidates are shortlisted based on merit, with the aim of achieving a balance of relevant skills and background and recommended to the appropriate Minister.

  However, these procedures will be revised to take account of the appointment of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Sir Len Peach.
  694

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [14983]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested on the number of written parliamentary questions passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the Fair Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission publish reports on the composition of bodies or individuals publicly appointed to quangos, statutory bodies and other non-departmental organisations. [14630]

  Mr. Ancram
  Both the Fair Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI) are independent bodies with their remit defined by statute which does not cover the preparation of reports as suggested by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of all individuals sitting as members of quangos, statutory bodies, and other publicly appointed non-departmental organisations. [14632]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland is contained in the Northern Ireland public appointments list, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Community Employment Schemes
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many redundancies of core workers, who are funded by the Training and Employment Agency through the action for community employment training scheme, he has forecast for each of the next five years; [14728]

  (2) how many core workers who are funded by the Training and Employment Agency through the action for community employment training scheme have so far been made redundant as a result of the changes in the ACE training scheme; [14729]

  (3) what representations have been made to him from the organisations participating in the action for community employment training scheme who have experienced reductions in the number of placements in excess of 25 per cent.; [14730]

  (4) what will be the effect on other programmes of the reduction in expenditure on the action for community employment training programme in each of the next three years. [14733]
  695
  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 14 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the effects of the reduction in the Action for Community Employment (ACE) budget.
  Question 14728
  The budget reduction may lead to 134 redundancies among the programme's Core Workers during 1996/97. The question of further redundancies over the following 4 years will depend upon the budget available but at present I am not forecasting the need for such redundancies.
  Question 14729
  At this stage I am not aware of any redundancies having been made by ACE schemes.
  Question 14730
  A large number of representations have been made regarding the reduction. The Minister and I have met public representatives and delegations from voluntary organisations and the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Schemes to discuss their collective and individual concerns. We are not seeking to implement reductions beyond those required to operate within the budget allocated in 1996/97.
  Question 14733
  The reduction in the ACE budget has allowed the Government to meet emerging budgetary pressures in a number of areas and especially those which are important to the continued growth in the NI economy.
  I hope you find this reply useful. I will of course he pleased to provide further information if you would find it helpful.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Treasury Solicitor's Office (Computer Disc Theft)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what investigations are under way into the theft of a DTI computer disc from the Treasury Solicitor's office; [14636]

  (2) what action is to be taken in respect of the people alleged to have stolen a DTI computer disc from the Treasury Solicitor's office. [14635]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Metropolitan police commenced an investigation in November 1994, and in 1995 reported to the Crown Prosecution Service who advised that, in relation to one of the two persons investigated, there was no evidence of any criminal offence having been committed within the jurisdiction and that, therefore, no action could be taken by the Metropolitan police in relation to him, and in relation to the second person that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction but that it was not in the public interest to prosecute her. The police were advised to caution her.

  Of the two people investigated by the Metropolitan police, only one had ever worked at the Treasury Solicitor's Department. She worked as a temporary typist, but had already left the Department before any investigation commenced.
  696

  Trophy International Animal Products Ltd.
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Serious Fraud Office will investigate the franchising operation of Trophy International Animal Products Ltd. [14637]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office undertakes criminal investigations and prosecutions only in cases of serious or complex fraud. Relevant factors in deciding whether to accept a case include the need for accountancy and investigative skills to be brought together and for the use of specialist statutory powers of the office. The moneys at risk or lost are usually at least £1 million.

  If there is evidence of criminality in the franchising operations of Trophy International Products Ltd. which would appear to fall within the acceptance criteria, it should be drawn to the attention of the director of the Serious Fraud Office. If the evidence points to criminality, but not of the scale dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office, it should be drawn to the attention of the police for the matter to be investigated.

  Elaine Steel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the papers in the case of Elaine Steel of Workington. [13871]

  The Attorney-General
  I have called for the papers in this case and I shall write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Transexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General how much public money has been expended in each of the last five financial years in defence of legal actions relating to transexuals brought against Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [15226]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested by the hon. and learned Member cannot be compiled in the time provided. I shall write to him as soon as possible with the information which is available and arrange for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the contribution to crime prevention made by closed circuit television surveillance in town centres. [13855]

  Mr. Howard
  CCTV systems around the country are having a significant impact on reducing crime and the fear of crime. The value of CCTV has been confirmed by the police and by independent research. This is why we are making £45 million available over the next three years to encourage the spread of this technology.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to
  697
  broaden the recruitment base of the probation service to encourage the recruitment of more mature and experienced people. [13865]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have ended the unnecessary requirement for probation officers to hold a social work qualification for appointment. We have also put in hand action to create a new, rigorous and more flexible system of training which will recognise the experience of mature candidates.

  Domestic Burglaries
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic burglaries there were in Kent in each of the last two years for which figures are available. [13866]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of domestic burglaries recorded by the police in Kent in the 12 months to June 1994 was 17,900. In the 12 months to June 1995 it was 15,315, a fall of 14 per cent. I congratulate the chief constable of Kent and his officers on this achievement.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fingerprints on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater are so far unidentified; and if he will make a statement. [13867]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a final decision in the Bridgewater Four case; and if he will make a statement. [13870]

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce his decision in the Carl Bridgewater case; and if he will make a statement. [13876]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).

  Prison Service Redundancies
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about proposals for redundancies in the Prison Service. [13869]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations about Prison Service plans for cost reductions and for improving its efficiency. The aim will be, so far as possible, to achieve any necessary staffing reductions without resort to compulsory redundancy.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he plans to introduce to combat violet crime; and if he will make a statement. [13873]
  698
  Mr. Maclean
  Severe penalties are already available for those convicted of serious offences. Life imprisonment is the maximum penalty for the most serious offences, and long terms of imprisonment can be imposed for other violent offences. Maximum penalties for violent offences are kept under constant review and we have not hesitated to increase them when necessary. The Government fully support the private member's Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), which proposes to tighten the law and increase the penalties for knife-related crime. The Government also propose that the courts should be required to impose an automatic life sentence on those convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sex offence. Full details of our proposals on sentencing will be set out in a White Paper in the spring.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to double the penalties upon those convicted of violent crime within a given radius of schools; and if he will make a statement. [14016]

  Mr. Maclean
  I believe that offences should be punished for what they are, not where they are committed.

  Severe penalties are already available for those convicted of serious offences. Life imprisonment is the maximum penalty for the most serious offences, and long terms of imprisonment can be imposed for other violent offences. Maximum penalties for violent offences are kept under constant review and we have not hesitated to increase them when necessary. The Government fully support the private Member's Bill being promoted by my hon. Freind the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) which proposes to tighten the law and increase the penalties for knife-related crime. The Government also propose that the courts should be required to impose an automatic life sentence on those convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sex offence. Full details of our proposals on sentencing will be set out in a White Paper in the spring.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on stolen vehicle recovery rates. [13874]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for 1994 show that 59 per cent. of stolen vehicles recorded by the police in England and Wales were recovered. This is the same percentage as that recorded in 1993. Vehicle theft fell by 10 per cent. in 1994 as compared with 1993.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposal he has to help the victims of crime. [12875]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aiming shortly to publish a new victim's charter which will set out the minimum standards of service victims can expect from the criminal justice agencies. It will explain clearly which agency is responsible for providing each service, and how victims can complain if they do not get the standard of service promised.
  699
  Achievement of the charter service standards will be monitored closely by the agencies concerned, and progress will be reported in the Home Office annual report.

  The new charter demonstrates our commitment to respond to the needs and interests of victims in a real and practical way.

  Immigration (Children)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to immigration officers at ports of entry relating to the admission of unaccompanied children from overseas seeking refugee status in Britain. [13877]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Guidance to Immigration Service staff at ports on unaccompanied children seeking asylum covers a variety of issues and specifically that applications from minors are to be given priority and handled with particular care.

  Prisoners (Debt)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are in prison for debt. [13878]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the end of November 1995, there were 462 prisoners held in prison custody for non-payment of fines, 38 for non-payment of council tax and 10 for civil debts.

  Crime Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ways prisoners can compensate the victims of crime. [13868]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to the introduction of arrangements whereby a proportion of prisoners' earnings from prison work is set aside to help victims of crime. I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining a Second Reading for his private Member's Bill last Friday which provides a statutory framework for this purpose.

  Prisons (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of(a) the total inmate population of the prisons in the Greater Manchester area in each of the next five years and (b) the total number of prison places that will be available. [13456]

  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. Jim Callaghan, dated 15 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the estimate of the total inmate population of the prisons in the Greater Manchester area in each of the next five years and (b) the total number of prison places that will be available.
  700
  There are three prisons in the Greater Manchester area: Manchester, Hindley remand centre and Buckley Hall. These prisons currently provide a total of 1,656 places and hold 1,723 prisoners. The number of places and prisoners held within each of these prisons is not expected to vary significantly over the next five years. The Prison Service has plans to build a new 800 place prison at Agecroft in the next five years, which will help provide the additional capacity needed in the region.

  Empty Buildings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [14567]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office assumes accountability for all the office in which it has occupations, including any vacant space therein, from 1 April 1996. Up to that date, responsibility for the whole of the Government common user (office) estate in which Government Departments were housed rests with Property Holdings. That part of the question is, therefore, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  The Home Office has 208 empty properties on its departmental estates at the present time. Of these, 192 are residential properties on the prisons estate, most of which are temporarily vacant awaiting new tenants.

  As a general rule, the Government carry their own insurance risk. The costs of securing these properties and the total amount spent by the Home Office on empty property taxes in the last five years cannot be readily identified without disproportionate cost.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Fire Service College. [14594]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Fire Service College. [14795]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 13 February,Official Report, column 517.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the report on the Fire Service College. [15399]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 13 February,Official Report, column 517.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had obtained entry clearance as visitors prior to travelling to the United Kingdom were refused entry on arrival in 1994. [14797]
  701
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available relates to all persons with an entry clearance or work permit who were refused leave to enter on arrival in the United Kingdom. There were 950 such persons in 1994.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applications made in(a) Jamaica and (b) Trinidad and Tobago for entry clearance as a visitor to the United Kingdom were refused; and what proportion of applications on arrival for leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor from passengers from (a) and (b) were refused in 1994. [14798]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Some 910 entry clearance applications for temporary purposes were refused initially in Jamaica, and 30 in Trinidad and Tobago, in 1994. These represented 26 and 3 per cent. respectively of the applications decided. Citizens of these two countries do not need an entry clearance to visit the United Kingdom. The information available on passengers seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom is given in the table.

  Citizens of Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, admitted and refused at United Kingdom ports in 1994

  Jamaica

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Admissions of visitors

  13,200

  8,480

  Total of passengers refused leave to enter

  366

  61

  Those refused because of insufficient means for proposed visit or not a genuine visitor1

  306

  50

  1 Excluding visitors refused for other reasons, eg false passport.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people with indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom were refused re-entry to the United Kingdom under the returning residents rule in 1994 when they had been out of the country for(a) less than and (b) more than two years; and what were the nationalities of the people concerned. [14800]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The total number and nationalities of persons refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom in 1994, on the basis that they did not qualify as returning residents as claimed, are given in the table. It is not known how many of these persons had been out of the country for less than two years.

  Passengers claiming to be returning residents who were refused leave to enter, and removed from, the United Kingdom in 1994

  Nationality

  Number

  Bangladesh

  8

  Canada

  1

  India

  1

  Iran

  1

  Jamaica

  4

  Malaysia

  2

  Mauritius

  2

  Mexico

  1

  Morocco

  1

  Nigeria

  6

  Pakistan

  3

  Philippines

  3

  South Africa

  3

  USA

  1

  Total

  37

  702

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for assault have occurred as a result of incidents(a) prior to, (b) during and (c) after contact between parents whose children were subject to contact orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in each year since 1991. [14850]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of convictions for assault relating to incidents where contact orders were made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 is not collected centrally.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his oral statement on 18 January,Official Report, column 893, if the policy of shackling pregnant prisoners whilst they are escorted to the hospital is still in force; [15000]

  (2) if he will make it his policy that women receiving hospital and maternity care will be escorted by women officers. [14999]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. George Howarth, dated 15 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the treatment of pregnant prisoners.
  Except where there is a medical objection to using restraints or where the governor decides, following a risk assessment, that restraints are unnecessary, pregnant prisoners en route from closed prisons to hospital for antenatal or other appointments will normally be restrained on the journey to the hospital and on the way from the vehicle to the hospital waiting area, or hospital entrance in the case of women prisoners who are being taken to hospital to give birth.
  It is the Prison Service's policy that prisoners may be escorted by officers of either sex except where this would place the officer or the prisoner in an unreasonable position in terms of privacy or decency. For prisoners giving birth our aim is that both officers should be female, but sometimes, for example in the case of an emergency, there may not be sufficient staff on duty to allow this. In this situation, one of the officers must be a woman.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the current estimated costs for the construction and operation for secure training centres; and if he will indicate when the successful tenders will be announced; [15013]

  (2) for what reasons tenders for the first two sites for secure training centres have been resubmitted. [15012]

  Mr. Maclean
  Each of the proposals submitted was non-compliant in some respects. Negotiations are continuing with the tenderers, who are being asked to revise the relevant aspects of their bids. For reasons of competition and commercial confidentiality, I cannot disclose the prices of the bids. Contracts will be signed, and announced, as soon as the terms have been settled.
  703

  Drivers (Drugs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department what powers the police have to test drivers for driving under the influence of drugs; how many convictions there have been over the past two years; and what representations he has had urging(a) more testing and (b) higher penalties. [15061]

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988—as amended by section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1991—empowers a constable to arrest a person if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has been driving or been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit through drugs. Section 7 of the 1988 Act empowers a constable to require the suspect to provide a specimen for a laboratory test.

  Separate statistics for driving offences involving drugs only are not available centrally. I am not aware of any representations urging higher penalties for the offences but I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is concerned about drugs and road safety and has called for the development of a device to test for drugs in drivers similar to the roadside breathalyser for alcohol. As a first step, research into the extent of drug use by drivers is being commissioned.

  Fire Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire station provides cover for Brent Cross; and what level of cover is provided. [14746]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the London fire and civil defence authority. My hon. Friend should contact the chairman of the LFCDA for details.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those local authorities which are currently budgeting to spend on fire services(a) more than their standard spending assessment, (b) at the level of their standard spending assessment and (c) below their standard spending assessment. [14910]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not yet held centrally on the budgets which fire authorities in England are in the process of setting for 1996–97.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to whether all fire brigades in the United Kingdom will be able to meet, alongside their other statutory responsibilities, the emergency needs of their communities in the year 1996–97. [15401]

  Mr. Sackville
  Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 a fire authority has a duty to make provision for firefighting purposes and, in particular, to secure the services of a fire brigade and equipment in order to meet efficiently all normal requirements. Section 3(1)(e) of the Act gives the fire authority discretionary powers to employ its brigade and use its equipment for purposes other than fire fighting. Fire authorities have been able to provide such services from within the resources available to them for firefighting purposes. Fire authorities do have arrangements in place for mobilising assistance from neighbouring authorities in the more serious incidents, for example Windsor castle.
  704
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to whether all fire brigades in the United Kingdom will be able to meet the minimum statutory standards for their rescue and fire fighting roles in the year 1996–97. [15400]

  Mr. Sackville
  Such an assessment can be made only by individual fire authorities in the light of their own local circumstances. It is for each fire authority to set a budget which will allow it to comply with its statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947.

  Prison Service Director General
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the name of the new Director General of the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [14977]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 5 December, column 204.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if women who have been assessed for open conditions, and then placed in the HMP Holloway, are subject to mechanical restraints whilst on escort. [15002]

  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. George Howarth, dated 15 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about women who are subjected to mechanical restraints while one escort.
  Women who have been approved for open conditions are not normally subject to mechanical restraints. Women who are sent back to Holloway prison as being unsuitable for open conditions will be subject to mechanical restraints while on escort.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [14984]

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter of public record. Although the information readily available in the Department does not give figures for each of the last five years, it suggests that the total number of written parliamentary questions which have been passed for answer to executive agencies since they were established is:

  Number

  United Kingdom Passport Agency (established on 2 April 1991)

  86

  The Prison Service (established on 1 April 1993)

  2,309

  705

  Number

  The Forensic Science Service (established on 1 April 1991)

  33

  The Fire Service College(established on 1 April 1992)

  5

  No parliamentary questions have been passed for answer to non-governmental departments.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will legislate to amend the Local Authority Cemetery Act 1977, and the Local Government Act 1972, to allow exhumation in defined circumstances to allow the re-use of graves; and what response he has sent to the representations on this topic from Reverend Peter Jupp, director of the National Funerals College. [14048]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to amend the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977 or the Local Government Act 1972 to permit the exhumation of human remains for the re-use of existing graves. We have no record of the receipt of any representations from Reverend Jupp on this matter.

  Fire Cover Review
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the final proposals from the London fire and civil defence authority in respect of its fire cover review. [14923]

  Mr. Sackville
  Presently, these remain matters for the authority. I understand that it intends to consider the reaction to its recent consultation process at its meeting on 22 February.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the London borough of Bromley in response to its representations on the proposed reductions in fire cover affecting the borough; and if he will make a statement. [14924]

  Mr. Sackville
  The reply explained the criteria which my right hon. and learned Friend would apply to an application from a fire authority to reduce fire cover. It confirmed that, should such an application be received from the London fire and civil defence authority, the representations would be taken into account.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to respond to the consultation exercise on the Government's Green Paper on identity cards. [14925]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 26 January,Official Report, column 470.

  Docklands Bombing (Fire Appliances)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire appliances attended the site of the docklands bombing on 9 February; at what 706
  times the first appliance arrived and the last appliance left; how many appliances arrived within (a) five and (b) 10 minutes of being summoned; from which fire stations appliances were sent; and how many fire fighters attended. [15202]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been informed by the London fire and civil defence authority that a total of 113 appliances attended this incident over three days. The first appliance arrived on 9 February at 19:07 and the last appliance left on 12 February at 13:46. One appliance arrived within five minutes of being summoned and two within 10 minutes. In total, 427 fire service personnel attended the incident.

  Appliances were sent from the following stations: Addington, Barking, Battersea, Beckenham, Bethnal Green, Bromley, Bow, Chelsea, Croydon, Dagenham, Deptford, Dockhead, East Greenwich, East Ham, Erith, Forest Hill, Greenwich, Hainault, Hornchurch, Ilford, Lambeth fire boat, Lewisham, Leytonstone, Manchester Square, Millwall, New Cross, Norbury, Old Kent Road, Plaistow, Plumstead, Poplar, Romford, Shadwell, Sidcup, Silvertown, Stratford, Sutton, Tooting, Tottenham, Wandsworth, Westminster, Whitechapel, Woodford. Woodside and Woolwich.

  Programme Development Unit
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision on the outcome of the second round of funding for local projects considered by the programme development unit of his Department. [15224]

  Mr. Howard
  The matter of second stage bids to the programme development unit for funding local projects is being given careful consideration. I hope to be able to announce a final decision shortly.

  Home Country Reports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 411, if he will place in the Library a copy of the home country report on Pakistan used by a Home Office presenting officer at an immigration appeal hearing in Leeds in 1995; [15342]

  (2) if he will place in the Library home country reports and other related information which he considered in respect of the designation of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Poland, Romania, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania for the purposes of determining countries from which asylum cases are likely to prove unfounded. [15350]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As I explained in answer to the question from the hon. Gentleman on 12 February,Official Report, column 411, when the country assessments to be made available to adjudicators have been finalised, I will place them in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to remove Nigerian nationals from the short procedure, introduced last May, for deciding asylum cases likely to prove unfounded; and if he will make a statement. [15351]
  707
  Miss Widdecombe
  The short procedure operates within existing legislation and has never been confined to countries which are candidates for designation under clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Individual applications which on examination are unsuitable for the short procedure are removed from it.

  Firearms-related Crime
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking to deal with the problem of firearms-related crime. [13872]

  Mr. Maclean
  Our aim is to cut the supply of guns used in crime and to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with those who commit firearms offences. The controls on firearms are already stringent and kept under constant review. The penalties for misuse are substantial. The maximum penalty for carrying a firearm in the furtherance of crime is life imprisonment and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 increased the maximum penalties for a wide range of other firearms offences. If further legislative measures are considered necessary, the Government will not hesitate to take them.

  Local initiatives to detect or prevent armed crime are the responsibility of individual chief officers of police. I understand that the chief constable of Merseyside police has recently launched a high profile campaign to combat the particular threat posed by armed criminals in his force area.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what supplementary review of European parliamentary constituencies in England the parliamentary boundary commission for England plans to conduct. [15824]

  Mr. Howard
  The commission has informed me that it intends to consider making a supplementary report on the European parliamentary constituencies in England, and to commence forthwith a general review of the European parliamentary constituencies in England.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for 1995 and each of the previous five years(a) the longest period and (b) the shortest period between the receipt by his Department of a report of a research project commissioned by his Department and its subsequent publication; and in each case if he will give (i) the title of the publication and (ii) the subject of the project. [14671]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: Details for reports published in 1994 and 1995 follow. There are no systematic records for previous years.

  In 1994, the shortest and longest periods between receipt and publication were for the following reports:
  Research and Planning Unit Paper (RPUP) "86 Drug Education Amongst Teenagers", (two months) and Home Office Research Studies (HORS) 134 "Contacts between Police and Public: findings from the 1992 British Crime Survey", (12 months) respectively.

  708
  In 1995 the reports concerned were:
  HORS 147"Anxiety about crime: findings from the 1994 British Crime Survey", (2.5 months) and RPUP 90 "Improving bail decisions: the bail process project phase 1" (14 months).

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for his Department in respect of publishing the reports of research projects regarding crime, police and other issues. [14672]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: There are no formal targets for the publication of research reports. Once a report is accepted as meeting the terms of the research contract, it is published as soon as practicable.

  Legislation (Compliance Cost Assessments)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for primary and secondary legislation passed since 5 April 1995 which measures were subject to a compliance cost assessment; and what was the compliance cost in each instance. [13659]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 14 February, Official Report, column 578.

  Discretionary Life Sentences
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 107, on offences carrying a discretionary life sentence, for what offences were the five life sentences imposed; what offences were committed by the 29 offenders who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence for a second offence carrying a discretionary life sentence; and what sentence was imposed in these cases. [15191]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: I regret that the information given in the answer of 6 February, on offences carrying a discretionary life sentence, has been found to be incorrect due to an error in the way the sample was drawn. The first paragraph and table 1 of this answer show the revised figures.

  The information requested is not collected routinely. A sample of those convicted of indictable offences in five weeks of 1993–94 included 1,086 offenders, not 600 as previously stated, convicted of sexual or violent offences carrying a discretionary life sentence, 224, or 21 per cent., not 198, or 33 per cent., of whom had previous convictions for such offences. One hundred and eighty-two not 169—of the offenders with previous convictions for such offences were given a custodial sentence, five, as previously given, of whom were sentenced to life imprisonment. The table shows the average sentence imposed, excluding life sentences, by offence group. Information is not available on sentences actually served by the offenders included in the sample.
  709

  Table 1: Sentencing of offenders reconvicted of sex and violent offences carrying discretionary life sentences

  Offence

  Number sentenced to immediate custody on second or greater occasion

  Average custodial sentence imposed (months)

  Manslaughter

  5

  45

  Rape

  8

  81

  Robbery

  103

  40

  Buggery

  4

  75

  Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

  34

  48

  Aggravated burglary

  3

  74

  Firearms offences

  1

  48

  Other offences

  19

  36

  Total

  177

  44

  Table 2: Offenders reconvicted of sex and violent offences carrying discretionary life sentences and not given a custodial sentence1

  Disposal

  Manslaughter

  Robbery

  Wounding with intent to do GBH

  Other offences

  Absolute discharge

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Conditional discharge

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Supervision order

  —

  6

  —

  3

  Probation order

  —

  4

  —

  9

  Community service order

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Combination order

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Fully suspended sentence

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Otherwise dealt with

  1

  4

  1

  4

  Total

  1

  18

  1

  22

  1 All offenders convicted of rape, buggery, aggravated burglary or firearms offences were sentenced to immediate custody.

  Of the five offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, four were convicted of rape and one of robbery. Forty-two offenders with previous convictions for sexual or violent offences were not given a custodial sentence. The offence and disposal for these offenders are shown in the table.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks operate to prevent those living abroad receiving child benefit paid into a United Kingdom bank account; and what estimate his Department has made of the amount of money thus claimed. [14751]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Child benefit is normally payable only to those who are resident in the UK. Exceptions are made for temporary absences abroad for up to eight weeks, and for longer periods in certain circumstances where a child is absent abroad for education or medical purposes. When people leave the country, payment of child benefit terminates after the eighth week. A number of different mechanisms are used to prompt notification by those leaving the country for longer than eight weeks.

  The most commonly identified situation where payment could continue into a United Kingdom bank account despite a lack of entitlement is where a person from
  710
  abroad returns home without notifying the child benefit centre. Special inquiries are made in cases where this is thought to be a possibility.

  Operation Rattle was launched in November 1995 to deter this type of abuse. To date, cases have been found which, if action had not been taken, could have led to expenditure of up to £8 million.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy concerning cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [14911]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no plans for major changes to the scheme. However, after the end of March each year, the operation of the scheme is reviewed with the Meteorological Office. In particular, links between weather stations and postcode areas are reviewed and, where appropriate, changes are made.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the temperature level at which cold weather payments are triggered; and if he will make a statement. [15007]

  Mr. Evans: Cold weather payments give extra help to vulnerable groups towards additional heating costs resulting from sustained periods of very cold weather. An average temperature of 0°c (freezing point) or below, over seven consecutive days, is considered a clear and reasonable indication of a sustained period of very cold weather, not normally expected to occur in the majority of British winters. During the winter, the scheme is monitored, and at the end of each March, a review of the scheme takes place with the Meteorological Office. Changes are considered, if appropriate. No further research has been considered necessary.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received since 1 January 1995 about delays in payment of attendance allowance for blind people; and how many representations there were in the last five years. [14915]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I receive many representations concerning almost every area of the Department's business both from individuals and organisations. Detailed information on the nature of those representations is not routinely collected.

  Child Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many and what percentage of cases the parent with care has indicated on the Child Support Agency maintenance application forms that the absent parent is unaware of the child. [14959]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As the agency has no business need for the information requested, it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  711

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were in each year from 1979 to 1994, in real terms,(a) the Tunning costs of Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) the running costs of the Department. [15357]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The running costs of Ministers' private offices is only available for 1994–95 and is in table 1:

  £

  Salaries

  1,474,194

  Running costs

  449,049

  Total

  1,923,243

  Ministers are currently housed in Richmond house and all facilities are provided by the Department of Health. This Department has been responsible for paying its own share of the rent and rates since 1992. All expenditure on accommodation is included in the running cost expenditure of the two Departments, which is published in their annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  The available information on departmental running costs in table 2.

  £ million1

  1982–83

  2,008

  1983–84

  1,933

  1984–85

  1,850

  1985–86

  1,901

  1986–87

  2,026

  1987–88

  2,400

  1988–89

  2,364

  1989–90

  2,334

  1990–91

  2,483

  1991–92

  2,542

  1992–93

  2,798

  1993–94

  2,888

  1994–95

  3,010

  Notes:

  1. Real term—calculated on the basis of the December 1995 figures.

  2. From 1987–88 running costs include costs of Accruing Superannuation Liability Charge (£165m cash in 1987–88).

  3. ITSA moved to net running costs control from 1994–95.

  Source:

  Running Cost tables. The Government's expenditure plans 1986–87 to 1988–89 and Social Security Departmental Report (The Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98).

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people(a) paying contributions to SERPS each year since its inception and (b) drawing pensions in each year since the scheme's inception and if he will detail his estimates for both (a) and (b) 10, 20 and 30 years hence. [15235]
  712
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1 shows, for 1978–79 and later years, the number of people in the UK who paid class 1 national insurance contributions at the not contracted-out rate on earnings equal to or above the annual lower earnings limit for that year. These people have accrued entitlement to additional pension as have a small but unquantifiable number of people whose earnings in one or more of the years were marginally below the annual LEL and who reach state pension age before April 2000.

  Table 1

  Million

  1978–79

  9.7

  1979–80

  10.1

  1980–81

  9.5

  1981–82

  8.7

  1982–83

  8.6

  1983–84

  8.8

  1984–85

  9.1

  1985–86

  10.2

  1986–87

  10.4

  1987–88

  7.8

  1988–89

  7.8

  1989–90

  7.5

  1990–91

  7.5

  1991–92

  6.7

  1992–93

  6.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude Appropriate Personal Pension holders and women paying Reduced Rate National Insurance contributions.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  Source:

  NIRS 1 per cent. sample.

  Table 2 shows the number of people receiving additional pension at the date specified. Figures for periods before 30.9.85 are not available.

  Million

  30th September 1985

  1.4

  30th September 1986

  1.8

  30th September 1987

  2.1

  30th September 1988

  2.4

  31st March 19891

  2.6

  30th September 1990

  3.1

  30th September 1991

  3.4

  30th September 1992

  3.7

  30th September 1993

  4.0

  30th September 1994

  4.3

  Notes:

  1 September figures are not available.

  1. Figures are for all Countries and include widows.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  Source:

  10 per cent. sample of Retirement Pension Bi-annual enquiry.

  Burnley Benefit Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many telephone calls were made to the Burnley Benefits Agency office under Operation Speakeasy; and if he will make a statement. [14930]

  Mr. Heald
  A freephone telephone line was piloted for three months up to 31 January 1996, to help the public refer cases of suspected fraud to the Benefits Agency for
  713
  investigation. A total of 570 calls were made for the Blackburn and Burnley areas. It is not possible to identify separately the number of calls for the Burnley office.

  Women Workers
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumption was made for financial year 1995–96 on the flowback to the Exchequer from encouraging women back to work; and what revisions 714
  have been made to those assumptions during the course of the year. [15223]

  Mr. Burt
  No specific estimate has been made on the overall flowback to the Exchequer from social security and employment measures focused on helping women into work. On average, encouraging a lone parent to move from income support to family credit saves £50 per week from a combination of public expenditure savings and increased revenue. For those women, or their partners, who are not in receipt of income-related benefits, the payback will be lower.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Recruitment and Assessment Services
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits they expect Recruitment and Assessment Services to be able to confer on existing customers and in what wider markets will the services be able to pursue business opportunities following privatisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, Recruitment and Assessment Services will be able to exploit its considerable expertise in graduate and other recruitment with new customers in the private sector. In combination with the skills—and the capacity for investment—which a private sector buyer will bring, RAS will be well-placed to develop its services to take full advantage of opportunities in other markets, both in the private sector and in the wider public sector. All RAS's customers, including existing ones, will benefit from success in developing high quality services across a wider customer base.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hear the hopes expressed by my noble friend. Will he try to persuade his colleagues to reveal the thinking that lies behind a very far-reaching proposal which has not yet been much discussed in public and which seems to suggest that they perhaps undervalue an institution which has been famous both for its intelligence and its total lack of corruption, which is a rare combination in our times?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I could not agree more with the last part of my noble friend's remarks. The excellence and expertise within RAS is something very special. But we debated this matter some three weeks ago. I understand that arrangements are being made for us to debate it more fully at another time. I believe that the Government's reasons for setting out these proposals have already been clearly stated. I stress one key point, which is that nothing in the Government's proposals will undermine the integrity and the quality of the service provided by RAS. At the moment it is a centre of excellence, and it will be no less so when it is in the private sector.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is it not most regrettable that such a very important change should have been announced as a decision already taken in reply to a Question for Written Answer in another place, without any comparable Statement being volunteered in this House? Further, that original reply was very short
716
on explanation and left quite a number of queries totally unanswered—queries such as the position of the existing staff. Is that quite the way to treat the Civil Service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my understanding is that when a Statement is made in another place, an opportunity is offered for that Statement to be repeated in your Lordships' House. I am not aware of the discussions that took place through the usual channels. Perhaps I may finish answering the noble Lord's question before he asks a supplementary. The decision to privatise RAS reflected the view of Ministers that privatisation was the best way to secure the long-term interests of the staff and the customers as well as the interests of the taxpayer. As I said, your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate this matter at some point in the fairly near future.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not a question of a Statement being made in the other place? The issue is that it was an arranged Question for Written Answer. Why was this House not informed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, not every Question that is tabled and answered in another place is repeated in this Chamber. If that were the case, then your Lordships' Hansard would, I suggest, be unnecessarily cluttered. I understand that this is a matter close to many noble Lords; but, as I said, we have had an opportunity to debate the matter already, and we shall have a further opportunity to debate it on another occasion. I believe that noble Lords will be well placed to put forward their views.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, without trespassing on another place, does the noble Earl agree that it was a placed Question which the Government wanted to receive to be able to make that Statement? If that was the procedure in another place, presumably it would have been open to the Government to have tabled the same Question here through one of their noble friends in order that the Answer could be available in our Hansard. Is that not a fact?
Earl Howe: My Lords, to be perfectly honest, I am not aware of whether it was a placed Question. I shall make it my business to find out quite clearly. I shall let the noble Lord know. Whenever such matters fall to be announced, consideration is given by the appropriate Minister in the department concerned as to whether a Statement or Question should be repeated in your Lordships' House. I am not aware of the reasons why that was not done in this case.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can the Minister say how privatisation will improve RAS in its vital task of recruiting the fast stream entry?
Earl Howe: My Lords, RAS is a centre of expertise. Making that expertise available to the private sector will not only be of advantage to commerce and industry, it will also bring with it efficiencies and thus better value for money for existing customers in the public sector.

717
That is why I believe that this proposal is in the best interests of the taxpayer, the Civil Service and the country as a whole.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his first Answer, the Minister referred to the opportunities for investment which will be available to RAS in the private sector. Can he give the House any specific examples of cases where RAS in the public sector has failed either to meet its own objectives or to perform to the satisfaction of its customers as a result of failure of investment possibilities?
Earl Howe: My Lords, indeed, no. RAS has fulfilled all the objectives set for it as an agency. We have every reason to be proud of the way in which that agency has been run. The point I sought to make was that if RAS expands its horizons as is now proposed, further investment will be required. It is appropriate, if RAS is serving the private sector, that that investment should come also from the private sector.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there was any consultation with the Civil Service before the decision was taken?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there was consultation with the customers of RAS, who are the group of government departments which avail themselves of RAS's services in recruiting to the fast stream of the Civil Service. There was no consultation with the staff.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend do his best to ensure that the promised debate takes place before it is too late, and that it is not sidelined to a Friday Sitting?
Earl Howe: Clearly, my Lords, that must be a matter for the usual channels.

European Court of Human Rights
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to seek the approval of Parliament for their decision to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg in cases affecting British citizens over the next five years.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the decision to renew the United Kingdom's acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the court for five years, as well as the right of individual petition, was announced on 13th December and has been communicated to the Council of Europe. Parliament has been kept fully informed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she has not answered the Question? I did not ask whether Parliament had been informed.
718
I asked whether the agreement of Parliament to this substantial transfer of authority had been obtained. Is my noble friend aware that it has not been obtained? Yet it is still possible for this body, this so-called court, to impose a charge on the British taxpayer at the moment at an annual rate of £40 million. Surely it is for Parliament to approve or disapprove of such a proposition.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. This has been a matter of discussion for over 30 years. I was unaware that he thought that renewal of the optional articles required parliamentary approval. In those 30 years renewal has never been the subject of advance debate or scrutiny. A similar Question received Written Answer in the other place. There was an exchange with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 7th December. Subsequently a Question was tabled in the other place on 10th January and in your Lordships' House on 29th January. Perhaps I can point out that we are talking about the European Court of Human Rights. We contribute £2.25 million annually towards the administering of the convention which covers both the Commission and the Court of Human Rights.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I accept that in the early days it was sensible to adopt the jurisdiction for a limited period. What is now the objection to adopting it indefinitely?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord. However, we are looking for improvements in the procedures. While those improvements to the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights are being discussed, it is right to renew for only a limited period.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are immensely strong reasons for enabling our own courts to try cases under the convention? The reasons so far given for not doing so have convinced few people. Will the Government open their mind to that point?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that my noble friend feels strongly about this matter and I have some sympathy. We must look again at the situation. However, we must also look at improvements in the fact-finding procedures in Strasbourg. We must ensure that the quality of judges in the new permanent court and the procedures for their selection are top rate. We are looking for worthwhile improvements and that matter will be considered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister dissociate the Government from the phrase "so-called court" used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, sometimes there are misconceptions. The Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is quite different from the European Court of Justice. That is why the phrase "so-called" sometimes creeps in.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in view of the fact that this Government—the Home Secretary, in

719
particular—are one of the most unsuccessful litigants in the English courts, will the Government be looking for improvements in the procedures in this country in relation to judicial review?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights. However clever the noble Lord believes himself to be, that was not a clever question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend answer my Question as to whether the transfer of authority to raise large sums from the British taxpayer should be a matter for approval by both Houses of Parliament, which it was not in this case?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, considering the amounts that are raised from the British taxpayer, £2.25 million does not seem to be in the "large sums" category. I must correct my noble friend. The UK contributes £2.25 million annually towards the administering of the convention. If your Lordships wish to discuss the matter, the usual channels will take careful note of that. However, I cannot say any more today.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is it not a fact that until he recent perverse and stupid judgment in regard to Gibraltar, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg gave almost complete satisfaction? Is the noble Baroness aware that not only Ministers but also the Parliamentary Assembly—of which I have the honour to be vice-president—are examining the guidelines in order to ensure that potential judges, unlike some chosen in the past, are much more versed in the law?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend puts in far better terms exactly what I was seeking to explain when I talked of improving the quality of the European Court of Human Rights.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House why British citizens have, at great cost, to go to Strasbourg to exercise their rights when, if the Government changed their policy, cases could be heard in British courts?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is exactly the same point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton a few moments ago. I said that steps to improve the quality of the system would be looked at.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Baroness elucidate an earlier answer to a supplementary question? She spoke of the "so-called" court. Which does she consider to be more "so-called", the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, and why?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, they are entirely different bodies. I happen to believe that both have a rightful function. I did not use the word "so-called". I was attempting to clarify for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, how confusion sometimes arises and why people sometimes use the phrase "so-called".

Vehicles for the Disabled: VAT Rating
3.17 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Question asked by Viscount Ingleby on 24th January 1996 (HL Deb., col. 1030), they have reviewed the criteria for the exemption from VAT of vehicles such as the Scott-Track Venturer designed for the use of disabled people.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I am pleased to say that, in the light of further information provided by the manufacturer, Customs and Excise accept that the Venturer is eligible for zero rating as being designed solely for disabled people.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that he is now not only a popular Minister, but also that he has given a popular Answer? Is he also aware—and are noble Lords aware—that, although this Question was tabled by me after a hint from my noble friend, so it might be called "placed", to my knowledge no other Question of the same kind has been tabled in the other place? Can my noble friend say how many of these vehicles have had VAT charged upon them and whether that VAT can now be reclaimed? Will he also join me in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby—who is unable to be here today due to the illness of his wife—for initially raising this matter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, was keen to be here today but unfortunately cannot be. I know that he will be pleased with the outcome. I believe two or three of those vehicles have been sold—one to our noble friend and one or two to an organisation which takes disabled people out into the country. Customers who have paid tax on the vehicles should contact Scott-Track, the manufacturers, for a refund. Lastly, I am delighted to have my popularity restored.

National Audit Office: Access to Papers
3.19 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give instructions to government departments to refrain from using the term "Not for National Audit Office eyes" in any documents circulating within the public service.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no. There is a long-standing convention agreed with the National Audit Office that the NAO does not have access to certain categories of departmental papers. These categories are papers dealing with the responses to NAO inquiries and proposals for NAO investigations and draft NAO reports; briefing papers for an accounting officer's appearance before the PAC; papers dealing with the contents of Treasury minutes

721
responding to PAC reports; and papers, including interdepartmental correspondence, about relations with the NAO.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Answer he has just given will puzzle a number of us because the papers which appeared on the front page of the Independent earlier this week did not fall into any of those categories? What is the point of having a National Audit Office as the guardian of public expenditure if officials can try to deprive it of critical information? Is he aware that the case to which I refer concerns a report by Price Waterhouse? Is he further aware that it seems to many of us astonishing that this procedure has been accepted by the Government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord should guard against founding on leaked documents an attempt to build a case in public. At the time the official wrote the document the Department of Transport was considering a draft report by the NAO into British Rail Maintenance Limited sales. His note was in the context of considering a response to the NAO. That falls very firmly within the first category I mentioned in my original Answer.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, if the Minister does not feel that the parallels between this shabby saga and the subject of this afternoon's Statement are enlightening, can he instead say what the Government's attitude would be to a public company making a similarly poor sale of assets and concealing that from its auditors, from the Stock Exchange and consequently from its shareholders? Should the public sector not adhere to best practice, not only in achieving value for taxpayers but also in disclosure of its dealings, particularly in respect of management buy-outs of privatised industries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount continued with his prepared question without altering it in the light of my Answer, which I think shows clearly that the rules and procedures of the Government and the National Audit Office, agreed by the National Audit Office, were fully followed. As to the case itself, the position is that the National Audit Office investigates every privatisation. In this particular example the Department of Transport is quite clear that the British Rail Board did not distinguish cash from other components of the assets, like debts and creditors. In its study for the Department of Transport Ernst & Young is confident that all the necessary information, including details of the Eastleigh depot's cash balances and its future trading prospects, was available to all bidders. The noble Viscount should not let his obsession against privatisation colour his judgment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate why this pertinent question was asked by Price Waterhouse in relation to this privatisation measure? I quote:
722
"Why was the business sold at such a discount to net assets, in particular a profitable and cash generative one?"
Will he also indicate—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Reading!
Lord Clinton-Davis: Of course I am reading. I am going to quote. Will he also indicate why a memorandum was sent by a senior civil servant in the Department of Transport criticising the BR vendor unit which managed the sale for,
"operating without satisfactory guidelines"?
He also asked whether there were,
"any similar skeletons in any other completed sale".
Perhaps the Minister will address himself to those two questions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall repeat the point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I am astonished that the noble Lord is also prepared to found his case on leaked documents. But never mind about that. As far as the sale is concerned, clearly if the cash had been removed from this company—the Eastleigh BRML—the price obtained for it would have been that much less because it was part and parcel of the assets and liabilities of the company for which the private sector and indeed the management buy-out, which was successful in this case, were bidding. The answer to the noble Lord is that if the cash had been removed the price obtained would have been a good deal less.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the Government constantly proclaim their enthusiasm for open government, why was this procedure used in the first place? Why are the Government so secretive when it comes to issues involving taxpayers' money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that takes us back to the original Question. I have to tell the noble Lord that there is nothing secretive about the rules I read out. They were contained in a number of letters. The most recent I have is one from the Treasury to the accounting officers of the departments dated 1988. What I have just explained was the subject of a parliamentary Answer in 1985 to Mr. Bryan Gould, who was then a leading member of the party opposite. In fact, the rules I expounded have been in operation with the NAO since its beginning. They were in operation in the preceding body, the Exchequer and Audit Department, for a very long time before that, including times during which the noble Lord himself was a Minister in the last Labour Government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is difficult for some of us to follow what information is being provided to the NAO and what is not. Can the Minister unequivocally state that the Government regard the operations of the NAO as serious; that they will provide it with all the information needed to conduct its inquiries; and that they will treat the resultant reports with the gravity they deserve?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we consider that the NAO has a vital part to play in looking

723
after public funds. We take its reports very seriously indeed. As I explained, the convention is of very long standing. It is clear and open. Parliamentary Questions have been asked about it and answered in full, as I have done today. Departments regard the convention as something they must apply correctly. Their internal audit units are responsible for checking that the convention is being properly operated and they report to the accounting officer straightaway on any abuses which are found. The NAO also monitors the use of the convention as part of its normal audit work. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

Security Service Bill
3.26 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will repeat a Statement to be made at 3.40 p.m. in another place on the Scott Report. In order that the Statement may be repeated to your Lordships at the earliest opportunity, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.27 to 3.45 p.m.]

Scott Inquiry
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, on the Scott Report.
"I should like to make a Statement about the report published today of the inquiry by Sir Richard Scott, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commissioned in November 1992, following the end of the Matrix Churchill trial.
724
"The Government have arranged for the report to be debated in both Houses of Parliament on 26th February. During the past three-and-a-quarter years the inquiry, with the full co-operation of the Government, has received many tens of thousands of pages of documentation from government files and has taken written or oral evidence from 268 witnesses. All Ministers, former Ministers, and civil servants who were asked to give evidence, did so conscientiously and thoroughly. The detailed procedures of the inquiry were left to the discretion of Sir Richard Scott himself.
"The House will realise the diligence with which Sir Richard Scott and his team have scrutinised the events covered by their remit, and for which the Government are most grateful. The report is wide-ranging and detailed, extending to five volumes and some 2,000 pages. In addition, the inquiry will be making available as soon as possible several thousand copy documents.
"The House will recall that the essence of the inquiry, as reflected in its terms of reference, was to establish whether the relevant government departments, agencies and Ministers operated in accordance with the Government's policies and to report on decisions by the prosecuting authority in the Matrix Churchill case and by those signing public interest immunity certificates.
"Let me now turn to the question of whether arms were supplied to Iraq. The report confirms, and I quote:
`the Government was not prepared to countenance the supply of lethal equipment to either Iran or Iraq'.
Sir Richard Scott goes on to say in his report, and again I quote:
'Ammunition, guns, tanks, bombs, mines and the like were not licensed for export to Iraq. Nor for that matter were they licensed for export to Iran'.
"The inquiry also considered whether defence equipment supplied to countries other than Iraq might have been diverted to Iraq's armed forces. During the 1980s some evidence existed that certain other countries might have diverted goods to Iraq. As far as British goods were concerned, steps were taken to counter this. No British arms or ammunition were found in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. Sir Richard Scott investigated a number of allegations to the contrary and found no evidence for them.
"On more general non-lethal defence equipment, Sir Richard Scott recognises that the Government strove to balance the interests of employment in this country with the objectives of our foreign policy. He makes no criticism of the Government's policy. He does, however, make strong criticisms of what he sees as a lack of openness on this, to which I shall return later. Nevertheless, the Government's restrictive policy on exports is in sharp contrast to many of our international competitors who, during the eight-year conflict between Iran and Iraq, in addition to non-lethal defence equipment, were also content to sell fighter aircraft, guided missiles, munitions and other lethal equipment. This country did not.

725
"I now turn to the most important reason why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set up the inquiry in the first place. This is the grave allegation that Ministers, by signing public interest immunity certificates, conspired in a way which could have sent innocent men to prison. Sir Richard Scott's report demonstrates that this allegation is false and without foundation.
"I quote from Sir Richard's words:
`Finally, I must refer to the charges made and repeated in the media that the Ministers who signed the PH certificates were seeking to deprive defendants in a criminal trial of the means by which to clear themselves'.
Sir Richard Scott concludes, after over three years of painstaking investigation, that all Ministers who signed PII certificates did so without any impropriety. There is no criticism of them for so doing. There was no attempt to gag. There was no conspiracy to gaol innocent men. Ministers who signed PII certificates did so in the knowledge that the judge was the final arbiter of what should be disclosed to the defence. There is no case for them to answer. As Sir Richard says, and I quote,
`The charges to which I have referred are not, in my opinion well-founded'.
"This conclusion gives the lie to the many scurrilous comments by honourable Members on the Benches opposite and by many in the media.
"For three years, several of my right honourable friends have had to endure repeated abuse and attacks upon their honour and integrity of the most offensive and unpleasant nature over their signing of public interest immunity certificates. They now stand wholly vindicated by the report.
"As one example, I remind the honourable Gentleman, the Member for Livingston, that he said on 7th November 1995 in respect of the PII certificates—I quote:
`Once again we see Ministers caught trying to cover up their role in arming Saddam Hussein'.
The quotation continues:
`Not only did they try to arm Saddam Hussein and keep it quiet but they were willing to cover up even at the expense of sending businessmen to court, knowing that those businessmen would be convicted, and knowing that if convicted they might well have gone to prison'.
"The same criticisms were made by others on the Benches opposite. As recently as last week, the right honourable Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party said, and I quote:
`Next week, we'll have more evidence with the Scott report. Showing how Ministers were prepared to send citizens to jail to cover their own backs'.
"There could hardly be a more serious set of charges levelled against Ministers of the Crown; and they are now shown to be utterly unfounded. There was no conspiracy. There was no cover-up. Such charges were reckless and malicious and should never have been made. The House will now expect to hear them withdrawn without reservation.
726
"Sir Richard Scott has cast his net widely and examined a whole range of issues. He has made recommendations in a number of areas, and he has also made some criticisms. I should like to comment now on the subjects of these recommendations and criticisms, including in particular export control legislation; the law on public interest immunity; the ministerial guidelines on exports; the Matrix Churchill trial; and ministerial accountability.
"The report deals with the legislation which has governed the control of imports and exports since 1939. This legislation has, since the Second World War, served its purpose effectively in allowing controls to be imposed on the import and export of certain categories of goods.
"Sir Richard criticises the continued use of wartime emergency legislation by both Labour and Conservative Administrations over the past 50 years.
"The appellants in the Ordtec appeal in early 1995 challenged the 1939 Act, praying in aid Sir Richard Scott's views which he had first expressed a year earlier. However, in the Court of Appeal hearing on 22nd May, before the Lord Chief Justice, the orders made under the 1939 Act were declared lawful. We will, however, wish to consider further the future arrangements in this area in the light of Sir Richard Scott's comments.
"I turn now to the interpretation of the common law as it relates to public interest immunity. The inquiry has suggested that the law did not support, in the period of the Matrix Churchill and Ordtec trials, the concept that Ministers had a duty to sign public interest immunity certificates nor that these certificates could be used in criminal prosecutions.
"The Government followed well-established case law, backed up by independent legal advice, that Ministers both had a duty to sign PII certificates and that such certificates were applicable in criminal trials. It was then for the judge to decide which documents to release. The Attorney-General took advice on this from independent and eminent counsel and the Government's handling of PII was, incidentally, endorsed by three defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill trial. That PII claims were a matter of duty was supported by authoritative judgments of such distinguished judges as Lord Scarman, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and Lord Justice Bingham. The applicability of PII to criminal cases had been established by a decision by Lord Justice Mann. It has since been confirmed by a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
"In his report, Sir Richard Scott does not in any way question the personal integrity of the Attorney-General. He does, however, express criticism of the adequacy of the instructions to prosecuting counsel conveying the views of the then President of the Board of Trade, and in particular that the Attorney-General should personally have supervised them. It must be a matter of opinion whether that was something which the Attorney-General could reasonably have been

727
expected to do. Sir Richard does, however, accept the genuineness of the Attorney-General's belief that it was not. In any event it made no difference. The judge exercised his discretion, as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the release of the relevant papers to the defence counsel.
"The Government remain firmly of the view that the advice given at the time to Ministers by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General was correct and there is no doubt he acted throughout with complete propriety and integrity.
"The distribution of intelligence material within and between government departments is an area where the inquiry has found failings to have arisen in the 1980s. We accept that there is substance in this criticism. The report makes it clear, for example, that the junior Ministers who approved the Matrix Churchill licences for which the directors were later prosecuted did so without the benefit of intelligence reports which would have shown the intended military use of the items covered. Sir Richard concludes that the Ministers took their decisions on a false footing, which he makes clear was not their fault. Substantial revisions of procedures have already been made to prevent as far as possible a repetition of such failings. Sir Richard's report recognises that improvements in this area have been made.
"I turn to the Government's policy from the outset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. Our policy was to remain neutral in the conflict and not to sell lethal weapons to either side. Further, the Government took steps to ensure that non-lethal defence goods that could have had an impact on the way the war was prosecuted were controlled. In support of that policy, and to assist in its application as events unfolded, a set of guidelines was established in 1984 by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, then Foreign Secretary.
"The guidelines established that export orders which would, and I quote,
'significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict',
would not be approved. Following the ceasefire in August 1988, these guidelines had to be applied in changed circumstances. Opportunities for expansion of legitimate trade began to emerge. At the same time, relations with Iran and Iraq were affected by concern over the hostages in Lebanon, human rights in Iraq, the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and the safety of British nationals held in both Iraq and Iran. Ministers and officials were obliged to react to circumstances which were continually changing.
"Sir Richard Scott concludes that, following the ceasefire in 1988 but not before, government policy towards the export of non-lethal military goods changed in a way which, he believes, should have been drawn to the attention of the House. Both Ministers and officials believed at the time that they were applying policy in a way which remained within the existing guidelines and Sir Richard expressly accepts that they were sincere in doing so. However,
728
he does not agree they were correct in their belief. On this basis, he concludes that a number of Ministers' letters and answers to parliamentary Questions were inaccurate because they restated what Ministers understood to be the policy but which Sir Richard believes, in retrospect, had changed.
"Discussion about the guidelines took place on several occasions in late 1988 and early 1989 between junior Ministers and officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, as the situation developed. Those Ministers reached no settled decision to change policy which they regarded as requiring the approval of senior Ministers or an announcement to this House. As I said, Sir Richard disagrees with them but accepts they were sincere in their belief.
"The crucial issue is whether these junior Ministers intended to mislead this House and the country. Sir Richard gives an unequivocal answer on this. He accepts that the Ministers believed they were avoiding a formal change to the guidelines and that, in holding this belief, they had—to quote his words—no 'duplicitous intention'. In respect of my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary, who was at the time one of the junior Ministers concerned, Sir Richard goes on to say that—and I quote again—
'he did not intend his letters to be misleading and did not so regard them'.
My right honourable friend is therefore absolved of the charge that he intended to mislead members of this House or anyone else.
"The House will recall that the Scott Inquiry was set up following the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial in 1992. Sir Richard has scrutinised this prosecution.
"The inquiry finds no evidence of impropriety in the way in which the Matrix Churchill prosecution was brought. There was no conspiracy and no deliberate withholding of material known to be relevant that might have helped the defence. It is worth emphasising too that the court itself at the time expressed no criticism of the way in which the prosecution, with the advice of independent and well respected counsel, was brought and conducted. But, as Sir Richard Scott says, with the benefit of hindsight this was a trial which ought never to have commenced. I stress, as Sir Richard Scott himself does unequivocally, that this is a judgment with the benefit of hindsight.
"While Sir Richard dismisses the serious allegations of personal impropriety that have been made about the conduct of Government Ministers, there is a continuing line of criticism running through the report of what he describes as the,
'consistent undervaluing by Government of the public interest that full information should be made available to Parliament'.
One of his major recommendations is that there should be a review of the long-standing parliamentary convention whereby Questions on certain subjects are not answered or are not fully answered. He

729
recommends that this review should take account of an enhanced need for Ministers to provide full and accurate information to Parliament.
"This subject will form an important aspect of parliamentary consideration of the Scott Report. This Government have made advances in the openness of Government which go beyond the position of any of their predecessors. Nevertheless, it is right that we should debate these issues further in the light of the findings in Sir Richard Scott's report, and the Government are ready to do so. In the light of that debate, the Government will consider whether any amendments to current practice should be made. It would be unrealistic, however, if I did not say at the outset that there are bound to continue to be areas, particularly in the field of international diplomacy and commercial operations, in which a degree of confidentiality will sometimes be necessary.
"Sir Richard Scott's report contains a substantial section of recommendations. The Government have already taken action on a number of the issues on which the inquiry now makes recommendations; for example, on intelligence handling.
"We are able to accept others straight away, such as those relating to export controls and licensing procedures, where a consultation paper will be produced, as Sir Richard Scott recommends.
"Other recommendations, such as those on changes to the law, for example, relating to prosecution practices and the approach to public interest immunity, are technically complex and will need careful and detailed consideration. They will receive it.
"In sum, all Sir Richard Scott's recommendations are under active consideration and a number have already been accepted.
"The House will recognise that the Scott Inquiry has been long, searching and thorough. It will want to consider the report fully and to discuss the issues raised by it. There are lessons to be learned from the inquiry and Sir Richard Scott has made a number of important recommendations which the Government will now pursue. The inquiry has identified areas where systems and procedures can be improved, and these will be closely and urgently studied. The overall picture which emerges is that, while mistakes were made, Ministers and officials acted honestly and in good faith. This country went to enormous lengths rigorously to enforce a self-imposed ban on the supply of all lethal and other offensive weapons to either combatant in the Iran-Iraq war and to remain neutral in the conflict.
"Our policy towards the combatants in that terrible war was sound and principled. It stands very favourable comparison with that of any other nation. It was conducted and sustained throughout with integrity.
"Not only did Britain sell no lethal weapons to Iraq, but as Sir Richard Scott's report makes absolutely clear, neither was there any conspiracy among Ministers to send innocent men to gaol. Those who
730
alleged otherwise should now withdraw unreservedly and apologise to the House and to my right honourable and honourable friends whom they have defamed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I must confess to a certain sense of anger when I listened to the Minister reading out that Statement. I have not had an opportunity to read the report. I obtained it about 20 minutes ago in the same way as other Members of the House obtained it. But in that very short time that I had before I came into the Chamber I managed to look at three or four sections of the report. I have to say—I shall read it out in due course—that the Statement, and the gloss that has been put upon that aspect of the report, at which, as I say, I have had five minutes to glance, is frankly totally misleading and a travesty of what the report says.
I did not obtain a copy of the report earlier because, as the House will know, I was offered the chance to look at it in a controlled environment at the Department of Trade and Industry in circumstances which I regarded as totally unacceptable and insupportable. I was going to read the letter that I received from Mr. Lang. That is an argument that we have already had in the House, and so I shall read just two sentences from the letter:
"You will be met in the car park by an official of the Department. This official will escort you throughout your visit. This is for your own convenience and security".
I wondered from whom I was going to be secured: hordes of irate civil servants, no doubt, armed with their copies of the Scott Report about to attack the Opposition spokesman in the Lords.
"You will be escorted to a room in the conference suite where you will be able to read the report. You will be in an adjacent room to that of Mr. Cook as indeed will Mr. Blair. Your escort will be just outside your door".
I was then asked to give certain undertakings about the report itself—on disclosure and not to make any copies—which frankly I regarded as totally unacceptable and demeaning.
I hope that the House will therefore understand why I wrote back merely to say that I regarded the suggestions made in their letter as quite outrageous and that I was not prepared to attend on that basis.
That offer was specific, and was designed to achieve a certain object. That object was clear when the Minister read out the Statement. The object is to read out a Statement which bears not a great deal of relation to the substance of the report so that the House, and indeed the country, may get an impression of what is in the report without yet having had any opportunity to read it. I warn the House, as I have done in respect of Government Statements on a number of occasions in the past, that it is terribly important, particularly in the present atmosphere, that one reads the report and does not rely just upon the Statement.
There is not a word in the Statement which the Minister read about the fact that no less than 27 times Parliament was told that the guidelines were not changed. There is not a word in the Statement about the

731
paragraphs in the report which I managed to fish out in seven minutes. Perhaps I may read a paragraph relating to the public interest immunity certificates. It is on page 1396, for those of your Lordships who are prepared to pick up your four volumes and turn to it. It states:
"Mr. Heseltine had taken his stand, not as a result of any legal analysis which he was not equipped to make, but as a result of an apprehension that justice might not be done if the documents were withheld from the defendants. Such an apprehension on the part of a senior Minister, charged, as is the Government as a whole, with the taking of decisions regarding the maintenance of national security and the promotion of the public interest, raised very serious issues, constitutional and legal, as to the role of PII Certificates in criminal cases. If the responsible Minister does not regard the withholding of the documents from the defence as being in the public interest, what is the function of the PII Certificate that he has, so it is said, a duty to sign?".
There is not a word about that in the Statement. That bit was glossed over so as to give it the governmental spin.
I turn to the summary on PII certificates. We were told by the Minister that the Government have been totally exonerated in that regard. During the five minutes that I had, I happened to look at page 1537, which states:
"In summary, in my opinion, the making of the PII class claims and the preparation and signing of the PII Certificates in the Matrix Churchill case suffered from the following defects:
(i) Class claims were made which were not, in my opinion, warranted by authority and which ought to have had no place in a criminal trial".
That is the opinion of Lord Justice Scott. The report continues:
"Mr. Heseltine's reluctance to sign the P1I Certificate in case he thereby deprived the defendants of access to material documents evidenced an instinct for the requirements of justice that was fully justified and corresponded, in my opinion, with the legal principles correctly understood.
(ii) The Category B class claims included a number of documents [for claims of public interest immunity] of which no more could be said than that they were confidential and in respect of which, even in a civil case, a PII claim would not, in my view, have been warranted by any of the judicial authorities that have underwritten the propriety of class claims".
That is hardly a unanimous acquittal on the part of the inquiry of the Government's handling of the matter. It continues:
"(iii) Ministers were led to believe that they were not entitled, when assessing whether the PII class claims should be made, to take into account that the documents in question had the degree of materiality in a criminal trial that would, bar PH, have required their disclosure to the defence.
(iv) Mr. Heseltine was led to believe that it was his legal duty to make the PII class claim notwithstanding that it was his view that the overall public interest required the disclosure of the documents to the defence".
I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of going through the rest of this fascinating bundle. In view of the brief glance that I have been able to take in relation to chose items I suspect that I shall find some rather interesting ammunition in other parts of the report.
Where do we go from here? We shall have a debate on 26th February and I shall make only two or three simple points. In the end, the whole matter of the Scott Report and government behaviour comes down to two or three relatively simple points. First, were the guidelines changed? The answer to that is clearly yes.
732
Secondly, was Parliament misled? The answer to that is clearly yes. Thirdly, was Parliament misled knowingly and intentionally? I do not quite understand the adverb in that connection. The fact of the matter is that, on the whole, people are deemed to know the effect of their actions. If the effect of the action was to mislead, those who misled must have known that that was what the effect would be. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Government are culpable.
As regards Matrix Churchill, the issues again appear to be relatively simple. Did the Government know that the company was exporting those machine tools to Iraq? The answer to that is clearly yes. Did the Government try to ensure that the fact that they knew was kept from the trial court? The answer to that is clearly yes. Did the Government use public interest immunity certificates to try to achieve that end? The answer to that is clearly yes.
This is a murky and disreputable affair in which Parliament was misled and defendants were put at risk. Surely someone is responsible, and it is time that he faced up to it.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as some of your Lordships will know, under the conditions suggested I too did not think it right to have any access to the report until a few minutes ago. Therefore, I have had no more opportunity to look at it than the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House, except for some Members of the Government. In those circumstances, I would think it no more appropriate to comment in detail upon the report than I would to review a book which I had picked up in a bookshop and handled for a few minutes. What I can say is that it is very large, very expensive and appears to be nicely printed. I will reserve more serious comments for the debate.
The Government have gone to remarkable lengths to impose a degree of ludicrous and insulting secrecy upon one of the most elite reports in the history of reports. It is extraordinary that in these circumstances the Government should choose this afternoon, through the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister who has repeated the Statement in this House, to make a Statement of considerable length and quite exceptional density, complexity and tendentiousness. I find it very difficult to believe that any noble Lord not having a copy of the Statement in his hand could possibly have told when the Minister was quoting from Sir Richard Scott and when he was giving the ex-parte view of the Government.
I do not propose to pronounce on the detail of the report until I have read it. I did not go through it as much as did the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but it so happens that it almost fell open at page 504, paragraph D4.60. That gives a very different impression from what we have heard this afternoon. One's memory goes back to the presentation of the Franks Report on the conduct of the Falklands War at the end of 1982 or the beginning of 1983. I pay tribute to the press officer of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, because a most successful news operation was mounted, which meant that the immediate impact of that report on the afternoon and evening was very different from that which emerged in subsequent days.
I shall wait until our debate on 26th February to comment in detail. Today I shall confine myself to one comment and one question. My comment is that I never

733
believed that when the report was published a primary objective—certainly not my primary objective—would be to see the heads of Ministers roll. I do not like seeing heads rolling and I believe that the Government ought to cling on to such talent as they have within their ranks. I trust that there will be no discrimination because it would be unacceptable to have discrimination in which the heads of civil servants rolled while the heads of Ministers were sacredly preserved.
A much more fundamental question lies behind that. It is how the Government react to the overwhelming exposure in the evidence—and from what was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I believe that a good deal will come out of the report—of a culture of excessive secrecy; of a miasma of half truths and occasional untruths; and of the love of an opaque screen, almost for its own sake, about the decision-making process. That has come out in the evidence. That habit has not produced particularly effective government in this country. It has certainly contributed to the alienation of the public from the political process.
I have a very specific question to ask. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal told us two days ago that he was not among the Ministers to see an advanced copy, so that is obviously the case. Clear discriminatory and perhaps rational decisions were made as to who should see it and who should not. Will the Minister tell us whether Dr. Mawhinney, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, was among those who received the report eight days ago? Upon that answer will substantially turn whether the advance distribution was in the self-defence of threatened Ministers or for a massive news management exercise in which Dr. Mawhinney is rather pathetically thought to be expert.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I wish to deal absolutely head on with the quite disgraceful allegations that have been made about access in advance of publication. As occurred on a previous occasion when the Learmont Report was published, particular arrangements were made for the Shadow Home Secretary which exactly mirrored the timing that was available and the circumstances offered today. What happened was that the Shadow Home Secretary at least had the courtesy to thank the Minister for making those exceptional arrangements.
As regards these arrangements, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate, Lord Justice Scott was insistent that prior to the publication of his report there should be only very limited access. He required that those who were to see the report should be notified to him. When we wished to allow access to both noble Lords who have just spoken, the President of the Board of Trade had to write to Sir Richard Scott to ask to be relieved from his obligation to disclose it to no other persons and we then managed to secure that opportunity.
Furthermore, the secretary to the inquiry headed by Sir Richard Scott wrote back saying:
"I would be grateful if you would let me have details of the arrangements which you propose for access to this report".
He was provided with those details and agreed with the details that were provided. In particular, there was a document that I know was sent to those noble Lords which
734
required a signature indicating that they would not disclose it to anyone else. Those noble Lords, distinguished Privy Counsellors and holders of high political office in the past, seem to have been outraged by that suggestion. I must say, as my right honourable friend has just told another place, that he too signed just such a document. Before I was permitted access to the report, which I saw, I too had to sign such a document.
But one individual who was not given the opportunity to see that report and who was not afforded the opportunity even to give an undertaken of secrecy was the Chairman of the Conservative Party, Dr. Brian Mawhinney. Therefore, no effort was made by the Government to make it impossible for those who wished to have limited access. I hope that noble Lords who have spent so much time on that matter will appreciate that, in describing the events as outrageous in the vernacular, it is they who are rubbishing Scott, not anyone on behalf of the Government.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is telling us how generous the Government were in relation to access to the report. He will know that my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that, far from having the report at 12 noon, access should be given under those terms and conditions at nine o'clock in the morning. Having seen the size of the report, will the noble and learned Lord tell us why that request was not acceded to?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to dig a deeper hole for himself, far be it from me to stop him. But I understand that what we proposed as being the appropriate arrangements were very much what Lord Justice Scott considered to be appropriate.
Of course I appreciate that, even if the document had been available at nine o'clock in the morning, as it has 2,000 pages clearly it would be extremely difficult to do more than skim it. But the point that needs to be grasped is that this is a Statement which accompanies the publication of the report. I believe that I have set out fully and fairly what are the Government's initial reactions to it. I should have thought that it would be welcome and useful to your Lordships' House to have some indication of those recommendations that are accepted without question; those areas on which we think there should be further debate; those areas on which we should go out to consultation; and those areas where we consider that we must, with respect, disagree with Lord Justice Scott. That seems to me a proper way to approach the matter, particularly in view of the fact that we have arranged that on 26th February there will be a full debate on this matter in both Houses of Parliament. We shall then have the opportunity for an informed debate on what is contained in the report.
Perhaps I may deal with two particular matters that were raised by the noble Lords who have spoken. In relation to the PII certificates, I took some time in the Statement to indicate that not only did the Attorney-General have the advice of eminent and independent counsel but he understood that he was

735
following through a clear line of authority. I cited the names of those judges from which that authority was derived.
The short, simple conclusion should be that, had the Attorney-General decided to go against that independent and eminent advice from counsel, he would have been utterly perverse in the discharge of his duties as Attorney-General. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to study very carefully what is said in the report about public interest immunity because in my heart of hearts I believe that he will probably accept that the view which the Attorney-General took of the law in 1988, 1989 and 1992 would probably be the same as his own.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is it not right that Matrix Churchill was the first case in which class PII certificates had been claimed in a criminal trial?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord finds it difficult to read the whole of the report, he may like to read what I said in the Statement, when I gave an indication of where the very issue of class claims was first considered. If the noble Lord does that he will understand what was the law. He will readily appreciate that subsequent to that there has been a development of the law culminating in the recent ex parte Wiley case.
The noble Lord said also that he considered it to be quite clear that the policy set out in the guidelines had changed. I accept that that is one of the central issues in this report. There are two points that I make about that in repetition of what I said in the Statement. First, those three Ministers who looked at it, and looked in particular at the third of the guidelines which referred to significant enhancement and contained the words "in our view", took the view then that they were justifiably using the flexibility contained within those guidelines. Sir Richard Scott does not agree with that view of it, but he says that Ministers who were looking at the matter then did not do so in the belief that they were changing the policy and he said expressly that they did not do so with "duplicitous intention". I hope that I have answered fully the questions put by both noble Lords. But, really, if access is the only matter, it seems to me that that is a thin response to the report.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, as no one else has risen to speak, I am happy to do so for a moment. It seems to me that the Government have been in power for so long that they simply have no appreciation of the offence that they cause to senior Privy Counsellors who are asked to subscribe to conditions that I regard as being absolutely offensive and demeaning. I fully understand why my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, behaved as they did. I probably would have done the same.
That is a minor matter in one sense. The other matter I wish to raise is, I suppose, relatively minor. I believe that the Statement we heard repeated is close to an abuse of normal, parliamentary procedure. It was not wholly, as it should have been, a Statement of the Government's reactions to the report. It was an attack on some honourable Members of another place, which is quite out
736
of place in such a Statement. That should have been reserved for the debate. It is clear that the Statement was intended to damage without Members of another place having an opportunity immediately to respond because they were not aware what was in it.
Those two matters are procedural. The third matter I find a little difficult to understand is that, if I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly—I experienced some difficulty in deciding when he was quoting from the report and when he was reading the Statement—Lord Justice Scott came to the conclusion that, when writing letters, the Ministers concerned not only had no intention of deceiving anyone, but also did not realise that there was a difference between what they were writing and the lines of policy that had been laid down.
I am sure that both Ministers will be very relieved at that decision—I would certainly not wish to dissent from anything if that is so—but there is something which puzzles me. Is there any information given in the report, or any reason suggested, as to why a highly intelligent man like Mr. Waldegrave, a Fellow of All Souls and a man of the utmost intellectual distinction, should not have recognised that what he was writing was different from the policy that had been laid down? It seems awfully difficult to understand that someone of that distinction should not recognise the fact that what he was saying was different from the policy to which he had agreed. Is there any explanation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I very much regret if the noble Lord believes that I departed in any way from the practice that is appropriate when repeating such a Statement on the publication of a report. I do not want to weary the House in the limited time available, but I must ask the noble Lord whether, during his time in politics, he can recollect a time of such sustained attacks on Ministers about what might be in a report before it was available to enable anyone to form an opinion? I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I ant much obliged. I believe that the answer is yes. I have in mind the Stanley Report of 1946–47. Anyone who recalls the occasion will remember the sustained attack made upon Hugh Dalton, Mr. Stanley and, indeed, on a number of other people. I must tell the noble and learned Lord in response that it would have been far better and more appropriate if the Government had just published the report and delayed any Statement of theirs for 48 hours so as to give everyone the opportunity to read it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I was aged 18 months at the time, so I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not remember the report. What had been heralded prior to today's Statement by those on the Opposition Benches in another place was that the report would clearly reveal that a number of Ministers had acted in such a way that their resignations ought to be instant. In such circumstances, it seems to me entirely appropriate that, in putting forward a Statement on behalf of the Government, a number of observations in the report by Lord Justice Scott should he highlighted

737
which, far from attacking the integrity of those Ministers, make it quite clear that their conduct remains unimpeachable.
I am also concerned that the noble Lord indicated that he would not have been prepared to submit to the type of conditions that were asked of those who wanted access to the report prior to its publication. I can only repeat that they were not conditions and an approach simply dreamt up by an officious government; indeed, it was what was required of government by Sir Richard Scott who headed up the inquiry. It was in those circumstances that not only were those noble Lords on the Benches opposite invited to sign the document, but so also was the most senior member of Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister, who signed such a certificate without demur.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can my noble and learned friend the Minister confirm that the Attorney-General correctly advised Ministers that it was their responsibility, and hence their duty, to decide whether to claim immunity and not to usurp the functions of the judge who decided later, having read all the documents, whether they should be disclosed in the public interest? Can my noble and learned friend also confirm that there was no reason—and, indeed, not one has been found in the report which none of us has read—which would lead one to suppose that it would have been right for the Attorney-General to have taken over the personal supervision of a Customs and Excise proceedings?
Can my noble and friend also confirm that, contrary to the suggestion in The Times today, the Attorney-General made no attempt to influence the decision of the Ministers, nor did he make any attempt to influence the decision of the judge? I found the relevant passage in the report by chance. It is to be found on page 1361 of Volume III at G13.76. It says that there was no cause for the Attorney-General to read the documents which would be read by the judge and that he did not do so. In those circumstances, any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the Attorney-General was wholly without foundation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated when repeating the Statement, there is certainly no attack on the personal integrity of the Attorney-General. I believe that I spelt out in some detail the basis upon which the Attorney-General proffered advice to those Ministers who had to sign PII certificates. In the ensuing circumstances, it seems to me that the law followed through its course exactly as might have been expected: the PII certificates were signed; they were submitted to the court; the court deliberated upon them and ruled on a significant number of them. The outcome of the ruling by the court was that the decision regarding most of the documents in respect of which public interest immunity had been claimed was overturned. The documents were then handed over to the defence counsel in the trial. As I revealed earlier, three of the defence counsel accepted that the way the Government handled the PII certificates was indeed correct. If the Attorney-General had acted other than he did, I believe that it would have been perverse.
738
However, there is one criticism of the Attorney-General which was spelt out by Sir Richard Scott. He was concerned that, given Mr. Michael Heseltine's particular views on the subject matter in respect of which he was invited to sign a certificate, the Attorney-General should have made sure that those views were conveyed to prosecuting counsel. I indicated that it is a matter of opinion whether someone in the position of the Attorney-General could have been expected reasonably to have done just that. That is a matter for debate. However, I wish to stress that Sir Richard was in no doubt that the Attorney-General was honest in his belief that it was not for him to do that, and indeed his workload was such that he would be overburdened if he tried to take on that sort of task on every occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate, as I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House do, that it is really useless to comment on the Statement in so far as it refers to the report until we have had an opportunity of reading the report. I wonder whether the Minister can deal, however, with one question. I imagine that he and his colleagues are extremely satisfied with the fair conduct of the inquiry by Sir Richard Scott. I pause to see whether or not the Minister nods his head. I invite him to nod his head. Does the fact that he does not nod his head mean that he does not agree that Sir Richard Scott conducted this inquiry in that way, or is he as wary of making any reply, committal or non-committal, as seems to be the case on this occasion with many of the questions that we have in our minds? I ask him this: if he is content with the fair conduct of this inquiry by Sir Richard Scott, can he explain the conduct of his senior colleagues, past Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, in criticising Sir Richard Scott, as they have done in the media and elsewhere, in the way that, quite honestly, no serious and responsible person could without even having read the report? Was the criticism, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Howe, and others of his colleagues made on the basis that they thought that the report would be rather more critical of them than it was? Is this the way to treat Her Majesty's judges, and certainly one of the most senior and fine judges that the country has the privilege of having?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord can scrutinise Hansard tomorrow and read my subsequent remarks. I defy him to find anywhere in my words any personal criticism of Lord Justice Scott. Certainly it is no part of my purpose in responding to questions on this Statement to offer any such criticism. On the contrary, I began by indicating to your Lordships that those who have the opportunity to read this full report will appreciate the extraordinary diligence with which he undertook his task. The noble Lord will appreciate from the Statement that there are a number of matters on which Lord Justice Scott made recommendations which are accepted. There are criticisms which he made that are accepted, and there are a number of issues where, with respect, we do not agree with Sir Richard Scott. That seems to me to be a perfectly responsible position for us to hold, and it is one which we can debate on 26th February.

739
I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Howe is more than able to explain his own views on the fairness or otherwise of the procedures followed by Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. I would simply say that I certainly acknowledge it has been carried out extremely thoroughly. I have not come across anything that I would consider to be, in a crude fashion, unfair. As I say, there are passages with which I do not agree, not least as regards Sir Richard's interpretation of some parts of the law. However, what is interesting and valuable in the report—which no doubt will be of particular interest to the noble Lord—is that Sir Richard considers whether the six cardinal principles set out in Salmon ought to be applied in each and every circumstance where there is an inquiry. He explains forcefully and robustly why he does not believe the right to cross-examination should be afforded on every occasion. I have no doubt that, independent of the substance of this report, the way he has approached that particular issue will certainly give rise to a great deal of debate and interest among lawyers.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that when I picked up my copy of this report a few moments ago I fell into the familiar trap of most politicians when considering a book or publication about politics; namely, I looked for references to myself? I discovered that I am accused, on page 73, of a reprehensible abuse of executive power in the course of carrying out my duties as President of the Board of Trade. Does my noble and learned friend suggest that I should be more upset at that accusation than comforted by the fact that it is also made against my noble friend Lord Cockfield, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, the late John Smith, Sir Edward Heath and Mr. Peter Shore, to name but a few of the 15 who were accused of abusing executive powers? Does that not make the report slightly extraordinary?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I take it that my noble friend is referring to the occasions on which the powers that were available under the 1939 Act were exercised. It is certainly the case that on repeated occasions since the previous war that measure has been used by successive governments. It was a matter that was open to challenge. It was challenged in the Ordtec trial and a decision was made in the Court of Appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that the court upheld the legality of the orders made under the 1939 Act, we should like to look again at the whole issue in the light of the observations that have been made. However, my noble friend might remember that when the particular provisions of the 1939 Act ceased to be temporary and became permanent, that was done with the agreement of the Opposition, and the absence of any provision for even the negative resolution procedure was omitted from the Act with the knowledge and, indeed, possibly, at the instigation of the Opposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord one question arising from the Statement. He referred to the Learmont Report as being in some way analogous with the one we are
740
discussing. Is he aware that that is a nonsensical comparison? The Learmont Report was a limited report on prison security. It raises none of the issues of the Scott Report and therefore the comparison he made in justifying, or attempting to justify, these strange distribution arrangements really does fall pretty flat.
However, on the question of the distribution arrangements, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As I understand it, the Government's case is that everything they have done in relation to the distribution arrangements is entirely because of the views of Sir Richard Scott. That is their position, as I understand it. That being so, I ask the noble and learned Lord one question. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons to the Prime Minister in which he asked for these reports to be made available at nine o'clock in the morning. Can I take it that Sir Richard Scott was consulted on that point? Can I also take it that he was opposed to it? Is that the Government's position?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is certainly my understanding that when the suggestion was made that it should be made available from lunchtime, or twelve o'clock, he was in agreement with that. I certainly understand that to be his view. I did not suggest that the Learmont Report was, in terms of physical size, like this report. I referred to the Learmont Report to point out that on that occasion an exceptionally long period of consideration was allowed prior to the Statement. That decision was viewed with gratitude in another place. There have been many larger reports published as parliamentary papers where the period allowed to Opposition spokesmen for consideration has been much shorter than the time permitted on this occasion. It was only for that limited purpose that I made that observation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would it be fair to assume, following the noble and learned Lord's 20 minute repetition of the Statement made in the other place after more than three years' work by Lord Justice Scott, which has resulted in a report of 1,800 pages, that there is nothing wrong at all and everything is okay?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is not a fair summary of what I said in the Statement. I recognised that on a number of matters, including the handling of intelligence, there were problems with procedures. I indicated that had those procedures been better it is likely that a different view would have been arrived at in the Matrix Churchill case. I also indicated that on a number of matters it would be appropriate to go out to consultation. I made it quite clear that there was a set of criticisms. I certainly did not indicate that there were no difficulties whatever
What I did set out—and I make no apology for doing so, given the outrageous accusations that have been made against a number of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place—was that this was an entirely suitable occasion to demand of those who have made those accusations, without having seen the report, that they withdraw them unequivocally.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.50 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 (The Viscount of Oxfuird) in the Chair.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 187:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
MATTERS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL ACCESS SYSTEMS AND SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND LICENCES TO RUN SYSTEMS
(". After section 191 of the 1990 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
"Matters relating to conditional access systems and subscriber management services.
191A.—(1) Any person who runs a conditional access system or a subscriber management service in relation to a television programme service shall be required to obtain from the Director a licence for the running of such system or service.
(2) The Director may after consultation with the Commission and such other persons as appear to the Director to be appropriate grant a licence for the running of a conditional access system or a subscriber management service in relation to a television programme service.
(3) A licence granted under this section shall be in writing and, unless previously revoked in accordance with any term in that behalf contained in the licence, shall continue in force for such period as may be specified in or determined by or under the licence.
(4) A licence granted under this section may be granted to all persons, to persons of a class or to a particular person.
(5) A licence granted under this section may include—

(a)such conditions as appear to the Director to be requisite or expedient having regard to the duties imposed on him by subsection (9) below;

(b)conditions requiring payment to the Director on the grant of the licence or payments during the currency of the licence or both of such amount or amounts as may be determined by or under the licence; and

(c)conditions requiring any person who is authorised by the licence to run a conditional access system or a subscriber management service to furnish to the Director, in such manner and at such times as he may reasonably require, such documents, accounts, estimates, returns or other information as he may reasonably require.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above, conditions included by virtue of that paragraph in a licence granted under this section to a particular person may require that person—

(a)to comply with any direction given by the Director as to such matters as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;

(b)except in so far as the Director consents to his doing or not doing them, not to do or to do such things as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified; and

(c) to refer for determination by the Director such questions arising under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified.

(7) A licence granted under this section otherwise than to a particular person shall be published in such manner as the Director considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons for whose benefit it will enure.
(8) Any sums received by the Director under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Director to exercise his function in the grant of licences hereunder in the manner which he considers is best calculated—

(a)to ensure fair and effective competition between persons engaged in the provision of conditional access systems, subscriber management services and services connected with them in particular television programme services;

(b)to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom (in particular in respect of the prices charged, the quality and variety of service) of conditional access systems, subscriber management services and services connected with them in particular television programme services.

(10) The holding by any person of a licence authorising the provision of a conditional access system or subscriber management service shall not relieve him of any requirement to hold a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 in connection with the provision of such a service or system.
Licences to run systems.
191B.—(1) Any person who runs a conditional access system or a subscriber management service within the United Kingdom shall be guilty of an offence unless he is authorised to run such a system or service by licence granted under section 191A above.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(3) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director.
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2) compliance with this section shall be enforceable by civil proceedings for an injunction or interdict or other appropriate relief.
(5) In this section and in section 191A—
"conditional access system" means any system or apparatus designed or adapted for the origination, initial transmission and final reception of signals for the actuation, operation or control from another place of other apparatus by means of which such signals comprising encrypted television programme services (save for such services which are broadcast in digital form) broadcast for general reception may be received and decrypted.
"subscriber management service" means a service provided to any person operating a conditional access system or to any other person in connection with television programme services (save for such services which are broadcast in digital form) provided or transmitted by another person whether or not that last person is in the United Kingdom for billing or payment handling in respect of charges for and payments received from viewers of encrypted television programme services broadcast for general reception in the United Kingdom. Broadcast shall include transmission by wire or other electromagnetic means.
"Director"meanstheDirectorGeneralof Telecommunications.".").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment enables the Government to extend their own code on conditional access to encryption services from digital satellite services to analogue satellite services. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain. The principle is simple, even if the technology is slightly complicated.
At present the only encrypted programmes available in this country are analogue channels broadcast by BSkyB, which are subscription channels. Encryption means that the signal is scrambled and the viewer, to see the broadcast, has to have a black box with a card. The card one pays for when one subscribes; it is the means by which the broadcaster collects his revenue.
The Government have rightly recognised that those who control the delivery systems should not unfairly bar others, subject to reasonable terms and conditions, from access to the system to transmit their programmes. As a result, the Government announced in their new framework for digital television in January this year that it was proposed that the regulation of conditional access would be by way of licence conditions issued by the DTI and enforced by Oftel. That was good news for all except the ITC which, having long called for that safeguard, found that it was not to be the ITC but Oftel which would be the proposed regulator.
I believe that my amendment is important because on closer inspection of the government proposals it became clear that the new rules affect only digital transmissions and not analogue transmissions. Earlier in the Committee stage, speaking to an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, my noble friend the Minister said that conditional access to analogue systems was a "transitional and temporary matter". That is why this protection was not included.
Nearly 25 per cent. of the homes in this country currently receive analogue services. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has said, the analogue system may be used by at least 50 per cent. of those with such systems for the next 15 years. That is also the industry's view. It cannot even suggest a start date for digital transmissions. In relation to an earlier amendment the Government would not give a firm switch-off date for analogue. Digital broadcasting involves a new set-top box. It takes time to change. Therefore, this is hardly a transitional or temporary problem.
My noble friend also said that conditional access was covered by general competition law and any amendment would impose unnecessary burdens. If that is true why do we need a whole new set of regulations for digital broadcasting? Why is that not also covered by existing competition law? It is the same issue and the same problem.
It is a problem now because the Office of Fair Trading, following complaints from some cable operators, announced in December that it was to conduct a review of the issues relating to the supply of programming. It is of particular importance because cable companies provide the access while BSkyB is not only provider of access but also a main provider of programmes. The Office of Fair Trading has said that it expects its review to take up to six months. That means that it could be completed after the Bill has gone through Parliament.
My noble friend also said that any shift in regulating the current market would undoubtedly damage investor confidence in the opportunities for digital terrestrial broadcasting. I do not believe that there is a shift, because the OFT demanded the same safeguards in informal undertakings by BSkyB. It is into those informal undertakings that it is now inquiring. Secondly, any investor in digital broadcasting will be subject to exactly the same conditions announced by the DTI and as proposed in the amendment before being granted a licence by Oftel.
My noble friend's final point was that the Bill was concerned with digital transmission in the future. I have to say to my noble friend that even a cursory glance at the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum shows that it is also about ownership and the control of current analogue systems. We have heard a great deal about digital transmission both in Committee and at Second Reading. Digital broadcasting is undoubtedly the future. It is also in the future, and will not arrive for some time in the future.
My amendment has one other small advantage. It will encourage the use of a single satellite set-top box. The analogue market is far from being unimportant and transitory: quite the opposite. New channels are launched all the time.
Parliament must act now and put these safeguards in the Bill. If we wait for the outcome of the review it will be too late. My amendment follows and extends the Government's own policy. It protects those in the industry and it protects the consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Viscount puts a reasoned and reasonable case to the Minister on the question of conditional access in relation to analogue broadcasts. I await with optimism the Minister's response to the arguments.
I spoke at length on the general arguments in favour of conditional access to both digital and analogue broadcasts earlier in the Committee stage and I shall not repeat those arguments. However, I shall say a word about one matter the noble Viscount mentioned, namely, the position of the Director General of Telecommunications under the amendment as against the position of the ITC.
There is a problem which would still need to be examined if the Minister were prepared to accept the general thrust of the noble Viscount's amendment. It applies in particular to subsection (9)(b) of the proposed Section 191A of the amendment. The subsection includes the phrase,
"subscriber management services and services connected with them in particular television programme services".
There is a real issue of conflicting responsibilities between the ITC, which is the regulator of programme standards in this country, and the Director General of Telecommunications.
The noble Viscount raises the general issue of having a licensing system for analogue broadcasting. In Committee on 8th February, Hansard reports me as having said that I was "battered" by the Minister's refusal to do for analogue what he was ready to do for

745
digital. The Minister would never use the verb "to batter" in his arguments. He is too courteous and reasonable. The word that I used was "baffled". I am bound to say that I shall remain baffled if he does not accede to the persuasive arguments put to him.
I am reinforced by a piece of evidence from the managing director of General Cable, who wrote to my noble friend Lord Ezra. Mr. Philippe Galteau said, and I quote him directly because I believe that it is relevant to the issue:
"Experience has shown that BSkyB has been able to create a de facto monopoly, which it abuses, by developing a proprietary encryption and conditional access system, called Videocrypt.
"Some 3 million Videocrypt decoders have been purchased by customers who can receive Direct to Home (DTH) satellite TV.
"Programmers attracted by the UK market have to deal either with BSkyB on BSkyB's conditions or sell their services to cable operators, who presently gather 1 million TV customers.
"This enables BSkyB to impose its conditions on both programmers and cable operators, and to customers ultimately. As an example, the price was increased by about 20% in October 1995, and customers have to buy the full basic package before they can access the pay channels of their choice, movies or sports".
I put that on the record as evidence that there is a problem to be dealt with.
I note that The Times reports—as the noble Viscount mentioned—that the OFT is investigating industry complaints that BSkyB is abusing its dominance of the pay TV market. I note the point that the noble Viscount made: that that investigation is almost bound to run for a longer period than the processes of the Bill in this House and another place. The argument for doing something about conditional access in relation to analogue is now very strong. The noble Viscount quoted the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue in saying that the system will last for another 10 or 15 years. It will last, I think, well into the next century. There is a real need to regulate now. Having had some opportunity to meditate on these matters since my earlier approach, I hope that the Minister will give us a favourable reply.
5 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I believe—it is the view of this side in this House and in another place—that this is one of perhaps the three most important issues in the Bill. The issue will not go away for the Government; it will keep coming back unless the Minister feels able to do the sensible thing and move a little closer to our position.
It is absolutely crucial to regulate the control gateway—the black box decoding system. There are two aspects involved. First, the general need to fill what one might call the analogue gap until digital arrives; and, secondly, related to that issue, the more specific problem that Sky is both the black box controller and the programme provider. That gives scope for abuse which needs regulating now. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, cited one example. We know that there are others.
That is the heart of our concern. It is a serious concern. There is a real problem. However, I am bewildered—I do not say that I am baffled as there are problems with that word—because the Government
746
have provided us with an excellent solution for licensing digital which is attached to the Bill. We are all happy with the solution but it applies to the dim, distant and perhaps murky future. We do not ask the Government to make different provision. We ask them to make the same excellent provision for analogue now, when the real problems exist, that they have suggested for the future.
Having observed what an intelligent and flexible man the Minister is, I cannot believe that he is personally associated with this blind inflexibility to the suggestion of his noble friend his predecessor, who in his years in the job learned a great deal about the situation. That is why on this side we were happy to rally behind the noble Viscount although we did so less often when he was at the Dispatch Box.
I suspect that the Department of Industry is behind this aspect. It has all the "sniffy" waffle and lack of clarity that has characterised that department through history before the present Administration. I should like to give the Minister a little support, and a little nudge to strengthen him if he has to deal with those people. If so, all my sympathy is with him.
I shall not delay the Committee longer because we started the debate late and we have spoken on the matter previously. However, I believe that it is a most critical issue. There is a clear solution. The solution has been devised by the Government. All that is needed is for the Government to apply to analogue what they are doing for digital. I support totally what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested. As I said, the issue will not go away.
Lord Chalfont: I am sure that the Committee will agree with the description of the Minister. He has virtually acquired angelic status in the House since the Bill began. It is also true to say that we all realise that he is not entirely master in this context. However, the arguments that impressed me in favour of the amendment are those about the uncertainty of the development of a digital regime. Those have been well put. Digital will be expensive. It will suffer from the chicken-and-egg argument about whether the manufacturers will build the sets so that the broadcasters can broadcast to them or whether those people will delay the building of the sets until they see an effective broadcast system. That will lead to delay.
Other issues will lead to delay. We have only to consider what happened when the format of video cassettes changed, or when we moved from tapes to compact discs. Those technical changes take time. I am impressed by the argument that we do not know when the digital regime will be fully implemented. Therefore, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, careful consideration must be given to what happens in the gap, so to speak. I hope very much that the Minister will persuade his right honourable friend and his colleagues that the matter needs to be considered seriously.
Viscount Caldecote: I regret having to speak against the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord

747
Astor, particularly since he has been extremely helpful and constructive in the discussions that some of us have had on other provisions in Part IV of the Bill.
While there may not be anything very bad or wrong about the amendment, there is no need for it. It is a good principle of legislation that one has the minimum of legislation. If we tried to pass laws that would cover all possible contingencies—all the nasty things that might happen in the future—we would be in an unhappy state.
Videocrypt was developed by BSkyB, which owns it. However, it has never refused any applicant who has asked to be allowed to use the system. Only 10 out of the 30 encrypted channels are owned by BSkyB. There is plenty of room for others. If a monopoly or unfair trading situation arose in the future, it could be dealt with by the legislation under the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. There is nothing wrong with the amendment. It is just totally unnecessary and will produce more bureaucracy and red tape. It is also hardly in line with the Government's excellent policy of deregulation.
Lord Donoughue: Before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps he will help me on one point. If the approach in the amendment is not necessary for the analogue system, why is it necessary for digital, as the Government propose? Will the noble Viscount assure the House that he will oppose the Government introducing it for digital?
Viscount Caldecote: I shall certainly not oppose that because it is in the future. As many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have said, a big new world has been brought about by digital technology. It is for the future and we need to be careful about it. The clauses dealing with it are fully justified because we are moving into an unknown area, with an enormous number of new channels available. In opposition to the amendment, we have experience of what has happened in the past few years. There has been no abuse and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Donoughue: Before the noble Viscount sits clown, will he agree that the black box technology is technology-neutral between analogue and digital? Therefore, logically he should take the same approach to both. Either he opposes a statutory attempt to deal with it or he supports it in both cases. I cannot see the logic of taking one position for one and a different position for the other.
Viscount Caldecote: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take my own view. He will not press me into changing my mind by telling me that it is illogical. I am telling him why I think that it is logical. We must agree to disagree.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: I must also apologise to my noble friend Lord Astor for the fact that I shall speak against his amendment. It worries me that when the Government have succeeded in cutting huge swathes from the forests of regulatory red tape which surround our industries, he is seeking now to introduce new ones
748
in their place; that is, restrictive regulatory frameworks which serve no other purpose than to stifle the very incentives needed to attract new risk capital and investment to ensure the success of this young and exciting industry.
The amendment, if accepted, will introduce new, burdensome licensing requirements for analogue conditional access systems when there is absolutely no reason for doing so. Furthermore, it would send a message to other new technology industries that investment and success will be penalised through more restriction and regulation.
It does not stop there either. It would also introduce even more licensing requirements for television subscriber management services. Such a cavalier and ill-conceived approach to new regulation is disturbing, particularly when one examines the levels of free and fair competition that already exist in the markets into which it has been introduced.
Perhaps I could deal with the new licensing requirements for analogue conditional access first. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Donoughue, that the requirements are necessary because BSkyB has monopoly control over Videocrypt, the dominant analogue conditional access system in the UK. They say that new competitors could be exploited or prevented from entering the market altogether. That is simply not true.
In the six years since BSkyB pioneered its conditional access system, no applicant for its use has ever been turned away. Indeed, we have heard that there are now more non-Sky channels than Sky channels which use Videocrypt in the UK. It is actually in BSkyB's interest to expand the number of UK satellite channels. Quite simply, the more channels there are, the more customers there are and the bigger the audience.
In fact, instead of restricting competition, it is my view that BSkyB has fostered competition. It has created a conditional access system available to all. The UK Gold, the Discovery channel, the Children's channel and TV Asia, to name but a few, have all been able to tap straight into an established market. Ironically, without Sky it is questionable whether those competitor channels would exist at all. Like Sky, they do not enjoy automatic access to every television home, as do the terrestrial TV services, nor guaranteed income from a compulsory TV licence.
BSkyB has had to build its distribution system and audience, home by home, without the terrestrial broadcasters' privileges. Thanks to its original investment and willingness to take risks, new channels are able to gain access to new audiences at low additional cost and at a fraction of the risk. In any case, any abuse that occurred would be adequately dealt with by existing regulators such as the OFT, the MMC and the European Commission Competition Directorate.
Viscount Astor: If that is the case, why do we need conditional access for digital? Why cannot that be done under the same OFT? Neither of my noble friends seems able to answer that question.
Lord Colwyn: We are attempting to answer that question and the reply will come out as we proceed.

749
BSkyB has had to build its distribution system and audience, home by home, without the terrestrial broadcasters' privileges. Thanks to its original investment and willingness to take risks, new channels are available at a fraction of the cost.
So where is the logic of this new regulation? What is the point of introducing licensing controls when there is no market abuse? The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested that there was a potential for abuse. But I fail to see how he has arrived at that conclusion. It is clearly in BSkyB's interest to let as many companies use the Videocrypt system as possible.
There is an equal, if not greater, case against the amendment with regard to the question of licences for television subscriber management systems; that is, the billing, payment and customer service aspects, apart from the encryption and decoding functions of conditional access. What is the reason, I ask the noble Viscount, for introducing new licences for those when there are identical unlicensed systems used by cable companies and other UK industries? Would he intend, for example, to introduce licences for subscriber management systems used by American Express, Lloyds Bank and other financial and credit card operations? Furthermore, there are already at least two other UK-based satellite television services which use subscriber management services separate from that used by BSkyB and numerous other European systems such as those used by the French CanalPlus and Premiere in Germany. In short, anyone can create their own subscriber management service. There is nothing particularly complicated or exclusive about it. Consequently, there can by definition be no gateway control and no need for burdensome regulations.
To sum up, I see no reason for new regulations in either the market for analogue conditional access systems or that for subscriber management services in analogue or digital television. The equitable and balanced status quo should remain.
The Earl of Stockton: I find myself in the happy position of being able to support my noble friend Lord Astor on this occasion. We are talking about ensuring that there is as prompt a transition as possible. His amendment is exactly in line with one that I tabled at an earlier stage in Committee to try to persuade the Government to put a finite date to the end of analogue transmissions. On that basis, I have to support him.
Lord Inglewood: Today, as last week, we have had an extensive and helpful debate on regulating conditional access and subscriber management. Perhaps I may begin by commenting to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that it is no part of my purpose either to baffle or batter him. If I had to do one or the other, I would rather baffle him.
I was pleased at the support that your Lordships gave to the proposals which the Government published on 15th January for regulating conditional access services for digital television, transposing the provisions of the EU Television Standards Directive of October last year into United Kingdom law. This amendment concerns the
750
separate question of introducing a new regime for the existing conditional access services for analogue television which already fall within the scope of competition policy. As I said last week, the Government have considered this matter carefully but do not agree that a new system of regulation for analogue conditional access would be justified at this stage in the development of that market. I should like to repeat the case that I made last week and to do so in a concise way, not because I want to give the Committee short measure but because we have covered much of the ground already and I do not want to take up the Committee's time just for the sake of it. We take that view, as a deregulatory government, for three main reasons.
First, the analogue satellite market extends to only about 15 per cent. of UK households. We do not expect this market share to increase substantially because digital satellite is likely to be introduced within a couple of years and to replace analogue satellite equipment relatively quickly thereafter. Digital conditional access, by contrast, is likely to become important for virtually all UK households, and accordingly justifies a specific regulatory regime over and above normal competition law—as is clear from the EU directive, which quite specifically confines itself to digital conditional access. We have, as is only right, let potential investors in digital television know of the future regulatory arrangements in advance, before they commit themselves to substantial investments.
That brings me to my second point, which concerns fairness, investment confidence and regulatory stability. The amendment would change after the event the rules for operating in the time-limited analogue satellite conditional access market. The Government's reputation for promoting regulatory stability should not be jeopardised unless there is exceptional justification. The United Kingdom has been highly successful in attracting international investment precisely because the Government have earned the reputation over the years for not introducing new regulation unnecessarily and for not standing in the way of investors earning a return on successful projects. BSkyB's analogue satellite business has involved it taking very significant commercial risks, and it has continued to invest heavily in the business to promote its successful growth. We see the benefits of that investment around the UK, not least in employment in Scotland. If we move the regulatory goal posts now in the manner proposed, we also specifically risk jeopardising the investment confidence of prospective investors in digital television. They may well fear that if they start to earn profits on a risky investment in a few years' time, the Government will change the regulatory regime to their disadvantage. I therefore ask the Committee to consider most carefully the wider implications of this amendment.
The third reason is that competition policy offers proper safeguards. The Director General of Fair Trading is currently reviewing BSkyB's supply of programming to the analogue market, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I invite any noble Lords who are aware of evidence of such behaviour to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading in the context of his current investigation. The review is highly relevant to our debate. Any impact of BSkyB's

751
conditional access market dominance on others affected by it can be assessed by that review. The Government believe that a proper process of inquiry by the competition authorities is the best way of responding to the concerns expressed today, which are entirely connected with the possible economic effects of an alleged abuse of a dominant position. Also, competition law has both domestic and European aspects. Where the operator of the only product abuses that monopoly position, those affected can make representations to the European Commission or challenge abuse in the courts, using European law.
I recognise the serious concerns which have been expressed during the debates on this subject in Committee. In restating that the Government, with their commitment to deregulation, do not regard the case for specific regulation as having been made, I am not seeking to deny those concerns. I am merely saying that the existing processes are adequate to deal with any mischiefs in the existing analogue market. For those reasons, the Government remain opposed to the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I feared earlier that I would be unable to persuade my noble friend the Minister this afternoon. I listened with great care to what he said. I also listened with care to what others have said and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Donoughue and Lord Chalfont. There is support for this amendment from all around the House and I hope that my noble friend recognises that fact.
A couple of points were raised by my noble friend Lord Caldecote who asked why a review was needed if these things were not happening. The simple answer is that there is a review taking place by the OFT. There have been complaints and it is looking at informal assurances made by BSkyB to OFT. That is one of the reasons that the review is needed. There are current complaints.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn said that it was new regulation and spoke of a "cavalier" approach. I am not making any new regulation. I am just taking the Government's own exact regulation and saying that it must cover analogue as well. My noble friend said that no one had been turned away, and that may be true. But if there is any market abuse—I do not say that there is at all—it is not a matter of people being turned away but of the terms and conditions on which they are allowed to join. That is what is important. My noble friend also said that the amendment might affect credit card operators and the like. That was suggested to me by BSkyB and I have to say that it is a little piece of mischief-making by that organisation. My amendment does nothing of the kind.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn said that there were European systems which could be used by anybody wishing to broadcast in this country. Of course there are European systems, but that means that anybody who wanted to see them would have to get a new black box. One of the purposes of the Bill is to look forward so that no one has to have stacks of black boxes on top of or below the television.
752
The industry and the consumer need protection. My noble friend said that some could make a challenge in the courts. But consumers cannot do that. They do not have the ability. Parliament must protect those people. He also said that digital satellite broadcasting was likely to be introduced in a couple of years. But that is a claim that not even BSkyB makes. It is unable to say when it will start broadcasting satellite digital programmes and certainly it cannot say when it will cease broadcasting satellite analogue programmes.
I accept that I have been unable to persuade my noble friend. But I listened carefully to what he said and felt that there were some points between us that we might take forward between now and Report stage. I realise that this is an area where we transgress onto the DTI's policy. But if the DTI believes that analogue is yesterday's technology and if that is its understanding of broadcasting, perhaps, after all, I should have named the ITC as regulator—I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, nods his head—and not Oftel.
I shall not give up now. I shall not press my noble friend. I hope he will agree that between now and Report stage he will let me come and persuade him and his colleagues of the necessity of my amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 191:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
REGULATION OF TELEVISION PROGRAMME SERVICES
(" After section 194 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Regulation of television programme services.
194A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall when it appears appropriate to him review the exercise by the Commission and the Authority of the duties placed on each of them under Parts-I, II and III of this Act with a view to determining the effectiveness of the regulation of television programme services, local delivery services and independent radio services.
(2) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult with such bodies or people as he considers appropriate.
(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the duties and functions of the following in relation to the provision of programme services—

(a)the BBC;

(b)the Welsh Authority;

(c)the Director General of Fair Trading;

(d)the Director General of Telecommunications,

and shall have regard to technological changes in the methods of delivery of programme services.
(4) In subsection (3) above "programme services" has the same meaning as in section 201 of this Act but includes programme services provided by the BBC and the Welsh Authority.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a report on the outcome of the review undertaken under subsection (1) above before both Houses of Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Our objective is to elicit the Government's views on the general future of regulation in broadcasting and telecommunications. The amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty to review the regulatory process when he considers it appropriate to do so and to lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee the background against which we propose the amendment. There are very many organisations involved in the regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications—organisations such as Oftel, the ITC, the Radio Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. With convergence of technologies—a feature often referred to in our discussions on the Bill—there is likely to arise confusion, contradictory decisions and overlapping responsibilities within the regulatory bodies.
The cable companies are such an example. The scope for confusion in that regard is considerable. The DTI licenses the telecommunications side of their business but Oftel manages the licences. The MMC can intervene if they are unwilling to accept changes to their licences; the ITC awards and regulates their franchises. Those same cable companies could under other hats deal with other regulators such as the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Committee for Supervision of Telephone Information Services.
At worst it is a jungle, at best a network of regulatory bodies dealing with what is increasingly becoming a unitary technology. The existing regulatory structure was not designed to deal with the convergence of emerging technologies. The Bill does not consider the issue at all. We believe that there should be a review of the existing structure of regulation, and it is that point that the amendment seeks to put forward.
Against that emerges the question of whether there should be a single communications regulator—an issue I floated at Second Reading. I remind the Committee that the All-Party Select Committee on Trade and Industry, when looking at the matter in 1994, concluded and recommended that:
"the Government review the structure of telecommunications and broadcasting regulation in order to ensure consistent principles and clear responsibilities in all matters relevant to broadband regulation and development … that there may be an independent review of the powers of regulators and how they could be made more accountable".
The amendment seeks the Government's response and their thinking on the issue and provides the opportunity for debate. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: I support the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the spirit in which he moved the amendment. I add a warning, however, which may differ from the emphasis he gave to his argument at the end of his remarks.
754
There may be too many regulatory bodies in broadcasting, but there is a danger in moving towards a single body that that body will become more obsessed with the technology of broadcasting and less concerned with the content. In reviewing those matters, will the Minister keep in mind that the regulation of broadcasting is not just about the regulation of technologies? There need to be regulators who have sympathy for and understanding of programme-making. If that were lost in any consolidation, it would be a loss to broadcasting in general.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for explaining the probing nature of this amendment.
In introducing this Broadcasting Bill the Government are presenting it, not as a cure for all the ills of the sector, but as an important interim response to the growing tendency in the market for convergence and to the major technological development which digital represents. We certainly think it is too early to present a fully-formed blueprint for the future regulation of the industry. Moreover, we feel that the new institutional structure introduced by the 1990 Act is working well. Radio has flourished under a separate Radio Authority. The ITC has successfully presided over the revised licensing arrangements for commercial television and operates effectively alongside Oftel in regulating cable services. And as we discussed earlier this week, we in the Government think it is wrong to start absorbing the specific regime of media ownership controls into general competition law.
As I have said, in some ways this Bill can be seen as an interim one. The noble Lord argues that by providing this new clause the Government will be able to undertake the review he urges whenever the time seems right. I think it more than likely that in due course the Government may well conduct a review very much along the lines he suggests—indeed I do not see any need for statutory authority to do that and so the amendment does not take the matter forward in that respect. It is also, of course, true that the debate on the means of regulating a very different future structure of information services has already been started, notably in the past year's Oftel consultation document and in the Government's own document, also published last year, about possible models for long-term media ownership controls.
The Government will continue to listen to the debate, and it is entirely right that the noble Lord should have taken the opportunity of ventilating those issues today. However, I should like to add a couple of points about the terms in which he urged his case. He referred to the need for a single independent regulator for broadcasting and invited the Secretary of State to review the regulation of television programmes by the various existing regulators. I rather wonder whether a single all-powerful regulator for broadcasting, or even one whose powers in a multimedia future range more widely, is what we want in a healthy democracy. I must also enter a caveat that I do not think it would be right for the Government to review the operational detail of the broadcasting regulators' individual decisions on a

755
case-by-case basis, above all as regards programme content. Those are delicate matters which quite deliberately have been put at arm's length from government.
Nevertheless, I entirely accept that the structure of regulation and the regulators' respective responsibilities are very likely to be scrutinised further before too many more years have passed. I hope that that further exposition of the Government's position has served to answer some of the noble Lord's underlying concerns. I hope it has enabled him to achieve his purpose in moving the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that reply which was a helpful response to my probing amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 192:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTED TELEVISION BROADCASTING SERVICES
(" .—(1) After section 2(1)(b) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(c) restricted television broadcasting services within the United Kingdom."
(2) After section 2(4)(c) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(d) a restricted television broadcasting service as defined by subsection (7)"
(3)After section 2(6) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(7) In this and other Parts "restricted television broadcasting service" means (subject to subsection (6)) a service consisting in the broadcasting of television programmes for general reception in a "restricted area" of the United Kingdom (as defined by section 46(6)) by any person holding a licence issued under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 for use of "unused broadcast spectrum" (as defined by subsection (8)).
(8) In this Part "unused broadcast spectrum" is any analogue or digital radio spectrum assigned to the Commission by the Secretary of State for television broadcasting services which is not in use to provide television broadcasting services for general reception."
(4)For section 46(1) of the 1990 Act there is substituted—
"(1) In this part "licensable programme service" means (subject to subsection (2)) a service consisting in the provision by any person of relevant programmes with a view to their being conveyed by means of a telecommunication system or as a restricted television broadcasting service where restricted television broadcasting service is defined by section 2(7)."
(5)After section 46(5) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(6) A "restricted area" is—

(a)an area of the United Kingdom in which the population is not greater than 800,000 adult residents which includes only one centre of population with more than 350,000 adult residents, or

(b)an area of the United Kingdom in which the population is not greater than 500,000 adult residents which includes no individual centres of population with greater than 150,000 adult residents.".").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194. This is a probing amendment, though perhaps a long one.
We have had a theme running through our discussions on the Bill in relation to the opportunities that the changes will provide in regard to local and regional
756
services. At Second Reading (at col. 471 of Hansard) the Minister referred to regional and local television programming and the increased demand for that. Not dissimilar words were used by the Minister in another place when the 1990 Broadcasting Act was being debated, particularly in regard to cable. That was to be a whole new vision; it was to provide many and varied local services. As we are all aware, that did not happen.
Our concern is that, although the Bill may lay the ground for local services to take off, that will not happen. We are talking not only about local television services for entertainment. Local services will be useful in the field of education—university and local education courses—and local community activities. Those kinds of services should be developed.
It is possible to make local TV work. Work done by the Institute of Local Television suggests that small-scale television services can take off. They are popular in North America, Europe and Australia. A recent independent study carried out by Scottish Enterprise of Edinburgh City's plans for a local city TV service suggested that there would be an increase in advertising revenue and in the overall media and advertising employment within the city.
The amendments seek to lay down the groundwork which will enable the ITC to make life easier for small TV services to obtain licences. They are probing amendments. We want to hear what the Minister has to say because we cannot find much in the Bill that will encourage local services to get off the ground. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am happy to support the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. It has always seemed rather a paradox that whereas one of the most popular aspects of television is the regional aspect, particularly with the special structure associated with ITV, there has never been the encouragement to move on from regional television to genuinely local television—city television and local voluntary channels of one kind or another, as the noble Baroness has just said. It was generally felt that the advent of cable was a great opportunity for that to develop. The Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 did not make any of this mandatory, partly in the belief that those who took on cable would want in their own interests to explore this development. Section 7 of the Act deals with community obligation but not in a mandatory way.
What has happened in practice? By 1990 there were 135 cable proposals. All of them made fine promises about local services, especially the kind of community services to which the noble Baroness referred. What is the reality now? We are going backwards. In 1989 there were five distinct local channels on 11 franchises—very nearly half. By 1995 there were 11 out of 88—a fall from a half to one-eighth. It has been very disappointing.
When Channel 5 was originally conceived some imaginary proposals were put forward for city television. Perhaps digital multiplexes will offer new opportunities. In the meantime, as the noble Baroness has said, this is a probing amendment to try to introduce fair and equal access for small-scale broadcasters and

757
community and educational providers to local cable where currently access is determined by the cable companies entirely on their own terms. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister to these ideas.
Lord Inglewood: I, too, shall take these amendments together. The Government agree with the intention of Amendment No. 192. In my opening remarks during the Second Reading debate, I explained that we would be bringing forward government amendments on a number of technical issues relating to the 1990 Act following representations we have received from the regulators. This is one such issue. I apologise to the Committee that the amendment is not yet in a fit state to lay before your Lordships in time for this debate. It is our intention to table a government amendment on this before Report. In the absence of our amendment, the Committee may find it helpful if I briefly outline our thinking on this topic.
The ITC has convincingly made to us, and we have therefore accepted, the case for a licensing system for television similar to the restricted service licences which the Radio Authority issues to great effect for both local community services and special event broadcasts. The amendment which is being prepared achieves the result at which the noble Baroness aims but in what we believe is a more straightforward manner. It is our intention to empower the ITC in almost exactly the same terms as apply to the Radio Authority for its restricted service licences set out in the 1990 Act. Unlike this amendment, we do not propose to set any strict definitions as to the size of the area to be served by a restricted licence but to leave that to the discretion of the ITC.
Your Lordships will be aware, as has often been mentioned during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, how quickly technology develops in the broadcasting sector. The Government do not, therefore, want to be too prescriptive in statute, when an effective regulator such as the ITC will be better placed to judge whether a particular applicant is best suited to be granted a television restricted service licence. The Government are keen to see the development of local television services both on free-to-air and cable and television services at special events. The amendment we shall bring forward will enable such services to develop. I hope, in the light of my assurances that the Government agree with the principles behind the noble Baroness's amendment and that we will bring forward a considered amendment, that she will agree to withdraw the amendment before us today.
I shall now move on to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194. I too shall begin with reference to the Broadcasting Act 1990 when the Government envisaged that the provision of local television services would develop on cable. While I appreciate that some may feel that the opportunities have been slow to materialise, this is a sector which is now growing more rapidly and there are signs that many of the cable operators are interested in providing local television services over their systems. Further opportunities for local programming suppliers
758
will be offered by the advent of digital services and the proposed new class of licence for restricted services which we have just been debating.
Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 would impose financial burdens which are both unnecessary and damaging on the still developing cable companies at a time of expansion. We have already debated the "must carry, must offer" concept which is repeated in these amendments, and I have indicated to the Committee that I shall consider the matter further.
The Government do not believe in subsidising the independent broadcasting sector, which is thriving without our support. Both these amendments offer substantial interference to the broadcasters, who are best placed to judge the wants of the community and promote a subsidy financed in such a manner as to jeopardise the growth of the cable sector. My department is already aware of a number of expressions of interest in establishing local television services under the proposed television restricted service licence which are not seeking subsidy. The ITC may also be aware of some more. I am sure that many more will come forward once the Bill is enacted. The creation of the separate category of local and short-term licence will ensure that local television will blossom without, we believe, the need for either intervention by the ITC or subsidy from the cable sector. It is for those reasons that we oppose the amendments.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: With regard to Amendment No. 192, the Minister's response was helpful and goes in the right direction. We look forward to seeing the amendment and we shall consider it when it is brought forward. At this point, and with the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 195:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
PROMOTION OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
(".—(1) After section 45(3) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(3A) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(2)Any non-domestic satellite service licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 45(3A) of the 1990 Act.
(3)After section 47(8) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(8A) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide a licensable programme service granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(4)Any licensable programme service licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 47(8A) of the 1990 Act.
(5)After section 55 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"55A. Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide additional services under Part I of the 1990 Act granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service".
(6)Any additional services licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 55(A) of the 1990 Act.
(7)After section 73(7) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(8) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide a local delivery service granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(8)Any local delivery service licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 73(8) of the 1990 Act.
(9)After section 104(7) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(8) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide a local or satellite service under Part III of the 1990 Act granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(10)Any local or satellite licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 104(8) of the 1990 Act.
(11)After section 113(4) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(5) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide a licensable sound programme service granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(12)Any licensable sound programme service licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from that commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 113(5) of the 1990 Act.
(13)After section 115(9) of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"(10) Section 38 shall apply in relation to any licence to provide additional services under Part III of the 1990 Act granted after the commencement of this section as it applies in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
(14)Any additional services licence granted before the commencement of this section shall, as from the commencement, be taken to include the condition referred to in section 115(10) of the 1990 Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I give an assurance that I shall be briefer than are the words in the amendment on the Marshalled List. I was delighted this morning when I received the Marshalled List that we do not have a practice which existed in an organisation I belong to elsewhere where one is required to read out the amendment before one starts to speak to it.
Although the amendment is long, very legal and detailed what it does is to take the equal opportunities provisions of the 1990 Act and carry them forward into the Bill we have before us. That will enable both Acts to have a level playing field or equal opportunity entry and requirements relating to equal opportunities. Although it is a long amendment, its intention and application are simple. It extends the equal opportunities provisions from the 1990 Act into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness has explained clearly the purpose of her amendment and the Government would agree with much of her thinking. Indeed, her concerns are already addressed in the Sex
760
Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and equal pay legislation. I therefore question the need to add a further regulatory measure to what we hope is a deregulatory Bill.
Sections 38 and 108 of the 1990 Act require the regulators to encourage the promotion of good practice by the principal broadcasters in the area of equal opportunities. As the Minister taking the 1990 Act through the other place made clear when this issue was debated there in May 1990, while the Government were content for the additional regulation by the ITC and the Radio Authority on this issue in relation to the principal broadcasters who are subject to a fair degree of positive regulation to ensure that they undertake certain functions, including programme content and training of staff, we do not believe now, any more than we did then, that the case is the same for those licensees which are subject to a lighter regulatory touch under the 1990 Act. Those broadcasters operating under licensable programme service licences, non-domestic satellite services and independent local radio licences are policed by having negative consumer protection requirements set out in their licences. This means that if they have misbehaved in that respect, they are appropriately punished for a breach of their licence.
The ITC and the Radio Authority do not monitor their performance to ensure that they are positively undertaking certain actions in the same manner as they do in relation to the principal broadcasters, neither do the regulators produce a detailed annual performance review in which equal opportunity assessments can be published.
We believe that this amendment will add a further costly and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the work of the ITC and the Radio Authority, the aim of which will be to ensure that the broadcasters are meeting the requirements of the existing legislation, for a breach of which there are quite separate sanctions. The equal opportunities legislation is working effectively without the need for additional positive promotion by the broadcasting regulators.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that reply. Disappointing though it is, it makes the Government's position very clear. It lacks logic, because Clause 26 of the Bill states quite specifically,
"Any multiplex licence [operator] or digital programme licence [holder] shall …make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups".
Although the Minister went on to say that the ITC itself does not monitor, which I consider is regrettable—perhaps its terms of reference did not require it to do so—monitoring is quite common. The BBC itself was one of the first to sign up to Opportunity 2000, which requires an annual monitoring of equal opportunities. The Minister's reply is disappointing, but I do not wish to press the point at this stage in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 195A:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF STATUTORY LICENCE TO INCLUDE SOUND RECORDINGS IN BROADCASTS AND CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
(" . In section 175 of the 1990 Act (Use as of right of sound recordings in broadcasts and cable programme services), at the end of subsection (1) there is inserted—
" "Limitations on exercise of right.
135H.—(1) Section 135C shall not apply to the inclusion in a broadcast or cable programme service of any sound recording if and to the extent that the broadcast or cable programme service is—

(a)a controlled choice service;

(b)provided wholly or mainly for presentation to members of the public at a particular establishment or other defined locality, or a particular event, in the United Kingdom;

(c)a simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission for reception by the public of an initial transmission (whether by means of a broadcast or cable programme service) from another EEA state of television or radio programmes intended for reception by the public."

(1A) For the purposes of sections 135A to 135H—
"controlled choice service" means a service which consists wholly or mainly in conveying sounds or other information whether by broadcast or by cable programme service for reception by any member of the public and of which it is an essential feature that there will or may be sent from each place of reception information or signals for the control or partial control of the content of the service for reception by the person providing the service.".").
The noble Lord said: This is an entirely new clause. I shall be as brief and clear as I can. This is rather an esoteric point, taking us back two years, five years and six years. Section 175 of the 1990 Act, as Members of the Committee will see from the amendment, refers to Section 135 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which was printed in fairly large measure in Section 175 of the Broadcasting Act.
Section 175 of the 1990 Act, introduced for the first time in this type of legislation a statutory licence for the benefit of broadcasters. That formed an integral and central part of the overall regulation of the licensing system which was set up under the 1990 Act.
The statutory licence came into being nearly six years ago. It entitles broadcasters to include sound recordings in a cable programme service if some conditions are met, paying what the broadcaster unilaterally considers to be a reasonable royalty for the use of music or other material. The Committee will be aware that it can take a lot of time, money and effort to establish in the copyright tribunal that the statutory licence fees paid by the broadcaster are entirely unreasonable. In the meantime there is a great deal of delay and expense and a substantial loss of revenue to the copyright holders.
As we understand it, the intention of the 1990 Act, when passing through both your Lordships' House and another place, was to provide the new broadcasters—I shall call them traditional broadcasters and radio stations—who we all hoped would be able to provide an increasingly broad range of public information services and local radio, with a head start and fewer problems and administrative difficulties in negotiating rights clearance for the use of material.
In 1990 your Lordships' House and another place were focusing on the so-called "needletime" restrictions. That will take all Members of the Committee back to dropping a needle on a disc when we used to listen to what were called "records". The restrictions then were to ensure that a broadcaster would not be delayed in commencing transmissions while he negotiated licence terms with the copyright owner of the sound recordings in that broadcast. As the Committee has been hearing, since 1990 needletime restrictions have virtually disappeared and we have moved on from that. As a result of measures in the 1990 Act, an entirely new phenomenon has emerged; namely, a new generation of non-traditional broadcasters whom one might call "narrowcasters".
These are service providers. When Members of the Committee go to large warehouse-type emporia where there are do-it-yourself chains or into a hypermarket, they are likely to hear music interspersed with announcements and the like. Apparently, that is a valuable marketing aid. I am not very aware of the background music since I concentrate on other things. I understand that since 1990 the narrowcasters have been able to take advantage of the statutory licence as set out in Section 175, to the disadvantage of the record companies and performers whose copyright they are in danger of infringing.
The particular types of broadcast which are covered in my amendment are commercial services intended for particular sites or retail chains. There are also the on-demand services which are likely to have a direct impact on, and substitute for, record sales—perhaps one might call it "home recording".
The amendment adds to the Act in Section 135H(b), which relates to broadcasts,
"provided wholly or mainly for presentation to members of the public at a particular establishment or other defined locality".
As I have just spelt out, that may be a retail shop or a large emporium. The service provider is attempting to produce an atmosphere which is conducive towards persuading people like Members of the Committee and myself to part with money. I hope my noble friend will have been able to understand part of what I am seeking to put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I agree with my noble friend that one of the reasons for introducing the statutory licence in 1990 was to enable new broadcasters to start transmissions quickly, where necessary before copyright royalty rates for the inclusion of sound recordings had been agreed. It is quite true that some important developments in broadcasting have emerged since 1990 and the effects of the statutory licence in these new areas would not have been easy to foresee. In some new areas it is possible that a statutory licence is difficult to justify, and limited changes to the provisions should now be considered. However, the Government believe that there is not a convincing case for any major alteration of the statutory licence provisions to exclude, for example, all digital broadcasts. These will, I believe, before long be the only type of broadcast and the previous arguments in favour of a statutory licence remain applicable.

763
My noble friend's amendment is, though, much more limited, attempting to exclude three distinct categories of broadcaster or cable programme service provider from the statutory licence provisions. In the first category are the providers of on-demand transmissions; that is, transmissions where the person receiving a broadcast can send signals to the broadcaster and so control what is actually received. The DTI's recent response to the Multimedia Industry Advisory Group's report announced a willingness to consider removal of on-demand broadcasts from the statutory licence. I am therefore happy to agree that the Government should consider further the first element of my noble friend's amendment.
The second aspect of my noble friend's amendment seeks to exclude what may be called the providers of "muzak" from the statutory licence provisions. I accept that there are differences between broadcasters or cable programme service operators providing a transmission which members of the public can receive in their own homes and those whose transmission is received only by, say, retail stores to provide the background music played to customers. Although my noble friend did draw my attention to this issue at Second Reading, I must confess that I have not yet reached a firm view on the matter. However, like the first part of the amendment, I am prepared to agree that the Government should give further consideration to the issues raised. Before reaching any decision on either this or the first part of the amendment, though, I know that my colleagues at the DTI are anxious to hear the views of all interested parties.
The final element of my noble friend's amendment is, I understand, put forward as a change that is necessary in order to comply with the Satellite and Cable Directive. The Government are currently in the process of implementing this directive into UK law. Further consideration is being given to the issues raised here and any necessary changes to the statutory licence will be incorporated into the UK implementing regulations.
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the issues raised by this amendment to our attention. However, I trust that on the basis of my agreement to consider the first two parts of the amendment, my noble friend will agree to withdraw it. I hope that the Government will be in a position to respond to the issues raised in another place, and bring forward an amendment to the Bill if appropriate.
6 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I am grateful for everything that my noble friend has said, and particularly for the final part of his reply. Indeed, I must advise both my noble friend and the Committee that I am stunned and delighted by his response, particularly in view of the effort, clarity and excellence with which he has presented his case over long days in Committee. I thank my noble friend very much for that. I shall certainly take up his offer to pursue any further discussions in due course with both my noble friend and his officials. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 195B:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause
CHANGES 10 THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF REGIONAL ITV COMPANIES TO THE COST OF THE NETWORK BUDGET 10 BE SUBJECT 10 APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(".—(1) section 39 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (8) there is substituted—
"(8) Where any arrangements have been approved by the Commission under subsection (4) or (7)(b)—

(a)no modification of those arrangements shall be made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences unless it too has been so approved; and

(b)the Commission shall not approve any such modification to the extent that such modification modifies the arrangements in respect of the contributions made by the holder of each regional Channel 3 licence to the cost of programmes acquired or commissioned pursuant to those arrangements unless such modification has been approved by the Secretary of State."."

The noble Earl said: This amendment is about money, quality and the preservation of real regional television. The objective is simple: to ensure that ITV's smallest regional companies continue to pay a fair price for programmes which they buy from the network. The ITC is already involved in that process. I am simply asking that the Secretary of State should be the final judge. That is hardly a dramatic suggestion, but it could be a vital lifeline for five vulnerable ITV operators.
I make no apology for returning to the importance of regional television, upon which significant matter very many of your Lordships have spoken at frequent intervals during this Committee stage. On Second Reading, I questioned the logic of "big is beautiful". Indeed, that doubt was forcefully voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, on Tuesday. I wondered how the growth of big companies into world markets could possibly be assisted by swallowing the minnows of ITV like plankton. I have since received an illuminating letter from Carlton Television which bears repetition. It comes from the head of corporate affairs, who puts it this way:
"You are quite right to say that a large ITV company taking over one of the smallest is not going to lead to global success".
Just as I thought. If a big ITV group ever seeks to buy up a small one, we know now that that will have nothing at all to do with world markets and digital television and everything to do with old-fashioned consolidation and economies of scale. I am indebted to Carlton for its candour.
Lest I be accused of special pleading for the sake of small ITV companies, perhaps I may remind the Committee that they are already considered to have a special case under broadcasting legislation. The 1990 Broadcasting Act recognised their regional responsibility when applications for franchise bids were originally invited.
My new clause addresses one fundamental aspect of that complicated process. I shall spell it out as straightforwardly as I can. The ITC issued invitations to apply for licences. Those invitations contained a sliding scale for the purchase of mainstream network programmes. The structure was designed to ensure that

765
viewers could receive "Coronation Street" or "The Bill" in whichever region they happened to live, no matter how big or how small the ITV company delivering the signal. If necessary, that meant that the small five—Border, Channel, Grampian, Ulster and my own, West Country—would contribute proportionately less than their big brothers in London, Birmingham or Manchester for the same programmes. It was, and is, a thoroughly fair arrangement and of particular benefit to viewers in those oft-forgotten, far-flung corners of the United Kingdom.
It was also assumed to be a lasting arrangement. After all, the small five were obliged to calculate their cash bids partly on the basis of what it would cost to buy network programmes. It is a substantial part of any ITV company's budget. They were embarking on a commercial risk licensed to last into the new millennium—in fact, until the year 2002. I am a great believer in lasting arrangements actually lasting. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the resolve of my noble friend the Minister to adhere to the present arrangements for funding Channel 4. Any premature change on the Channel 4 question would be a breach of trust. Any radical change of network programme prices could be calamitous for the small companies. Their financial viability, not to mention the excellent local programmes in which they invest and which they produce, depend on the very survival of that simple equitable pricing mechanism.
My noble friend the Minister may think that none of this is any of his or the Government's business, but let us dally a while. It is quite true that the mechanism is controlled by ITV. Indeed, the Independent Television Association, to which all such companies belong, governs programme prices. Inevitably, the bigger companies have a bigger say, but at the moment the mechanism works and it works well.
However, we now come to the crunch. The Bill allows the big to get bigger. In the Independent Television Association all that it takes to alter the present pricing agreement is a simple majority vote. Think of it: are not the signs already on the wall? Scottish Television is said to be bracing itself for a takeover by the Daily Mirror and H'TV is reportedly in talks with Carlton. The biggest independent production house in the UK, Select TV, is being broken up and sold in parts to Carlton, Pearson and Meridian. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has lately come to the rescue of Beaverbrook's famous crusader. The big are already getting bigger, and we are still only at Committee stage.
It is no wild hypothesis to say that soon there may be just two huge corporate entities controlling over half of the ITV that we know now. Imagine it: two conglomerates with the power to alter programme prices and, in doing so, to drain the lifeblood from regional TV. Just suppose that those giants, acting purely in the interests of their shareholders, fancied a little more consolidation. In my doomsday scenario, the best way to get the small companies on the cheap would be to scrap the pricing mechanism altogether. The Bill could
766
allow that to happen—unintentionally, needless to say, but too late to save some of the best local television in Great Britain.
The amendment should not be interpreted as a criticism of the regulator. It is quite true that the ITC already has the power of veto over changes in programme price. I simply seek to enhance that power. Nor will my amendment set a precedent for directly involving Ministers. My noble friend will be well aware that the Secretary of State is already expected to act as the court of last resort when ITV transmitter costs are proportioned. What I propose merely adds ministerial muscle to the regulatory arm. Why? Because the TV giants of tomorrow may not walk in sufficient dread of the ITC alone. The new clause puts the extra weight of the Secretary of State behind any dispute about programme pricing. It is very little to ask, but it is very important indeed, and for Border, Channel, Grampian, Ulster and West Country, not forgetting their loyal and appreciative audiences, it might mean the difference between a first-class local service and impersonal mogul vision. I know which I would prefer.
During our deliberations on Tuesday, my noble friend displayed some sympathy with the cause which I and many other noble Lords are now arguing. He said:
"there is need … to ensure that we entrench all the best qualities of regional broadcasting and, where we can, enhance them".—[official Report, 13/2/96; col. 568.]
On this issue my noble friend certainly can, and I most earnestly hope that he will. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Earl has raised an important point. There is no doubt, as he has argued, that the present character and success of the smaller regional companies in the ITV system depend crucially upon the discounted price system of the ITV network arrangements. If that were to be changed radically against them, they could not go on providing the services that they do and the popular regional programmes that are in many ways the jewel in their crowns. It is an important matter. It is one of what I called earlier a jigsaw of a number of pieces where the financing arrangements for the ITV and BSkyB system—taking commercial broadcasting as a whole—need a fundamental reappraisal.
There is one point upon which I do not wish to take issue with the noble Earl but merely to put a different gloss on what he has said. Towards the end he said that of course at the moment, although the network payment system is one that is agreed among the ITV companies, to change it requires the consent of the ITC. The ITC has a veto on any changes in the system that are unacceptable to it.
It is fair to say that the present system, which out of the rather bad Broadcasting Act 1990 we managed to rescue as something that retained, above all, regional public service elements of the system, was the creation of the ITC. I speak with a certain amount of interest I suppose, which I shall declare at one remove, in the sense that the ITC is the successor commission, although with different responsibilities and powers, to the IBA of which I was chairman.

767
Although I am tempted by the noble Earl's proposition that the ITC might feel reassured and reinforced by having the ultimate sanction of a Secretary of State behind it, as happens, as the noble Earl said, in the transmitter system, I pause in my more pessimistic mood to wonder whether the ITC and its power of veto, digging in, and being stubborn in defence of the system which is at the heart of its pride and what ITV does, will face up to what the noble Earl called the big battalions ganging up, rather more stubbornly than the Secretary of State might do. I do not wish to be discourteous, but I have not been over-encouraged by the willingness of the present relatively new Secretary of State to stand up to some of the pressures with which we are dealing in the Bill.
While I agree with the importance of what the noble Earl is suggesting and think that it should be part of a reconstituting, in some ways, of the financial relationship between the big boys and the small boys of ITV and BSkyB and the regulator, I am cautious about whether in this case the Secretary of State would be an added safeguard or perhaps even an added danger.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: From these Benches we support the amendment. We do not see it as an attack on the large companies and that was not our intention when we put our name to the amendment. We see it rather as a protection for regional television provision. It is one that has existed since the 1950s. It is a pricing mechanism which was taken into account when the small companies put forward their licence bids. It is one that has a profound impact on their financial viability.
The amendment cannot be an attack upon the large companies: the scheme has been successful because the large companies have supported it. The network supply agreement has had their backing. Nevertheless, these heady days of takeovers and concentrations have concentrated the minds of the small companies: "What is our future? Shall we be able to maintain quality?" It is quality that is at the heart of the amendment. We cannot just take regional programming; we have to take the whole programming structure in the round.
We hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is very experienced in these matters. His counsel is one to which we should listen. He is absolutely right: it is sometimes easier to take an independent view as an independent regulator than perhaps a Secretary of State, who may be subject to political pressures.
This is a key and important amendment if the Bill is to achieve what we are led to understand from the Minister it is designed to achieve: variety, diversity, national programming and regional programming. The excellence of many of our small regional companies is due to the fact that they have had this network supply agreement in place.
It is unfortunate that the ITC has not taken the opportunity, or found it possible—perhaps it does not wish to—to confirm that the pricing mechanism which is in place will remain throughout the period of the regional companies' present licences; that is, until 2002.
768
It seems a long way away but it is not. It would have helped considerably had the ITC been able to confirm that to the small companies which feel vulnerable at the moment. We support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I support what my noble friend Lord An-an said. The Committee will see that among the names on the list of those supporting the amendment is that of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who warned me that he had to get home to my area—which is familiar also to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—which is served by one of the prime examples of what my noble friend spelled out. I would not call it a small company, and one is reminded that size is no guarantee of strength. Grampian Television provides an enormous service. Lest the Committee forget—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will be aware of this—it serves a colossal area of the UK.
Secondly, Grampian provides a special type of service. It is unique in that it provides a great deal of Gaelic. I must confess that when Gaelic programmes come on I sometimes change the channel or turn off the television. Sometimes I press another button and often—it is not the "Magic Roundabout"—it is the young man's "magic roundabout", shown on Grampian at 5.20 p.m. on a Saturday. I see that my noble friend Lord An-an is aware of that programme. Perhaps I may add my tiny weight to my noble friend's powerful remarks in support of reasonable costs for smaller companies which provide a unique service, often to large areas with small populations.
Lord Inglewood: I understand entirely the Committee's concern that greater consolidation within the Channel 3 network might mean that the position of the licence-holders for the smaller regions, and specifically the arrangements for the charges made to them for programming, might be altered in such a way as would threaten their independent viability and regional character.
I do not, however, think that it is at all desirable for the Government, albeit for different reasons from those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to be involved in approving something as detailed and operational as amendments to the Channel 3 networking agreements. That would be an undesirable intervention in any industry, and the more so in an industry where, quite properly, government are traditionally very loath to make any direct intervention. I feel that it would instead be a better way of meeting the concern raised by my noble friend to strengthen the ITC's duty. The ITC must already, by statute, approve the Channel 3 networking arrangements. By virtue of Section 39(10) of the 1990 Act it is forbidden to approve any arrangements which may operate to the detriment of Channel 3 as an effective national network. I suggest that it would be sensible also to prevent it from approving any arrangements which would in its opinion jeopardise the continuing effective fulfilment of regional licence-holders' regional programming obligations. As we have already discussed, Clause 63 seeks already to

769
strengthen the ITC's hand as to specifying those regional programming requirements; such an amendment would mirror that clause.
I hope that in the light of my undertaking to bring forward an alternative government amendment to meet the concerns my noble friend has raised, he will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding and general support of the amendment. He said that he would be prepared to come forward at a later stage with an alternative government amendment. I am also grateful for the support of the Committee. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, this is a key amendment and protection is extremely important. My noble friend Lord Lyell mentioned the specialist expertise—
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the noble Earl withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may congratulate him on obtaining the Minister's assurance. It was most helpful and answers the anxieties which I expressed while giving general support to what lies behind the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I take the noble Lord's point. I am delighted at the possibility of beefing up the ITC. It is a good and sensible compromise and I hope that it works well in a determined effort to continue to protect the quality of regional television. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 195BA:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
LICENCES FOR NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE DISHES
(" .—(1) Section 45 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(10) A licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to pay to the Commission (in addition to any fees required to be so paid by virtue of section 45(1)(b)) in respect of each accounting period of his falling within the period for which the licence is in force such amount as the Commission may determine representing a percentage of the qualifying revenue for that accounting period.".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment follows closely the previous amendment and is part of the jigsaw about which I spoke. It attempts to deal with fair taxation within the commercial broadcasting system in this country. I hope to persuade the Government that the time has now come when BSkyB in particular should pay its fair share of taxation together with the other commercial television companies.
I do not wish to labour the point as we have covered the ground many times. BSkyB may well have been entitled to a "tax holiday" in order to engage in such a high risk operation. However, it has been a successful operation and appears now to be running extremely well. I believe that the time has come to have a more
770
fair arrangement between the ITV and BSkyB systems. I was trying hard not to use the awful phrase "a level playing field". I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: If accepted, the amendment will mean that non-domestic satellite services, of which the ITC has licensed about 90, will have to pay a percentage of their qualifying revenue for their licences. I believe that that is unfair. To suggest that non-domestic satellite broadcasters should be brought into line or equalised with other domestic terrestrial broadcasters who already pay a percentage of their qualifying revenue is wholly disingenuous. It is also potentially damaging to the satellite broadcasting industry.
I say that it is disingenuous because it ignores the fundamental distinction between domestic terrestrial broadcasters and non-domestic satellite broadcasters; that is, that the former have guaranteed and exclusive access to the whole of the UK's regional or national populations while the latter do not. I wish to remind the Committee that the regulations on the non-domestic satellite channels are deliberately and rightly different from that in respect of domestic terrestrial broadcasters. Unlike domestic terrestrial operators, non-domestic satellite channels have no guaranteed access to scarce government-controlled domestic frequencies; nor do they have a licence fee income, subsidy or special protection. They have no automatic or monopoly access to regional and national audiences.
The qualifying revenue charge levied on terrestrial domestic licences is a recognition that terrestrial TV frequencies are a scarce yet highly sought after commodity for which the Government's grant of privileged access requires payment. Indeed, I am sure that many satellite broadcasters would welcome the opportunity to have access to such a wide distribution network. However, that option remains out of reach to many. In fact, due to restrictions proposed in this Bill, BSkyB will be the only satellite broadcaster prevented from owning any Channel 3 or Channel 5 licences.
Of course, terrestrial companies are also perfectly free to invest their money in non-domestic satellite broadcasting with no qualifying revenue payments, but no privileged access either. The BBC has stakes in two non-domestic satellite channels—UK Gold and UK Living—and Granada is linking up with BSkyB on several new channels. Beyond those relatively minor involvements, however, terrestrial broadcasters have chosen not to invest in the non-domestic satellite sector.
That is why I believe that talk of a level playing field or fairness on licence payments is disingenuous. The field is already tilted sharply in favour of terrestrial broadcasters which have first refusal on the purchase of licences which guarantee privileged access to the entire UK population.
I am also concerned that the amendment could threaten the existence of many non-domestic satellite companies. As transmission costs fall, the number of specialist, thematic and minority interest non-domestic satellite channels continues to grow rapidly. For such channels, which often work to tight budgets, additional payments will seriously affect their viability and discourage the emergence of new services. Furthermore,

771
the UK is the international uplink base for non-domestic satellite broadcasters. New additional costs will inevitably discourage potential investors from abroad or will encourage those already established here to relocate.
Finally, I wish to point out that the amendment discriminates in favour of the cable operators. While programme services which distribute exclusively on cable do not pay a percentage of their qualifying revenue, those on non-domestic satellite would. In summary, I do not believe that it is right to place these additional financial burdens on to UK non-domestic satellite broadcasting companies. There is no credibility in the argument that they should be taxed in the same way as domestic terrestrial broadcasters for the key reason that they do not operate within the same privileged context.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to speak wholly in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The basic problem is that the fiscal levy regime is patchy. In my view, it is unfair to the ITV/Channel 3 companies which carry such a huge burden of paying almost £400 million a year.
If the tax problem were resolved the problem of the Channel 4 funding formula and that in respect of Channel 3 would appear much less acute because I suspect that the Channel 3 companies would be more relaxed about losing the Channel 4 subsidy if they felt that the tax burden were more fairly distributed. We support bringing them all fairly into the net and the amendment brings in the non-domestic satellite broadcasters.
It is always helpful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, speaking so fully from the Sky brief because it means that I do not have to do so. The issue is complex because there are problems in relation to whose spectra are being used by Astra, for instance. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in moving the amendment accepts the complexity but we would like the Minister in answering to address the basic problem of the fairness of taxation in this field. A separate fiscal approach may be required.
I wish to point out to the Minister and to the Committee that other countries are finding a similar problem. Canada has the same difficulty of some companies being in the tax net and others not. Its Government are currently proposing what they call a "communications distribution tax" on all broadcasters; that is, on domestic satellite, non-domestic satellite, cable and some telephony services. That would generate considerable revenue and leave no one feeling, as I believe ITV feels, that there is unfair treatment. Therefore, I should very much like to support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, set out clearly the purpose of his amendment and his reasoning for it. While I understand the arguments behind much of what the noble Lord said, I must respectfully disagree with his approach.
772
I remind Members of the Committee that this amendment applies to those satellite services which operate on a frequency which is not allocated, by international agreement, to UK control. We have 10 such frequencies none of which is currently used; British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. being the last such operator, prior to its merger with Sky to form BSkyB.
The 1990 Act's broadcast licensing system recognised that the broadcast spectrum was a scarce resource and that it was of significant commercial value. The Government therefore instituted the bidding system for both domestic terrestrial and satellite licences locked to a levy on successful applicants' television revenues. As my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, all these moneys go to the Exchequer not as taxation but in recognition of the worth of the scarce UK resource that the broadcast spectrum represents and which these broadcasters are using. That argument does not and cannot be extended to a foreign government's spectrum as it is for those countries to decide how they allocate what is allocated to them.
Mention has been made this afternoon of BSkyB. I note the concerns of those members of the Committee who have contrasted the payments made by Channel 3 licensees to the Exchequer with BSkyB's smaller payments to the ITC. As I have already indicated, the Exchequer payments are based on the use of the UK spectrum. Extending such payments to those broadcasters operating on non-UK frequencies would neither be rational nor fair. It should be remembered that those broadcasters operating on frequencies controlled by foreign governments may make payments to the government concerned for the use of that spectrum. I understand that the owners of the Astra satellite pay a significant fee for their franchise to the Luxembourg Government. The scale of BSkyB's payments for the use of the Astra satellite will, no doubt, reflect those franchise fees. The Government do not think it right to impose arbitrary and punitive levies to a broadcaster operating fairly within the rules of international law and the single market. Nor would it be in the UK's interests to take such action against broadcasters who can simply move operations to another European country to circumvent any payments to the Exchequer with the consequent loss of jobs, possibilities for creativity and opportunities for training in the broadcasting industry.
I have tried to explain that the Government are opposed to this amendment for the reasons I have outlined.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I cannot say that I am disappointed by the Minister's reply because I would have been surprised had he been more forthcoming. I moved the amendment because I thought it right that the case for it should be raised rather than in the hope that the Government were likely to accept it.
I am bound to say to the Minister that I found his defence of the present situation intellectually more persuasive than the defence put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I do not wish to prolong matters at this stage but the noble Lord used a number of propositions—I know from where they come—which are not very tenable. It is not true to say that the ITV

773
companies have a privileged access in the sense that BSkyB does not. The ITV companies have had to compete very severely for the franchises that they have under the rather ridiculous bidding system to which the Minister referred.
In my view, the real difference now between BSkyB and comparable operators on the one side and ITV on the other is not really the premise on which the Minister has built his intellectual case; that is, the difference between domestic and non-domestic frequencies. That is a very fortunate accident of geography of which BSkyB and the Murdoch interests in particular have taken ingenious advantage; and I do not deny that at all. But I start from the other premise that we now have businesses which are entirely domestic businesses. ITV companies cater entirely for a domestic ITV audience and BSkyB caters entirely for a domestic British television audience. They are competitors in the same domestic economic field of providing a particular product. I believe that they should now be treated on the same basis.
Whether it is called taxation or a royalty from the use of frequencies is a secondary issue. The real distinction between domestic television companies and the non-domestic satellite companies is not to do with frequencies. It is just that one pays taxation and the other does not. That is extremely unfair and should be ended at some time by a government; but that will obviously not happen this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett moved Amendment No. 195BB:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF NEWS PROGRAMMES BY CHANNEL 3 LICENCE HOLDERS
(" . For section 31 of the 1990 Act there is substituted—
"31. The Channel 3 licence holders shall appoint a single nominated news provider who shall be responsible for the broadcast on Channel 3 of news programmes which shall—

(a)be of high quality dealing with national and international matters; and

(b)be presented live at regular intervals; and

(c)be broadcast simultaneously in each region comprising the Channel 3 services.".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195BC. I recognise, as I am sure the Minister does, that when he has accepted these amendments, which I am sure he will do as I know he is a reasonable man, consequential amendments will be needed.
I support the Bill's continued commitment to the value of high quality broadcasting. I consider the news to be particularly important and I hope that other Members of the Committee agree with me about that. That philosophy was formalised by the Independent Television Commission in January 1991 when ITN was nominated as the news provider. The importance of ITN's role was highlighted in the Government's own White Paper with the proposal to impose a duty on the
774
ITC to ensure at least one body would be effectively equipped and financed to provide news on its Channel 3 service.
The subsequent 1990 Act included those provisions in respect of news. The Act provides that, first, there shall be a requirement to broadcast news programmes of high quality national and international news; secondly, that each Channel 3 programme presenter in addition shall include conditions requiring news programmes to be provided by a nominated news provider to be presented live and simultaneously; and thirdly, the responsibility for nominating a news provider was conferred on the ITC by Section 32 of the 1990 Act. Under that Act, the ITC was required to conduct regular performance reviews. The first was completed last year and on 21st December it announced its review of the first three years. It concluded that ITN provided a well-resourced, authoritative and attractive news service meeting the requirements of the 1990 Act for high quality. In the review it confirmed ITN as the Channel 3 news provider nominated by the ITC.
ITN has delivered high quality programmes costing nearly £77 million below the levels predicted. That stems from ITN's drive for efficiency and increasingly multi-skilled staff which has enabled it to invest heavily in the latest digital news resources and news-gathering around the world.
The ITC was required to ensure that any further nominated news contractor to Channel 3 would not impair ITN's high quality service. The ITC itself, while welcoming ITN's efficiency and reduced costs to Channel 3 companies, attached great importance to not putting at risk the range and quality of service. That is crucial.
The present Bill may be interpreted as allowing two or more news services to operate within one ITV network. That could mean one part of the country having news services broadcast by one supplier at one time and other parts of the country having news from a different supplier at another time. In such circumstances it is impossible to see how Parliament's requirement for news on Channel 3 could be met. It seems to me that only by pooling the resources that Channel 3 has available for network news and investing them in a single news provider would Channel 3 be able to ensure the high quality that Parliament has always maintained it should have.
It is possible that the Bill as it stands could result in a fragmentation of ITV's national and international news services and that would have highly damaging consequences for quality news on ITV. Two or more Channel 3 news services, based on possible differing editorial standards and inadequate levels of resources, would not help to facilitate national understanding of news events.
It may seem strange that as a former vice-chairman of the BBC I should move such an amendment, but I care about the presentation of news, whether it comes from ITN, the ITV companies or, indeed, from the BBC. That is the important consideration. Apart from the fact that I have been got at by ITN—I should therefore declare an interest—I am also very fond of the people concerned.
As the Bill stands, there could be one united audience for a programme like "Gladiators" which, I hasten to add, I have never seen, but splitting for major news programmes cannot be sensible. I thought for a moment that the Government Whip was nodding her head in agreement with me, but it appears not. That is a pity because the noble Baroness always agrees with me.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Lord Barnett: As I was saying, such a split surely would not meet the wishes of Parliament for high quality news. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention. It looks like a drafting oversight. I hope that the amendment tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who apologises through me for not being able to be present today, will be considered and that it will be acceptable to the Minister. As I said, he is a very reasonable man and I look forward to hearing his acceptance. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in the amendment and to express my admiration of his selfless altruism, as a former vice-chairman of the BBC, in espousing the cause of ITN. I am only disappointed that as someone who has spent most of his life in one of the most gladiatorial situations in this country the noble Lord has actually never seen "Gladiators". He obviously does not have grandchildren; or, if he has, he has not been with them when the programme is transmitted.
I have a closer past link with ITN and the independent broadcasting system than the noble Lord. I must therefore try to be more detached. The issue before us is really one of principle as to whether the independent television system should have a single, nominated news provider. That is the significance of the proposed new Section 31. The origins go back to the rather ideological and doctrinaire way in which the Government in 1989–90 approached the Broadcasting Act. As happens so often, a sensible compromise emerged.
It was generally recognised, I believe, that ITN was a very notable, national news institution that should be preserved. Yet the competitive dogma indicated by Section 31 would allow the possibility, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, of a fragmented news system. That would be disastrous. I am not speaking either from an anti-Sky News point of view or, indeed, from a pro-ITN point of view. I am speaking in support of the principle of independent television having a single, nominated high-quality news service.
Sky News has greatly enhanced television news over recent years with a 24-hour service that is not possible on any of the terrestrial channels. I keep saying that; and I shall continue to do so. Equally, ITN is a high-quality national news service. I am aware that a great national news service, whether it is provided by the BBC or UN, is rather a special institution. It rather reminds me of a university or a very good school. It grows organically in terms of quality and is rather a precious commodity which one could destroy or undermine pretty easily. It needs defending and supporting. Certainly, the public
776
interest depends on having a single, nominated national news service of quality. It is on the basis of that principle that I support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I express my support for my noble friend Lord Barnett and his amendment. It is certainly not anti-Sky News. At the end of last week when covering the IRA atrocity and the court case of Joan Collins in New York at the same time Sky was quite brilliant. However, that is not the issue. The purpose of the amendment was outlined by the two previous speakers. We support it.
Lord McNally: I do not want to prolong the debate and I would not claim to bring the same expertise to it as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, or my noble friend Lord Thomson. We discussed a few days ago the triumph of regionalism in ITV. The other triumph is undoubtedly ITN. It is important to recall the impact of ITN on the quality of BBC news, its influence on how politics is covered and, indeed, the whole excitement and relevance it has brought to news gathering. I believe that the Minister should pause for thought when he receives advice from such sources.
If the BBC as a news service remained strong and yet somehow, because of changes, the ITV system became weaker, that would be a retrograde step. I do not have the experience of the noble Lords who have spoken but I do move in circles where I hear television executives talk. It is rather similar to what I said the other day about the regional commitment. The bean counters are within the walls and the talk is always of the pressure.
I am not suggesting that ITN should somehow be protected and therefore profligate. It must be a cost-effective organisation. But it is naïve to suppose that within ITV there are not voices urging that it should get by on a cheap, make-do news service, pushed to either end of the schedules, so that the rest of the time can be packed with popular programme-making. That would be the death-knell of the ITV system. I say that because Sky News gives more to the Sky system than simply the service of news; indeed, it gives a credibility to the whole system. The same applies to ITN within ITV. That has won it immense political loyalty and support.
Again, without giving ITN a guarantee for ever, it is important that the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, are heeded. To encourage a weakening of the news service within ITV would have long-term implications for television news in this country, not just on ITV but also on the BBC.
Lord Inglewood: I have listened with interest and care to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as to the purpose of his amendment—and to the contributions made by other members of the Committee—which draws a point into our debate which, so far as I know, we have not hitherto considered and which has important and possibly far-reaching implications.

777
The current arrangements set out in the 1990 Act appear to have been working well. The ITC gave ITN—currently the only nominated news provider—a clean bill of health. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made his case as persuasively as he always does. I can give him the assurance that I wish to reflect carefully on what he and other Members of the Committee have said in this debate, and to state our position on this matter at Report stage. However, I should say at this stage that we do not see the merit of the provisions in Amendment No. 195BC. We are loath to attempt narrow definitions which the ITC must follow, such as the one in subsection (3)(a) of that amendment. The ITC is capable of assessing, under the broad terms of Sections 31 and 32 of the 1990 Act, what is required of a nominated news provider. Any definition in legislation is likely to have changed with the expanding technology of news gathering. Similarly, subsection (3)(b) of the same amendment does not appear attractive. To my mind, whether a news provider is subsidised by another company is neither here nor there, as the ITC polices the provision in the 1990 Act which requires news to be reported with due accuracy and impartiality. That said, I shall study carefully both these amendments and what the Committee has said about them, as these are important matters.
Lord Barnett: Knowing the Minister, when he tells me that he proposes to reflect carefully on the amendments and on what I have said, I am bound to accept that. He has always been reasonable. He will understand that I too shall reflect carefully on the matter. I propose to return to the amendments, or at least one of them, at Report stage to give ourselves a further opportunity to consider them. I hope that by then the Minister will have been able to take advice and will have recognised that it is sensible to accept my amendments, and we can then take the matter from there. On the basis of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195BC not moved.]
Clause 67 [TheBroadcastingStandards Commission]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 195ZC:
Page 59, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) There shall be a commission to be known as the Broadcasting Standards and Consumers Commission (in this Part referred to as "the BSCC")").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195ZC, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 195J and 196A, to which the name of my noble friend Lord Donoughue is added. I apologise to the Committee that I am not speaking to the grouping as it appears on the list, but I hope that the logical connection between these amendments will excuse the mechanical disruption of the groupings list.
The purpose of these three amendments is to expand the role and remit of the newly formed body with which this Bill seeks to replace the existing Broadcasting
778
Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Amendment No. 195ZC proposes to change the name of the newly created organisation to the broadcasting standards and consumers commission. This simple alteration encapsulates the wider and more general role that we should like that organisation to have.
As I said at Second Reading, I believe the Government have missed an opportunity in this legislation to develop the part that viewers and listeners—the consumers—should play in broadcasting policy. After all, as has been said many times during the course of our deliberations on this Bill, broadcasting is a uniquely influential industry but consumer choice—apart from the clichéd operation of using the on/off switch on a radio or television set—is still extremely limited. It is only as regards the subscription services that viewers and listeners can, in an economic sense, correctly be called customers. Although, of course, digital technology, which we are discussing in relation to this Bill, will greatly expand quantity and, we hope, variety, there will still—if the Bill is unamended—be few constraints on overall quality.
As has often been pointed out, the market for broadcasting services is, in qualitative terms, wholly different from, for example, the market for radio or television sets. In the absence of an economic market mechanism for feeding back viewer and listener preferences about quality and price, I argue that there is a need for a surrogate system which goes some way towards achieving a balance of power as between producers and consumers. An expanded broadcasting standards and consumers commission could achieve just that. Standards of accountability and transparency would automatically be improved.
If the title for the new body is accepted—that is the subject of Amendment No. 195ZC—the terms of reference of the new body would continue to include the particular areas already proposed in the Bill, but would also include the expanded terms of reference proposed in Amendment No. 196A. That amendment would extend the remit to include general broadcasting complaints, but the statutory adjudication role would still be limited to those complaints listed in Clause 71. The consideration of general complaints would be part of the more proactive role envisaged in Amendment No. 196A, which would also include additional research capacity and broader policy responsibilities. Provision is made in the amendment for the commission to pass on its findings to the relevant regulatory bodies when that is more appropriate as regards taking action on complaints.
But because, under these proposals, the consumer body would be able to investigate all broad questions of quality, as well as specific complaints, and to publish its own reports, it would become an informed source of advice on general policy topics. Some topics which have been suggested to me as ones which could be discussed and explored under the new research capacity are the implications of living in areas with no cable television or, perhaps, access to Channel 5; the future of the BBC licence; and the effects of subscription services on low income households. In time, if this sort of subject could be contained within its remit, the new broadcasting

779
standards and consumers commission would become the primary source of informed audience opinion for both production companies and regulators. As such, it should be able to play an integral role in the future of broadcasting strategy.
As we have heard throughout the discussion on this Bill, the future of broadcasting is exciting, but it can also be somewhat daunting for those who watch and listen. They—perhaps I can say "we"—feel powerless in the face of bewildering technology and competing commercial interests. I argue that an expanded and totally independent consumers' commission would promote the interests of all of us as viewers and listeners. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I have a little difficulty with this series of amendments and indeed that whole part of the Bill which deals with the Broadcasting Standards Commission, because I am concerned about the over-regulation of cultural policy and the duplication of regulatory functions as between the ITC and the newly constituted body. This is a serious difficulty. I agree with all that has been said in support of the amendment as regards the position of viewers and listeners and the importance of being able to relate directly to media sources. However, I am not sure whether the creation of a further intermediary body—another regulatory quango; indeed an extended regulatory consumer quango—is the way to handle this issue.
The ITC, as established under the 1990 Act, has a broad remit of regulation in terms of its ability to deal with anxieties as they appear to that body, either directly or indirectly, through its monitoring systems, but it also has powers of regulation. It is able to penalise licensees who fail to meet requirements in terms of the maintenance of standards of taste and decency, impartiality and accuracy and all the issues that we shall discuss later this evening. I am worried that the ITC is already handling a wide range of complaints on matters of taste and decency, unfairness, privacy and impartiality; all the issues which are within the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Commission as proposed, and indeed of the broader consumers commission proposed in this amendment. The ITC received over 4,500 complaints about programme matters in 1995 and over 3,400 complaints about advertising. That indicates the extent to which the ITC is already perceived—because it is the regulator—as the body to which complaints are most directly and effectively directed. There are specialist complaints staff and monitoring staff. The ITC also has sanctions which it can use where there is failure to comply.
Compliance in broadcasting is a complicated and difficult field. It is important that it should be structured in terms of legislation and of the bodies involved in as direct a way as possible. In my view we should not create structures which duplicate the regulatory function of broadcasting culture.
I understand the argument about the complication of broadcasting and cultural production put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in support of the amendments. However, I do not regard extending the
780
role of the BSC as a means of dealing with that problem. I fail to see a role for the BSC as set out in this part of the Bill.
There is a track record for such bodies in the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, but we must avoid the danger of overregulation and the creation of excessive bureaucratic structures in this field. In my view we should simplify the relationship between state and broadcasters in order to enable people within the whole area of cultural production to operate in that area of light regulation within broadly agreed moral standards which the ITC already provides. To extend those bodies yet further is an unwarranted interference in the creativity of the media we are discussing.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: I have an open mind on this question of having some form of representation of consumers in the statute. However, I feel sure that it would be wrong to make arrangements for representation of consumer interests within the same body—the British Standards Commission—which will have a regulatory purpose which will be quite different from the representation of consumer interests.
The regulatory body will be quasi-judicial. If, as I hope, the views of my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, set out in Amendment No. 197 and the amendments grouped with it are accepted, then the proposed complaints procedure and the independent powers given to the British Standards Commission would make it, if anything, even more judicial and inconsistent with the purposes of a consumer association.
I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will indicate with some certainty that what is proposed by the noble Baroness is not what is needed.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I apologise to the Committee that I shall have to leave before the proceedings end this evening. That may be a relief to noble Lords. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say what I wish to say on the issue now and follow what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said.
I am sympathetic to those amendments which seek to make the membership of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission more representative. However, I have strong reservations about extending the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Commission for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The Minister will be happy to know that in what will probably be my last contribution in the Committee stage I can agree with him. He said at Second Reading that the Government see no reason to extend the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Commission which should run parallel with the regulator and not be a substitute for it. I am content with that situation.
The regulation of standards in broadcasting is untidy. The Minister keeps saying that he is a deregulatory Minister. In the past I teased his predecessors that when I started as chairman of the Independent Broadcasting

781
Authority there were only two regulators in broadcasting—the governors of the BBC and the board of the IBA. By the time the IBA was abolished by the present Government there were five or six regulators. That is a fair record for a deregulatory government. I used to complain greatly that the BSC was simply an unnecessary fifth wheel to the coach.
Life has moved on. Perhaps I am getting older, but I am rather in favour of untidiness and I do not wish to be too logical in these matters. As I said at Second Reading, under the experienced direction of Mr. Colin Shaw, who is about to retire, and the chairmanship of Lady Howe, the BSC has done a good job. In the field of research into broadcasting standards in particular there is a role to be played.
When it comes to some of the issues which will be raised later today and the proposals under which the BSC is to be given all kinds of duties in relation to due impartiality, taste and decency in particular programmes and dealing with objections to programmes even though the people concerned may not be directly involved, I am very much opposed to such a development in the role of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. If one wanted to be really tidy and logical—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has left so he will not feel too hurt by my remarks—there might be a case for giving the Broadcasting Standards Commission a regulatory role over the BBC, but not over the ITV companies, because there is a real difference between the ITC and the BBC. The governors of the BBC face the dilemma, which we discussed when we debated its charter, of looking both ways. On the one hand they are public trustees, which is their more important duty, but on the other they are fairly directly involved with those they employ as brilliant and creative programme makers. There is always a conflict when something goes wrong.
Under the present Broadcasting Act the ITC is at arm's length from those it regulates. It holds licences. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, the ITC has powerful sanctions. It has yellow cards and red cards, leading to being ordered off the scene entirely and not coming back.
I do not press that point. I press strongly the point that the membership of the Broadcasting Standards Commission should be as representative as possible. However, on these Benches we would be wholly opposed to seeking to increase its powers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Thomson. However, I do not want to disagree too strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because I am hoping for his support for the amendments that I shall move shortly in relation to disabled people. After the Second Reading debate I know how sympathetic he is.
It is wrong to speak of the overregulation of cultural policy. My noble friend is not seeking to overregulate cultural policy. She seeks to strengthen the hand of the consumer. There is no doubt that the consumer's hand needs to be strengthened. I have noticed that whenever any attempt is made to try to improve the interests of consumers, the automatic reaction is to speak of
782
overregulation, as the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Thomson, did. I am not satisfied with the existing system, but my noble friend referred specifically to the system in the future. We shall see great monoliths developing, and that presents a very strong case in support of my noble friend's argument.
All I can say in response to the point relating to adding this proposal to existing quangos is that, if my noble friend had suggested a different organisation rather than adding this role to that of the BSC, she would have been accused of proposing yet another quango. She cannot win, although I believe that she has won the argument.
Lord McNally: I hesitate to speak now because I fear that I shall be at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the Official Opposition Front Bench. For much of this debate we have marched shoulder to shoulder. However, in introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, used much of the language of bureaucracy. That justified the warning by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about freedom of cultural broadcasting. Later today we shall have again to draw a line in the sand about that.
In some ways I believe that the Opposition has ceded too much ground. The bodies of the great and good who are guardians of public morality are a waste of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, we spent a decade inventing body after body which will protect us from this, that and the other. Members of the Committee will later suggest further protections. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that we have the best broadcasting system in the world with brilliant new services and wonderful documentary programmes when they are made by producers and programme makers who have to be shackled, bound, watched, guided and advised. It is time to say, "Enough of this nonsense" and to give the regulatory bodies the responsibility for regulating, leaving the producers and makers of programmes to accept proper responsibility for their product.
Lord Chalfont: I hesitate to intervene at this late stage, especially as we seem in part to be debating an amendment which has not yet been moved. I understand the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, did that, but he has opened what is sometimes known as a can of worms—and some of them were wriggling furiously a moment ago.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not suggesting the removal from broadcasting of regulatory bodies. That would indeed be a retrograde step of the worst kind. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke, as did many others, about cultural freedom and creativity. I hope that I shall not be accused of being too obscurantist when I say that we have a little too much cultural creativity, especially in the presentation of news, current affairs and factual programmes. For that reason, the consumer needs more protection than the listener and viewer have at present.
I have no quarrel with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. I believe that there are other ways of accomplishing it. Indeed other ways will be implicit in the amendments that I hope I shall have time to move

783
later this evening. However, we should return to the question of regulating and be clear in our minds about what the regulators do. They do not stifle creativity. No one has suggested to me that the ITC or Radio Authority are stiflers of cultural creativity. The quality of programmes in many cases is quite high, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. But the consumer has to be protected. In that sense, I believe, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the strength of the BSC should be increased. The Secretary of State for National Heritage said that in a debate on this subject in another place.
I hope that we shall not be drawn too far along the libertarian path into believing that the ideal situation would be a totally deregulated and unregulated broadcasting system in this country.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I hope that I may begin on a slightly prosaic note. I believe that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 195ZC, 195H, 196A and 195J, and no others.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: If the Minister will forgive me, we are not debating Amendment No. 195H. Despite the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—we understand that it is his swansong at the Committee stage—I have not yet moved that amendment. It refers to membership of the committee.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful. I had not much to say about it anyway. In proposing a change in title, the noble Baroness is by implication extending the remit of the new BSC into areas which are properly the concern of the regulators and broadcasters. The Government do not consider it necessary to extend the BSC's remit in the manner that this amendment suggests. The regulators already place considerable emphasis on the interests of consumers through the attention they pay, under the 1990 legislation, to setting licence conditions and promulgating codes. The Independent Television Commission, for example, has significant powers to penalise its licensees if they overstep the mark in maintaining standards of taste and decency, due impartiality, accuracy in programmes and advertising. Monitoring by ITC's own specialist staff and the resources it devotes to responding to complaints about programme matters demonstrate a considerable commitment to protecting the viewers' interests. More widely the ITC puts considerable effort into monitoring the range and quality of programme services of commercial terrestrial channels and undertakes annual reviews of performance in respect of programme output.
The ITC sponsors eleven viewer consultative councils, comprising members with a keen interest in television programmes and broadly representative of the UK population. The work of these councils is integral to ITC's monitoring role. At the same time the ITC undertakes a considerable programme of research. Equally, the BBC, under the provision of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the draft Charter which is being debated in another place as we speak, is equally engaged in similar
784
activities. Bearing in mind this commitment to and work on behalf of the interests of television consumers, the Government see no reason to extend the remit—even if only by implication in a proposed change of title—of the new Broadcasting Standards Commission which, as I have previously said in this Committee, should complement the regulator, not substitute for it.
I turn now to Amendment No. 196A. The amendment extends the remit of the BSC widely. It would give it more or less complete discretion to look into any matter concerned with domestic broadcasting services. The Government believe that this is an undesirable and unhelpful extension of the role of the new body. The intended role of the BSC is to be the sum of the roles performed by the two previously separate bodies—to act as an independent focus of public concern about matters of taste, decency, violence, privacy and unfairness in broadcasting and to provide individuals with a user-friendly easy mechanism to see whether their personal interests, including affronts to their sensibilities, may have been affected deleteriously. The two predecessor bodies built up considerable experience and expertise in these important fields and that is where their focus should continue to lie.
To extend the remit of the BSC after merger to investigate almost anything at all connected with broadcasting which the BSC might choose to investigate is more or less completely open ended, with all that that entails for its energy and resources. It must be almost certain that it will so dissipate its activities that it fails to perform effectively in those areas that we consider to be important, unless it is permitted vast amounts of staff and resources which are quite simply not justified by the noble Baroness in the context of the current calls on public expenditure. The amendment also places a duty on the BSC to ascertain the opinions and experiences of viewers and listeners and to offer advice to regulators, broadcasters, the Government and anyone else in very broad terms.
There is a further difficulty with all this. Much of the expertise of the two predecessor bodies has been built on their statutory functions of considering complaints. That process, which is inevitably reactive and deliberative, has been the basis of their more proactive work, which is extended by the powers contained in the Bill. I am, of course, referring to drawing up guidance, monitoring programmes and undertaking research. The Government believe that the priority attached to responding to complaints should not be diluted and that the amendment would in fact mean that the BSC would become a research body, with significant advisory functions. This would demote dealing with individual complaints to second place.
The Government believe that the extension of the BSC's powers proposed in the amendment is unnecessary because the broadcasting regulatory bodies—the BBC Governors, ITC, the Radio Authority and the Welsh Authority (a point made by a number of contributors to the debate)—all have powers, or will he given powers under the Bill, to deal with the full range of broadcasting matters. The amendment duplicates what can be done already and does not add value to the

785
existing regulatory process. Indeed, it would be an extra financial burden on broadcasters, without achieving any materially wider benefit.
Finally, I wish briefly to speak to Amendment No. 195J. In it the BSC is to be entitled to consult broadcasting and regulatory bodies in the process of drawing up or reviewing its guidance on privacy and fair treatment and to take into account any views arising out of that consultation. I am aware that the BSC is already required to consult broadcasting and regulatory bodies for the purpose of drawing up or reviewing its guidance on standards. It was our intention, in omitting a similar requirement for its fairness guidance, that such guidance be built'upon the commission's jurisprudence, and it should therefore be structured according to the experience of the commission rather than that of broadcasters, regulators or other relevant bodies. However, I should like to take this opportunity, with your Lordships' indulgence, to think about the amendment further.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, particularly for his encouraging words about the final amendment and the extension of the consultation remit. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who took part in the encouragingly vigorous debate, which has extended into the dinner hour, so I shall limit my remarks in reply.
I understand the points which were made about the possible extension of the role of the standards commission in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested. However, I was specific in my remarks to ensure that the statutory role would be concerned only with complaints which occur already under Clause 71 of the proposed legislation and not with the broader tasks which I was suggesting.
In a sense, there is not so much a misunderstanding as a difference of theoretical principle about the role of the body which I suggested and which I noted in the course of the discussion. I do not see it as either extending the constraints on producers or improving the protection for consumers, but much more positively as extending the consumers' influence. Since tonight we are all precise in our declaration of interests, as a current producer and professional contributor to documentary programmes on many channels in this country, I have no wish to restrain my own or any other colleagues' creativity, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested I was trying to do. All I wish to achieve through the amendment is to ensure that in my more popular role, on which I spend more time at this point in my career—that is, being a viewer and listener—I and the millions of other people in the country who are viewers and listeners and who feel that they have no positive influence on broadcasting strategy as consumers should have that role extended.
However, in view of the encouraging response which the Minister gave to one part of the amendment and the general disagreement about the broader principle of consumer interest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. The Second Reading was a long time ago-20 months now—on 7th June 1994. Since then, it has passed through the hands of the committee, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. There were 11 sittings and the committee also visited Bodmin Moor.
Except in one important respect, to which I shall refer later, the Bill returns to us no different in general form. In the interim the deliberations of the committee have involved much discussion with the promoters, Cornwall County Council, associations representing commoners and landowners, the Countryside Commission and petitioners. The promoters and the other parties would, I am sure, wish to be associated with me in thanking all noble Lords who served on the committee and their chairman. I congratulate Cornwall County Council for its perseverance in pursuing the Bill. It underlines the Bill's importance for Cornwall and, I believe, its significance in the wider arena.
At Second Reading I introduced the Bill in the context of sustainable development to which the country adheres through Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Action Plan to which the United Kingdom signed up through international conventions launched at Rio in 1992. I tried to highlight the duty that we in Parliament have as a legislature to enact laws that facilitate action by people and communities directed towards the objectives of sustainability. The importance of that consideration has not diminished.
I do not need to enlarge on the multiple values of Bodmin Moor. It is a large area over which the commons affected by the Bill are scattered and of which collectively the commons form a significant part. Perhaps I may remind the House that the area is important for its geology, its land form, its biological resources, its landscape and its archaeological and historic value.
The moorland habitat is fragile and suffers from over-grazing on large areas and in places under-grazing. Farming is not easy, but livestock farming is traditional on the commons. It is vital that that use should be managed in a sustainable manner with farming practices integrated so as to safeguard and enhance the inherent natural values of England's most south-westerly upland.
There are no changes in the structure of the Bill I described on Second Reading. The commoners' council, the management plan, the substantive powers

787
of the commoners' council by regulation and otherwise, and the raft of precautions to ensure that the powers given are not abused are all as I described them on Second Reading. I need not go over them again.
There is no specific provision for judicial review, although the general law relating to such review will apply to the commoners' council as to any public authority. There is a new specific duty on the commoners' council to act fairly. That appears in what is now Clause 4. It replaces the specific provisions on judicial review. Other minor amendments of a drafting or technical nature do not affect issues of policy. So, except in an important respect to which I shall come, the Bill and the county council's reasons for promoting it are not substantially different from those outlined at Second Reading. It is still the aim of the Bill to establish a system of regulation on Bodmin Moor which will enable the commons, and indirectly the moor as a whole, to be managed in an environmentally sustainable way and in accordance with good husbandry. That, for the people who live there, will improve the viability of farms on the moor, encourage diversification and enhance the tourism potential. More directly, it will become possible to obtain environmentally sensitive area status, the associated grants to go with it and similar grants and facilities on the agricultural side. All that, the county council expects, will lead directly or indirectly to a substantial revival of the economy of the area.
When in June 1994 I agreed to sponsor the Bill in your Lordships' House I stipulated that it should have the agreement of the two statutory countryside agencies in England. As its chairman—which I still am—I was able to declare the support of English Nature, as recorded at col. 1153 of Hansard of 7th June 1994. I was also assured at the time by the Countryside Commission that I could say, as I did, that the commission had withdrawn its petition against the Bill in the face of assurances of modifications that would be forthcoming from the promoters. That created a somewhat difficult situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady David, raised concerns that had been apparent in the withdrawn petition of the Countryside Commission. In giving me authority to speak on its behalf the commission also asked me to say, as I did, that it had residual concerns about the fencing of common land, the sources of advice on nature conservation and archaeology, the consulting of the public on the access strategy and the way in which trespassers would be dealt with.
Those issues occupied the period between Second Reading and today's Third Reading. The main difference between the Bill as it now stands and as it was then is that it no longer makes provision for a right of regulated access to the commons where, for the most part, there is at the moment no such access. There is de facto public access over many areas of the moor, as noble Lords will know if they have visited it. Those areas include both common land and land which is in sole private ownership. But that access is dependent on the decisions of individual landowners in respect of their own land, or, to a degree, the commoners on land which is common land. I am assured that in many instances
788
the landowners and commoners actively encourage and support access rather than simply accept it. I am told that it is the understanding of the county council that those informal arrangements will continue in any event.
The major thrust of petitions against the Bill related to the way in which a right of public access was to be provided. In the end it proved impossible to reach an arrangement acceptable to the petitioners, the commoners and the landowners. The solution of the committee was to delete all reference to public access, leaving the Bill purely concerned with conservation and grazing measures. Clause 10, therefore, and the associated consultation processes have been withdrawn. The county council now feels that the question of access to open country generally, including access to commons, should be addressed nationally and not in the context of a piece of local legislation. I admit that I agree with that.
I referred to sustainability. The central plank in the structure envisaged by the Bill is the preparation and approval of a management plan which will provide the means for the commoner's council to exercise its functions. The commoners, with professional advice, are well advanced in the preparation of a draft of the kind of plan they envisage and will develop it when they have formal existence as a commoners' council after the Bill becomes law. That is the meat of the debate about sustainability. I said that at Second Reading and I have done so again today. The term "sustainability" has featured strongly in debates in this House on various occasions and in different contexts. We may not yet be able to define the concept for all purposes on every occasion. But at least we know what is not sustainable. At present the state of Bodmin Moor is not sustainable in environmental terms. The Bill can put the moors and commons on the road to sustainability. I fear that the problems that have been encountered in this one small legislative measure illustrate in microcosm the huge difficulties we shall face on a national scale as we try to devise practices and, where necessary, provide legislative backing to measures which integrate the fair aspirations of people across a wide range of interests so that together we can achieve sustainability.
Once again I commend the work of the committee and its members and chairman along with the promoters, the objectors, the petitioners and all those who became involved in the debate on having successfully found a way through the maze and in the end having produced a Bill which provides a grounding for sustainable management of what is a cherished corner of England's natural heritage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having brought the Bill to your Lordships' House for its Third Reading and for explaining so clearly how it has reached its present state. I too spoke at Second Reading and I have followed the Bill's progress with great interest ever since. At that time I felt that it was a very good Bill. It set about establishing a management structure which would bring together those with an active interest in Bodmin Moor. It would result in sensible management practice of benefit to both farming

789
and conservation and would go some way towards achieving the sustainable objective to which my noble friend referred.
The law on commons is complex. Clearly, differences occur between owners and graziers. The Bill will go a long way towards addressing that difficulty. But what pleased me particularly about the Bill was that, although it was promoted by Cornwall County Council—I congratulate the council—it had the full support of those working on the ground. It was a Bill emanating from the people of Bodmin Moor. I appreciate that the carrot of ESA status acted as a helpful stimulus. Nonetheless, it is a useful step forward.
Sadly, matters did not develop, in the short term at least, quite as the promoters had expected. Certain organisations petitioned against the Bill in order to try to impose a right of open access over Bodmin Moor, which was quite against the wishes of the owners, the graziers and indeed the promoters of the Bill, Cornwall County Council. I appreciate that petitioning against a Bill is a perfectly legitimate and right thing to do. But it was particularly disturbing that in this instance there was quite blatant support for the access groups from the Countryside Commission. I should make clear that I do not include any of the local branches of the Countryside movement. My information is that it involved purely the head office at Cheltenham.
I appreciate that the Countryside Commission, as a government advisory agency, has statutory responsibilities on access matters and public enjoyment of the countryside. But to attempt to push through a policy which was opposed by all those promoting the Bill and which was contrary to government policy was, in my view, at the very least unhelpful and, I think, an underhand way to behave. It held up the Bill, caused considerable frustration to those involved with it and, although I have no evidence to prove it, I suspect that the additional costs have been considerable.
However, I am delighted that partly because of the determined efforts of those responsible for the Bill not to be moved and a most useful intervention by the then Minister for the countryside, my right honourable friend Mr. Robert Atkins, the matter now seems to have been resolved. Clause 16 has been amended and the public right of access removed, still leaving in place the very reasonable access provisions referred to by my noble friend in his opening remarks.
So I can say with confidence that we now have a thoroughly good Bill. Now that a proper management structure is in place, within the Bill at any rate, I hope that the Government in due course will seriously consider Bodmin Moor for ESA status or some such environmental scheme. I do not ask my noble friend on the Front Bench even to contemplate answering such a request because I realise that it is not in his power to do so. I just make the plea because of the importance of Bodmin Moor from an environmental point of view.
I am delighted to say that the prospect of the Bill being enacted has enabled the Cornwall Commoners' Association to be awarded a MAFF/EU 5B grant which will fund the expenses for the implementation of the
790
new council and its workings. There are 300 commoners whose interests need looking after so it will be an expensive and complex operation.
It has been brought to my attention, in my capacity as Lord Warden of the Stannaries of the Duchy of Cornwall, that there is a minor difficulty still remaining within the wording of the Bill in relation to the exemption clause of the Duchy of Cornwall. I do not want to go into details now; my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is aware of it. However, I hope that the wording can be sorted out; otherwise, as the solicitor for the Duchy of Cornwall said,
"The point is purely a question of the grammatical drafting and not a matter of substance. The draft as prepared does not make sense in the light of the constitution of the Duchy and, if it ever came to be tested in court, might well be criticised".
Clearly, that point needs to be addressed. It cannot be dealt with now but I hope that when the Bill goes to another place it can be. I hope that there will be no further major delays and that the Bill has a speedy passage through the other place so that the owners and farmers of Bodmin Moor can, as we say, "do the business" for the benefit of farming, the environment and those who visit and love Bodmin Moor.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I congratulate all those involved in the successful progress of the Bill through its rather laborious stages. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I regret the fact that the provisions for public access have been removed. The preamble originally contained provisions dealing with public access; they are no longer there. Although the Bill provides permitted use as a resort for open-air recreation, that is merely a power that the council possesses rather than a duty upon it. My understanding is that the present damage to Bodmin Moor is mostly caused by over-grazing and not by members of the public visiting the area.
If the provisions for regulated access that were at one stage in the Bill had been retained, it would have been possible not only to allow people to use larger areas of Bodmin Moor but also to regulate that access to the benefit of the environment by erecting fences around particularly sensitive areas and so forth. Therefore, not only have the public lost out because of the loss of provision for access to some parts of the moor, but also the environment and some species may have lost out because it is not possible to provide powers to regulate their access.
With those caveats, I wish the Bill well and congratulate all those involved on its production.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are delighted that the Bill is about to achieve its Third Reading. We believe that it will do a great deal of good. My noble friend Lord Peel raised a matter of concern about the activities which he says the Countryside Commission undertook. He will be aware that we do not share the view of the party opposite that the countryside should be regulated by bureaucrats for the benefit of town dwellers. My right honourable friend Mr. Atkins reacted speedily and with

791
some force to the anxieties expressed by my noble friend and Cornwall County Council. We wish the Bill happy progress through another place.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, the issue of access has been properly dealt with. The noble Baroness is correct. Originally, Clause 10 applied both to access and to the regulation of it. However, the right decision has been made in allowing that to be debated at national level rather than trying to impose regulations piecemeal in a local way. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Offences and Alcohol
7.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new action they are considering to deal with criminal offences committed by those under the influence of alcohol.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are a small and select group this evening discussing an important problem. It is none the worse for being a small group and I do not expect this to be a debate in which there are political differences.
I was asked by several noble Lords in the corridors of this House, in the friendly and congenial way in which things happen here, what was behind my Question. I am sure they wished that they had not asked because I was able to give them a synopsis of my speech. However, it is interesting that I should be asked by two or three Peers about this. They were interested, certainly, in what I started to tell them. It indicates that there is a contact with the way the general public think. At best there is an underestimation of the problems of crime and its links with alcohol.
I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, whose function it is to keep parliamentarians aware of developments in matters concerned with alcohol. We placed strong emphasis on health. We have now moved to the aspects of alcohol consumption which affect crime and to that end we conducted an inquiry. We took written and oral evidence from a number of important bodies such as the police, voluntary agencies, prison authorities and so forth, to discover as much as we could about their views of the problem.
Statistics indicate that we in this country are generally modest consumers of alcohol per capita every year. I do not suppose we are any different in terms of the small percentage who become addicts or alcoholics; that seems to be a fairly general and sad fact. In most societies there is a small percentage of people who will become addicted to one substance or another, unhappily nowadays crossing over from alcohol to drugs and back again. Those statistics may not be of much cheer to the
792
brewers and distillers. I find it comforting that we, among the European nations, are modest consumers of alcohol.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will have some interesting and constructive thoughts in relation to the problems—mainly connected with younger males and their propensity in certain circumstances to indulge in activities which can be criminal as a result of an immoderate consumption of alcohol. One only has to read the newspapers every day or to follow the media to find cases of crime or sad events which may or may not be criminal, connected with alcohol abuse. Those are clearly most publicised, and have been publicised in recent years, in connection with sporting events. My noble friend Lord Addington will deal with that point. We have heard of British tourists misbehaving on international flights and some noble Lords may have seen a recent television programme about violence and alcohol on our railways, particularly our underground system in London.
There are also deaths and injuries from drinking and driving, although there has been a quite remarkable cultural change over the past 15 years. There has been an enormous change from when I was a young man. Generally speaking, I do not think that young males drink and drive. In fact, if one had to point the finger anywhere, it would be at middle-aged drivers, who drink and drive more than young people because they have not changed with the culture. The Minister may have something to say to us about that. Because I feel that there has been such a change and because I believe that when people have behaved well they need a pat on the back rather than being further chastised, I am not necessarily a supporter of more random testing. But persistent offenders—people who persist in driving while under the influence of drink—should be dealt with seriously, and sometimes severely.
The incidents we hear of are probably only part of the problem, either because other incidents have not been detected or because the link has not been made between alcohol and the crime. The overriding view given to the all-party group from doctors, the nursing profession, the Probation Service and the Prison Service was that not only is there a link between alcohol and crime but that not enough has yet been done to address the link. Therefore, a serious attempt must be made to reduce the large number of crimes which are undoubtedly related to alcohol.
The Police Superintendents Association estimates that more than 50 per cent. of all crimes have some alcohol component. The British Medical Association told the inquiry that two in three homicides, three in four stabbings and half of all fights in domestic situations are associated with alcohol. A survey by the West Midlands police showed that alcohol was a factor in 82 per cent. of disorder cases and 43 per cent. of assaults in that area of the British Isles, with most of the offences happening—this will not surprise your Lordships—around weekends and around closing time near licensed premises.
Given the wide range of offences shown to be linked to alcohol there are a number of measures which the Government could take. What is needed as an initial step

793
is a co-ordinated approach to government policy on this issue. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the Government will encourage local authorities to work more with their local partners such as the police, the Probation Service, magistrates and alcohol services, particularly voluntary services, to draw up specific strategies to deal with the problem of alcohol related crime.
I shall return to the subject of licensed premises. Given the number of cases of assault and disorder which take place outside licensed premises around closing time, considerable efforts have already been made by parts of the drinks industry to improve the situation. It is recognised by the drinks trade that a higher level of training is needed by staff working in licensed premises not only to prevent disturbances and to foresee them but indeed to learn how alcohol works. If one has to teach young people about drink and about its health aspect it is quite important to tell them, as indeed I have tried to tell my own children—happily, I have had no problems so far—that not only does alcohol cause health problems if one drinks too much of it but that one has to understand what in each particular case it does. Some people become very aggressive. Some people like me become giggly and stupid—more giggly and stupid than usual. It is necessary for young people to be taught about the dangers of this and other substances.
We heard interesting evidence from the Prison Service. Bearing in mind the number of people who are in prison with alcohol problems, prisons are often without even the most basic information about alcohol and offer little access to counselling and rehabilitation services. In an overcrowded prison system it should be possible to remove a number of people who are not professional criminals. Many of them are, unhappily, inadequate people with problems who find themselves in places of that kind where their problems can only be aggravated.
The impact of alcohol abuse on family life is devastating. The problem affects not only inner city poor areas but also middle class affluent areas. The result of one person—a parent or a partner—having an alcohol problem and persistently getting into trouble with the police who may be called in to deal with domestic violence can be that person going to prison with little or no access to the kind of help which is needed to deal with the alcohol problem.
The report of the all-party group was a step in the right direction and it has gone to the Minister's department. Alcohol studies are not always the most charismatic or attractive of studies to read but this report is full of interesting information. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the recommendations in the report because there is no doubt that they are a much needed basis on which to work for a national and co-ordinated strategy to deal with the problem.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloways: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for introducing an interesting and
794
important subject. What new action are the Government considering to deal with criminal offences committed by those under the influence of alcohol? I shall confine my short speech to that point.
This subject is clearly, from the point of view of new action by the Government in the criminal context, closely related to drugs and cannot be considered in isolation from them, the question being whether self-induced abuse of alcohol or of drugs or even clandestine administration—spiked food or drink—affects the mental capacity in such a way as to exculpate from the commission of a crime. The new action taken would be perhaps to introduce better laws because, as the former chairman of the Law Commission, Mr. Justice Brooke, said in his reflections at page 914 of the Criminal Law Review (1995),
"Concealed from view in this context of offences against the person are a whole host of complicated common law principles worked out by the judges over the years in an effort to make this ragbag of offences work. The more the judges try to make these provisions operate as rationally and fairly as is practicable, the more obvious it has become that the basic framework of the law is unprincipled and very seriously out of kilter with modern international standards".
That is the sort of basis on which I am approaching this very serious question.
The problem arises in its most acute form—in the interests of time I shall confine my observations to it—in relation to the charge of murder, which, at the moment, is under general review and which incurs the mandatory life sentence. That should be under review, but it is not. It could extend to rape if the proposals as to a mandatory life sentence on second conviction are to be implemented. The automatic mandatory life sentence for a second offence of rape committed under a substantial consumption of self-induced drinking, or even perhaps administered, without any judicial discretion to take that into account, is quite a serious matter. I only mention that as an illustration of the magnitude of this question.
There is the case of Kingston. He was a young man whose food and drink was surreptitiously laced with a powerful intoxicant. Under its influence he caused someone's death with the intention of causing him serious harm. He could not have formed that intention if his drink had not been spiked. He was guilty of murder.
I said that I would make a short speech and I meant it. This is a matter which warrants not only the attention of the Law Commission, which it is about to receive, but also in due course the attention of government in context with a simple proposition; namely, how does the consumption of alcohol to a certain degree which affects intent or the administration of drugs, exculpate from crime?
8.5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I started thinking about the question before us—that is to say, how alcohol and crime are related in our society—I found that it is very difficult to think of any general public disorder crimes which are not to some extent affected by alcohol. The simple reason is that alcohol is the drug of choice for virtually the whole of the Western world and is

795
something which breaks down one's inhibitions. That is why we take it as a social activity. Alcohol breaks down inhibitions against doing harm and against certain other types of behaviour.
Alcohol also breaks down inhibitions at different rates. As my noble friend has just said, different people react to alcohol in different ways. It affects people at different ages in different ways. It depends on one's diet. It is a very variable substance. Also, different types of alcohol react differently in different people at different times. With that chemical variant working through the system, the only thing that we can say for sure about it is that it creates situations where one is not so much in control and there are not so many inbuilt natural or social inhibitions influencing one's actions. There is, then, the situation of people being more prepared to follow through instincts or feelings and thus one has the breakdown of normal rules and regulations, law and order.
The principal offender is, and has always been, the young male. Although I feel something of a veteran when I play rugby, in this Chamber I believe that I am one of those closest to that group. In this context, people who are genetically the most boisterous and most affected by machismo and who take on alcohol may turn towards acts of violence and disorder.
I believe that that is what, primarily, we are talking about here. We are not talking so much about premeditation. There may be cases, for example, where people are drinking to break down inhibitions and to give themselves Dutch courage; for instance, in organised football violence. The Government have made successful attempts towards curtailing that problem over the past few years. Often the reaction is off the cuff. That is when a person finds himself in a situation of stress where the inhibitions are broken down and there is over-reaction. The young male who is over-reacting goes from punching someone on the nose to trying to use a knife or he is socially geared to carry a knife or use a piece of broken glass. Many crimes take place in that way, leading to a level of violence involving the taking of life.
In order to try to break down that situation, the Government are placed in a very odd situation. One of the great problems which the British have is that they are renowned as speed drinkers. We drink very fast: we are renowned for that abroad. Indeed, our licensing hours restricting the amount of time that one can spend in bars have often been pointed to as a contributor to that situation. Someone goes home from work, gets changed and goes out. Possibly that person does not go out until nine o'clock. The bar he is socialising in will be shut by eleven. Often it is a case of, "We must drink something to relax ourselves". We are creating a situation which encourages the over-consumption of alcohol over a short period of time, possibly on an empty stomach.
It is very odd to think that one might be actually easing the situation and reducing the tension by extending the amount of drinking time. I suggest in some situations the breaking down of the licensing hours after lunch. If people are not forced into a bar to
796
consume at a certain rate to create a certain effect and then forced out, one may, as my noble friend said, by changing the time of leaving bars, remove the conflict situation. Staggering the hours would allow people to choose their own time for drinking. That is something which should definitely take place.
As regards sporting occasions, if people involved in those activities are sent out at certain hours when they have reached a certain degree of intoxication, one is again creating a cauldron. The behaviour also depends on culture. For instance, soccer crowds are made up predominantly of young men and there has been most trouble with them in the past. If one cuts down the amount of alcohol drunk on trains travelling to and from games and at the grounds, the amount of violence is reduced. Scotland showed us the way forward and that it is possible to tackle and to deal with such situations. We now have to think hard about allowing the consumption of alcohol on journeys to and from soccer matches and other sporting events. Boxing has had a very bad press, with possibly the same tribal instincts being stirred up, leading to similar results when alcohol is involved.
We are talking about the drug of choice for the whole of our society. There are very few situations in which, traditionally, people do not drink alcohol. It is still unusual to find people who do not drink alcohol. The most intelligent way forward would be to teach people about consumption patterns and about what happens to them when they consume alcohol. We have already made a huge cultural step forward in terms of drinking and driving. My noble friend referred to that. Drinking and driving is now regarded as idiotic by many members of our society. We must try to get people to realise that they must act responsibly for the good of themselves and those around them. If consuming too much alcohol is no longer socially acceptable, people will probably try to restrict their consumption.
Ultimately, unless we try to ban the sale of alcohol altogether, which will not work—indeed, the only part of the Western world which tried to do that created vastly more crime and far more alcoholism than was the case previously—we must try first to change the way in which we regard alcohol and, secondly, we must change the way in which we encourage its consumption. That is the only way forward with this problem.
8.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for tabling this Unstarred Question and for bringing to the attention of the House the excellent all-party group report, of which he was the vice-chairman, which I have read with a great deal of interest. The speeches that we have heard have a common basis although they have all been very different in emphasis. That common basis is the well-established link between alcohol and crime. That was shown clearly in the all-party report and has been confirmed by all of the agencies which are concerned with this serious problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, chose quite properly not to follow the social speech of the noble Viscount, but spoke about the legal implications

797
of alcohol and crime. He referred to the work of the Law Commission. I read with great interest the Law Commission's paper No. 127 on the subject. I have also had the benefit of reading the Law Society's response to that consultation paper. The conclusion that I draw from it is that although it is difficult to decide in relation to which crimes the influence of alcohol should be recognised, the present law is not too far from the ideal.
As I understand it, the distinction between whether or not alcohol is a factor to be considered in judging a crime is whether the crime is one in which the state of mind of the accused—that is, the intention—is an essential part of the crime. Murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent are such crimes, but manslaughter and other crimes which do not involve intent are not such crimes. This is difficult to define. I know that the definitions derive from a House of Lords judgment in 1977 in the Majewski case. The subtlety which I still find a little difficult to understand is the concept of "Caldwell recklessness". I am still not quite clear what that means.
Basically what the Law Commission was saying—the Law Society and others who have responded probably agree—was that although there will always be difficulties around the edges, if we stick to the concept of "intent" to cause a particular result, it is possible to rely on the intoxicated state as being evidence that the defendant had no such intention. However, a drunken intention is still an intention at law. Therefore, the law will never be entirely clear on this point. If, on the other hand, the allegation is only that the person realised that there was a risk that a particular result might occur, intoxication would not be a defence. The conclusion that one draws from that is that if there are changes to be made in the law—I believe that the Law Commission has a draft Bill—they will be relatively minor and therefore we should not expect too much change.
I move now without too much difficulty to the social issues raised by the noble Viscount. The conclusion that I draw from the all-party report is that a wide variety of people have to be responsible if any progress is to be made. I do not think that it is a matter of saying, "The Government must do this"—although perhaps one may wish that the ministerial group which existed between 1987 and 1991 could be revived—although the involvement of local authorities, magistrates, the police, the prison service and sporting authorities will be necessary. We shall have to chip away at the problem because we are never going to solve it.
Perhaps I may refer first to local authorities and, to a lesser extent, health authorities. Coventry and some other places have introduced a by-law prohibiting street drinking in certain areas. There is a lot to be said for that. I am sure that all of us find it personally offensive to see people (not only in shopping areas but elsehere, and particularly on public transport) going around even early in the morning with beer cans in their hands from which they take a glug from time to time. It appears from the Coventry experience—evidence was given to the all-party group—that there are things which can be done which have some effect in reducing certain kinds
798
of alcohol-induced crime, such as crimes of disorder. Clearly, such by-laws will not have any effect on the incidence of murder or domestic crime.
Local authorities also have other responsibilities. In conjunction with health authorities they could set up day centres—if there is the funding. Clearly, that would be of value.
It is also important to be much fiercer than we are about requesting proof of age in pubs. I know that my sons all started drinking in pubs long before they were legally allowed to do so. I am sure that that is the experience of most Members of your Lordships' House and of most people generally. If there were an effective system of requiring proof of age, as there is in most of the United States, perhaps we could get rid of another aspect of alcohol-related crime. However, in order to do that local authorities have to have responsibility for crime prevention in conjunction with police authorities. We regretted very much the fact that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act of a couple of years ago did not put crime prevention at the core of collaboration between local authorities and police authorities.
I turn briefly to the sporting events to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. I agree with what he said, but when he spoke about football violence I thought that he was being a little selective in class terms. Surely alcohol violence at Varsity matches and the Boat Race, if not at Test matches, shows that alcohol-related crime applies just as much to the upper classes as to the lower classes. I can see the noble Viscount, Lord Long, recalling his long past and no doubt raddled youth. I recall Evelyn Waugh in Decline and Fall describing the sound of the upper classes baying after broken glass. Perhaps that is what he is remembering.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I merely used football as the best example, and an example of tribal, confrontational violence. Shall we say that offences of disorder have long been a part of Rugby Union?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I see tribalism, on the whole, more with the upper classes and the aristocracy than I do among the working class.
However, I turn rapidly to magistrates and the powers that they could have to impose non-custodial sentences which involve the use, for example, of day centres, to which I have already referred, and alcohol treatment centres. There is the important aspect of magistrates' responsibility for licensing. Licences to sell alcohol are cheap. Perhaps they could be made more expensive. Some of the controls, particularly on selling alcohol to young people, could perhaps be fiercer than they are.
We have not referred much to forms of drugs other than alcohol, and the two must be considered together. My honourable friend George Howarth, who is a member of the Front Bench Home Affairs team in the other place, has been doing a great deal of work recently

799
on the control of door staff in clubs. That is important. The training and control of door staff in clubs in understanding—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Bouncers!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Bouncers, my Lords, as my noble friend reminds me. The training of such people in understanding alcohol and drug abuse is enormously important. It could make a significant contribution to reducing alcohol-induced crime.
The responsibilities of the police are self-evident. I do not need to expand on that point. There is a great deal still to be learnt by the police about how to deal with drunks at police stations. There are police stations, certainly in my part of London, where the practice is severely below that which is desired.
Finally, I want to refer to what can be done in prisons to deal with alcohol rehabilitation. I have been reading with interest about the work of the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust in Her Majesty's Prisons at Downview and Coldingley, and, as of this year, also in Pentonville. It has been providing counselling, in the first instance by outside counsellors in those prisons, and consistent programmes to wean prisoners off alcohol abuse. It has now been able to build up a group of peer counsellors—nothing to do with the House of Lords, but fellow prisoners—who work effectively, as I understand it. I pay tribute to that work and I hope that it will be extended. Perhaps the Minister can say something about what more could be done.
There will never be a solution to the problem. It is riot a problem, it is a whole series of problems. As the noble Viscount said in his introduction, alcohol is the drug of choice for the western world, but if we involve all the agencies about which I have been talking we can chip away at the problem and perhaps make progress.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I, too, join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on raising an issue which is rightly foremost in the current debate about the improper use of alcohol. But before responding to the many and learned points which have been made I must say that at the Home Office we are often asked what are the causes of crime and what is being done to tackle crime and disorder. Alcohol misuse is often mentioned as a cause of criminality. Noble Lords will know that, quite simply, there is no single cause of crime. The reasons why people become offenders are complex and wide ranging. A variety of factors may encourage them towards or away from criminality. For some, alcohol will undoubtedly be an influential factor but it, too, may be part of a more complex picture.
The consumption of alcohol, in sensible quantities and in appropriate circumstances, provides a great many people with a great deal of enjoyment. I suspect that at this moment many of our colleagues are indulging innocently in that pastime.
800
Clearly it is an important part in our social and cultural life. Equally, drinking the wrong amount or at the wrong time can lead to immeasurable harm—harm in health terms, as the noble Viscount said. And on those occasions where it reduces concentration and inhibition it can, and regrettably does, lead to accidents and anti-social behaviour.
The Government do not wish to discourage the sensible consumption of alcohol but are committed to reducing alcohol-related harm. Government policy is that schools, colleges and the Youth Service should encourage young people in developing responsible attitudes towards alcohol consumption. Young people need to learn to make sensible choices about whether, when and how much to drink and how to resist persuasion and pressure. That often happens in the context of more general health education programmes which emphasise the benefits of healthy living.
It is essential that we continue to get that message across, as heavy drinking often precedes violent and sexual crimes and disorderly behaviour, and many persistent offenders have a lifestyle which includes heavy drinking. Crime prevention efforts are therefore targeted on disorder and violence associated with licensed premises, and measures to encourage sensible drinking are seen as contributing to crime prevention generally. We know, for example, that almost half the incidents of disorderly behaviour dealt with by the police occur shortly after the end of permitted hours for licensed premises and are more likely to occur on Friday or Saturday nights and to involve young men. That said, it is important to remember that most drinking is not associated with crime.
Time prevents me from answering in detail the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about exit times from licensed premises, but it is a point well taken.
A great deal of progress has been made: alcohol related road traffic accidents are decreasing, attitudes have changed, as has been recognised by the debate, and drink drivers are increasingly being seen and treated as a criminal menace.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway mentioned the courts. There is no question about the important role that the courts have to play in dealing with alcohol-related crimes. In that regard, the Government's responsibility is to ensure that the courts have sufficient powers to deal adequately with the worst offences. Severe maximum penalties are available, particularly for offences of violence, and we have not hesitated to increase them where necessary; for example, the Criminal Justice Act 1993 doubled to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink.
Parliament has provided a sentencing framework, as my noble friend knows, which enables the courts to impose appropriate penalties on serious or persistent offenders. We believe that it is now up to the courts to make full use of those powers. I look forward with interest to the Law Commission's proposals on this matter.

801
Alcohol-related crime is being tackled on a broad front by a great many agencies. Examples of recent action to reduce alcohol related disorder include the establishment of over 880 Pub Watch schemes right across England and Wales. As your Lordships will know, Pub Watch involves licensees working in co-operation with one another and the police and is an excellent example of the partnership approach to crime prevention. It can help licensees to deter potential trouble-makers and prevent the escalation of trouble.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Safer Cities Programme which tackles crime in the inner cities through proactive, multi-agency projects in areas with high crime rates. Since it was launched in 1988 it has funded more than 40 schemes aimed at tackling alcohol-related crimes.
Many local authorities have already undertaken or participated in crime prevention or community safety partnerships which focus on alcohol-related problems. Those local partnerships aim to identify the scale of alcohol-related crime and deal with it, principally by persuading licensees and, where necessary, companies or brewers to improve the standard of supervision and management of their premises.
The work of the Probation Service in this area is well known. This service has a long history of helping offenders who misuse alcohol and has traditionally looked to the voluntary sector for help.
Many prisoners have a history of alcohol misuse and need help in tackling this problem. Programmes are run in most prisons and prisoners are encouraged to seek treatment. The programmes include education about the effects of alcohol and training in self-control techniques. Like the Probation Service, the Prison Service works closely with voluntary and other agencies in preparing prisoners for release and supporting them afterwards.
The noble Viscount referred to drinking and driving. As he knows, it is a serious and avoidable problem. The Government's message is aimed at the general public, not only at young people, and it is simply, "Don't drink and drive". From my involvement in observing young people I can say that they are more responsible. It is common nowadays for young people going out in a group to ask, "Who has elected not to drink?", in order that they can be driven home safely. That is extremely encouraging. Our policy is to try to change people's attitudes and we believe that we are making progress in deterring people from drinking and driving. In 1979 the proportion claiming never to drive and drink or to drink over the limit was 50 per cent. By 1990, it had risen to 79 per cent. We believe that progress is being made.
Much was said about encouraging local authorities to do more in a co-ordinated way. That activity is very lively at local authority level. Much is going on and the partnership approach to the matter is working and is the key. Perhaps I may refer to a partnership approach which goes back to Pub Watch. It is a multi-agency project involving brewers, licensees, the local authorities, the police and magistrates. The main objective of a scheme in Derby is to prevent or reduce drink-related disorder. A door-staff registration scheme
802
was established by which door-staff have to attend a training course—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and be approved by the Pub Watch group. Another campaign has involved the more vigorous application of exclusion orders under the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980.
Much was made of what more we can do at national level. A Cabinet sub-committee on health strategy is co-ordinating policies to deal with alcohol misuse and to ensure that measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder are co-ordinated right across government departments.
The Prison Service was mentioned specifically. It recognises that the age and profile of clients presenting to community drug and alcohol services are no longer widely different and both groups have similar problems. Again, that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Such people have problems with dependence and socio-economic factors and prisoners present with poly-substance misuse problems. For those reasons the Prison Service adopted a combined approach for the care, support and treatment of prisoners with alcohol and other substance misuse. In addition, the Prison Service health advisory committee, under the chairmanship of the former chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, is now preparing a report on alcohol in prisons. Its recommendations will inform the development of future alcohol specific policy.
In schools in England and Wales education about alcohol misuse is a statutory requirement as part of the programmes of study covering aspects of drug education in the National Curriculum Science Order. Pupils aged seven to 11 are taught that alcohol can have harmful effects and effects on personal lifestyles. From age 11 to 16 pupils broaden and deepen their study of alcohol misuse by learning about the effects of alcohol on health and body functions, a point specifically made by the noble Viscount.
In May last year the Department for Education and Employment issued to all schools detailed guidance on teaching about drugs and dealing with drug-related incidents on school premises. The advice applies to all substances whose use or misuse may have harmful effects on the body, including alcohol. In addition, the advice contains a specific chapter on alcohol.
Much was made of the issue of by-laws and I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Local authorities can make by-laws under which it is an offence to drink intoxicating liquor in designated public places. I am happy to say that much is being made of that facility by local authorities. As regards proof of age, there is some read across to identity cards. No doubt we shall have much discussion about that aspect of identity cards when we debate the matter at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made an important point about public transport. We fully acknowledge the importance of making public transport safe for everyone. We have been involved in a number of successful initiatives to improve transport security. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord to inform him of some of those initiatives.

803
We acknowledge the importance of door supervisors, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There have been problems with violence by door supervisors in certain parts of the country. The police have reported that where this is the case, local registration schemes based on the attachment of conditions such as registration to public entertainment licences have proved effective in reducing incidents. The extent of the problem varies from district to district, with some areas experiencing little or no difficulties. However, it can be and should be a matter for local authorities to address.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, albeit a short one, which has been much informed by the recent report of the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse. Yes, crime is a most pressing social problem in this country today, but I do not accept that one of the most obvious social problems—that is, alcohol misuse—has been ignored. The Government are concerned to reduce crime and disorder associated with alcohol misuse and they welcome the many initiatives designed to encourage sensible drinking. In examining alcohol misuse, it is important that excuses are not sought for those who engage in crime. It is individuals who choose to commit crimes. Help is available to those requiring treatment for alcohol dependence. Other approaches have to be pursued too. The recent revised sensible drinking levels offer soundly based and credible advice on which people can base their own choices.
It has been said many times before that teamwork is important. In order to he really effective, action has to be taken at the local level where the problems of alcohol misuse actually occur. We will continue to encourage local agencies, statutory, voluntary and commercial, to work together in all parts of the country to promote the sensible drinking message, to discourage alcohol misuse and to provide help for people who have alcohol-related problems. Whatever noble Lords' nightcap, I wish them a safe journey home.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
8.37 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 67.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 195C:
Page 59, line 23, at end insert ("taking into account the diverse interests of society, including women, different racial groups and disabled people,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.195C I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 195D, 195F and 195H. Those amendments were previously grouped with Amendment No. 195ZC but, with the permission of the Committee, they form this later group. All the amendments deal with membership of the new Complaints and Standards Commission and the methods of appointing its members. Amendments Nos. 195C, 195D and 195F seek to ensure that the membership of the commission is representative of all the regions of the United Kingdom and of those with special cultural or community interests such as ethnic minority populations.
They also require the Secretary of State to include those with specific sensory disabilities whose particular needs have been so vigorously advocated by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke throughout the deliberations on the Bill. There is also a requirement for the Secretary of State at least to listen to and take account of representations from general consumer organisations such as the National Consumer Council.
The Committee may fear that all that augurs for a hugely unwieldy body in which members may be interested only in being present to promote their individual cause. I do not think that need be so. With judicious selection and good management, an organisation can be broadly and fairly representative without every single concern being individually reflected in an individual member.
However, I am afraid, particularly in view of my past experience in the National Health Service, that unless some explicit directions are given about membership, the composition of influential statutory bodies such as this may be influenced by "cronyism" and political patronage. That possibility, that fear, lies behind Amendment No. 195H which simply requires the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in making appointments to public bodies.
The Committee will recall that in his first report on standards in public life the noble and learned Lord required the appointment of an independent commissioner for public appointments to oversee appointment procedures. Unfortunately, so far there has been no move by the Government to make such an appointment. But the noble and learned Lord recommended also that public appointments should be subject to the advice of a panel which should include a substantial independent element. He recommended further that candidates for appointment should declare any significant political activity which may have been undertaken in the previous five years. Those recommendations are the basis of Amendment No. 195H and the wording is taken directly from the report of the noble and learned Lord.
The spirit and, indeed, the practical implications of those amendments have already been accepted in other branches of public life. For example, I know that they are being implemented in making appointments to the new unitary health authorities which will take over the NHS on 1st April. I am sure that the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been supportive of those changes in the health service.
It seems entirely appropriate, in the interests of accountability, high standards and, indeed, consistency throughout the public service, that the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, should be adopted in this crucially important new body which the Broadcasting Standards Commission will be. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for comprehensively setting out the reasons behind this group of amendments. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 195C. I can well understand the noble Baroness's wish that the Secretary of State should take account of

805
the full range of interests in society and the talent available to her in making appointments to the BSC. The amendment identifies some, but not all, important elements in that. Nonetheless, the Government do not believe it necessary or appropriate that the Secretary of State should be directed in this way: she would always as a matter of course wish to ensure the best possible appointments to an important body of this kind. It is also true to say that women, different racial groups and disabled people can advocate their own views and I am sure the BSC would receive and consider those views with care. Therefore, the Government would resist this amendment.
Amendment No. 195D would require the Secretary of State to appoint two members to the BSC who are sensorily impaired. The Government believe that it is undesirable to place such a requirement on the Secretary of State, as the Secretary of State gives the widest consideration to the qualities and experience required in appointees in order to achieve the right balance of quality and experience in the membership of the BSC. Placing a requirement in favour of only one particular group, however inherently attractive that may appear, raises the question as to whether other equally deserving groups should not be similarly favoured. We must not lose sight of the need to give the Secretary of State flexibility in arriving at the best possible combination of ability and experience, which in turn may change as membership changes. Therefore, the Government resist making explicit provision in the membership of the BSC for particular groups.
Amendment No. 195F is intended to require the Secretary of State to strive to ensure that appointees to the BSC are suitably qualified to represent the interests of a broad range of regional and social groups and, where appropriate, reflect the range of programmes on television and radio. As I explained a few moments ago, in any event the Secretary of State would wish to take into account the range of interests in society when making appointments to the BSC. However, such a requirement would fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State to ensure the best possible appointees to the commission.
Amendment No. 195H relates to the Nolan Committee. As the noble Baroness said, these are recommendations of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life which the Government have already accepted in respect of all public appointees. The Government see no need to amend the legislation relating to each public body in order to incorporate that commitment. For that reason, the Government will resist this amendment as they did the others.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I am somewhat disappointed that, although, as the Minister says, the Government have accepted the principle of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, they are not prepared, in the spirit of those recommendations, to make them explicit, as they refer in particular to new bodies of this kind.
806
I draw the Minister's attention to the other more general recommendation of the Nolan Committee in which it is said in general terms, not relating to the specific requirements about appointments:
"The basis on which members are appointed and how they are expected to fulfil their role should be explicit. The range of skills and background which are sought should be clearly specified".
That seems to me to be much more precise than the rather more general understandings which the Minister and his Secretary of State seemed to be content to rely upon.
I find the Minister's reply very disappointing and I suspect that we shall need to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195D not moved.]
[Amendment No. 195E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 195F not moved.]
[Amendment No. 195G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 195H not moved.]
[Amendment No. 196 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 196A not moved.]
Schedule3[TheBroadcastingStandards Commission: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 196B:
Page 99, leave out lines 23 to 34 and insert—
("(2) The BSC shall send a copy of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

(a) examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts, and

(b) slay a copy of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: As a result of brief discussions between the usual channels, it has been suggested that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak together to all the government amendments, but obviously I shall move them as we come to them.
As regards Amendment No. 196B, the Government consider that the accounts of the BSC should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and this amendment to Schedule 3 provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General be so empowered, in particular to examine the statement of accounts and to lay a copy of the statement and his report on the statement before your Lordships' House and in another place.
Amendment No. 200 is consequent upon a previous government amendment as a result of which the Welsh Authority will be able to provide a further service and arrange for that service to be broadcast in digital form. Therefore, the intention is that the BSC's duty shall extend to programmes included in that new digital service.
Amendment No. 202 is also consequent upon that amendment and its intention is that the BSC's duty should extend to programmes included in the new digital service.
As regards Amendment No. 208B, in the handling of fairness complaints, it is of course important that the complainant is advised of the outcome of the complaint. This amendment requires the BSC to send a statement of its findings to the complainant.
I turn now to Amendment No. 220A. While it is proper that the BSC be required to publish reports on those complaints which it considers or entertains, it would clearly he unnecessary for it to do so where, for whatever reason, it has neither considered nor entertained a complaint. Therefore, this amendment removes that requirement.
I move on now to Amendment No. 220B. The Government's intention in this part of the clause is to enable the BSC, where necessary, to omit from its report of a fairness complaint any information which might identify any person connected with the complaint. The broadcasting and regulatory bodies and providers of licensed services would, however, still be identified. Amendment No. 221A is a proposed new clause which will complement paragraph (c) of Clause 80(7). It will require the ITC the Radio Authority, the Welsh Authority and the BBC to report back to the BSC on any additional action taken by the body in question, or by a licence holder, or by the maker or provider of the relevant programme. Thus, where the BSC has issued a direction to the effect that its findings on a particular complaint must be publicised, the broadcasters and regulators will now have to make inquiries to find out whether any steps have been taken in response to such findings, beyond mere publicity. That will have the effect of demonstrating the seriousness with which the BSC's decisions are taken by broadcasters. Conversely, where broadcasters choose to ignore the BSC's decisions, this will be displayed, in the BSC's published reports, to the public. Broadcasters will, therefore, wish to consider the potentially damaging effect on public perception of ignoring the BSC's findings.
I turn now to Amendment No. 222A. In view of the wide recognition of the valuable contribution of the Broadcasting Standards Council's research to the debate on broadcasting standards, it is the Government's view that the new BSC should perform a similar role in the debate surrounding unfair treatment and infringement of privacy in broadcasting. It is hoped that the amendment will enable the BSC to commission research which will be of value to individuals and broadcasters alike.
Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B would provide that a copy of the BSC's statement of accounts for each financial year and of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on that statement is to be sent to the broadcasting and regulatory bodies and, on request, to licence holders.
With regard to Amendment No. 223C, under the terms of its agreement, the BBC is required to contribute towards the costs of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and will be similarly required to contribute towards the Broadcasting Standards Council, as determined by the Secretary of State.
The clause as it stands effectively follows the wording of Section 149 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. However, because of the new formula for determining contributions, it would, as it is currently worded, require the broadcasting regulatory bodies, which do not technically include the BBC, and the Welsh Authority, to contribute 50 per cent. of the costs of the new BSC. The BBC's contribution would, therefore, be in addition to that 50 per cent.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 224. Members of the Committee may recall that a number of previous government amendments enable the Welsh Authority to provide a qualifying service in digital form and lay down certain content and scheduling requirements. The content and scheduling of qualifying services provided by the other terrestrial broadcasters are covered by the terms of their licences and are therefore defined here as a special kind of licensed service. In conclusion, I beg to move Amendment No. 196B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Power to publish guidance relating to avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment or interference with privacy]:
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("may draw up guidance relating to") and insert ("shall draw up codes of").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 198, 199 and 201. I strongly support the merger of the BCC and the BSC to form the new, more effective BSC. I welcome the provisions of the Bill such as those in Clause 80 which give greater powers to the new BSC and which will make it more effective. But some further strengthening is needed, particularly in the references as to what the BSC "may" rather than "shall" do, and to guidance and codes. Amendment No. 197 would lay a duty on BSC to draw up codes rather than guidelines. Any regulatory authority or regulatory arrangements must contain rules or laws laid down by Parliament, and also codes of best practice and guidance, where needed, on related matters in descending order of severity and precision.
Perhaps I may take an analogy from the use of vehicles on public roads. Signposts or police notices may give guidance as, for example, on a recommended diversion to avoid a low bridge or a flood. However, it is left to the driver's discretion as to whether or not such guidance is followed. The Highway Code is much stronger. It provides a code of good practice. In most cases, it is not in itself an offence to break the code, but, if an accident occurs, it will certainly be relevant in apportioning blame and in any resulting prosecution. Finally, the Road Traffic Act contains mandatory requirements, rules and laws the breach of which constitutes a criminal offence for which the offender risks prosecution.
The Bill contains many such rules, but they are not appropriate for regulating matters which are the remit of the BSC. Clear codes of practice are the best way and codes are already referred to in the Bill in many places.

809
However, those references are confused and made less effective by the introduction of the concept of "guidance" which, in too many cases, programme makers feel is only guidance and may be ignored at their discretion. That is clearly unsatisfactory, even accepting—as I certainly do—the need to give adequate freedom to exercise creativity in programme content.
The amendment would replace the words "may draw up guidance" with "shall draw up codes". I submit that that is essential if the BSC is to carry out its task effectively. Similarly, Amendment No. 198 replaces the word "guidance" with the word "codes". Amendment No. 199 makes it mandatory for the BSC to publish the codes in force, to monitor them and to report on them. Again, "guidance" is replaced by the words "codes". The amendment is important also in that it would enable the public to judge whether the codes are sensible and whether they are being observed. Amendment No. 201 would move the unnecessary and weakening words "giving guidance" in Clause 69(1). The objective of all the amendments is to strengthen the hands of the BSC and to clarify the way in which programme makers must behave. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support the amendments. My noble friend has raised an important matter. We all know that increasingly in recent years there has been too much invasion of privacy on television. I believe that it is right that there should be specific obligations such as would result from my noble friend's amendments in order to deal with the matter. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give the amendments a very sympathetic reception.
Lord Ackner: I, too, should like to support the amendments. It is, of course, axiomatic that no watch-dog should be toothless. That is the situation in regard to those clauses which it is sought to amend. Guidelines are a species of exhortation and a person who wishes to ignore them can simply say, "I had regard to them; but I didn't think that they applied to my particular case". In my submission, it seems to be obvious that, if regulation is to occur, then that which the regulation provides must be clear and unambiguous; and, indeed not the subject matter of a discretionary compliance according to the particular reaction of the person involved.
9 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: I rise briefly to express my support for the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. The amendments are clear and straightforward, but I hope that the Minister will agree with me that they lie at the very heart of regulation. I am afraid that for once I cannot agree with the Duchess in Alice in Wonderland, who advised Alice to,
"Take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves".
I prefer the recent comment of the ITC, which has an admirable record in this respect, that,
"the best and most effective regulation flows from clarity".
810
In any walk of life—and broadcasters are no exception—uncertainty and lack of definition present untold opportunities for the skilful and unscrupulous operator to exploit. In the past the situation with regard to the BBC, for example, has been far from satisfactory in the matter of regulation. The fact is that there has not been parity with the independent sector. That fact has been classically acknowledged by the Government—and credit must be given to them for that—in the stronger provisions contained within the new Charter and Agreement. But the anomaly remains. The judge and jury are still to be the same under the proposals in this Bill. That is unsatisfactory enough in all conscience, but if one adds to that the fact that the new BSC will be entitled,
"to draw up guidance relating to principles to be observed"
an invitation is in effect being extended to unscrupulous broadcasters to get round such guidelines if they can in an unwelcome cat-and-mouse game. It will at the same time fill honest broadcasters with doubt about what can and cannot be done. Waffle never pays. People have the right to know unequivocally what the rules are, and they also need to know what will happen to them if they take a chance.
The Earl of Halsbury: I wish to support the amendment of the noble Viscount. I must warn the Government that if they do not accept it they will suffer from a progressive deterioration of standards. This creeping deterioration is already on us and we must bring a halt to it.
Lord Rix: I am happy to play a supporting role in relation to the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I must apologise if I speak for a moment longer than I should because I suspect that I shall not be present at the Report stage. Like the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Lord, I feel that it is wrong to give injustice or unfairness a much lower profile than sex and violence as issues of public concern. It might even be argued that while there are those who support the portrayal of sex and violence on freedom grounds, or because they enjoy that sort of thing, I have yet to hear anyone defend injustice or unfairness as being for the common good, or of personal benefit to those who like that sort of thing.
Nor am I persuaded that the definition of what is unjust and unfair is so much harder to agree on than that which is unacceptable in terms of sex and violence before the watershed, or at any time for that matter. What I think is true—here I come to my particular and perhaps predictable interest as chairman of MENCAP—is that sometimes it takes a certain amount of expertise, or at least long acquaintance with the subject matter, to recognise unfairness and injustice. For example, my hackles rise when people with learning disability are portrayed as dangerously antisocial, or prone to behaviour which will reduce the value of property. Those who have no personal knowledge of people with learning disability might assume that such portrayal was accurate. Therein lies the problem. If no one believed it, it would matter much less if someone said it.?

811
Similarly, if MENCAP or any other charity is unjustly portrayed in a poor light, that can do a great deal of damage when people assume the portrayal is accurate. I have no objection to just and fair criticism. That is a healthy check on accountable bodies. As an organisation, MENCAP has on the whole had—and, if I may say so, has deserved—quite good media coverage. I have sometimes at least found radio and TV willing to present positive images of people with learning disabilities. Sometimes, however, that has not been the case. In such cases I have found obtaining an apology and a correction a little like the proverbially frustrating gathering of grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles. Requiring the commission to write and publish codes of good practice and to monitor and report on their implementation could help considerably to avoid and, where necessary, make amends for the lapses from virtue to which even the best of broadcasting systems are sometimes prone. That would be to everyone's benefit. I am happy to support these amendments.
Lord McNally: I hope that the Minister will show a little courage in the face of this wave of political correctness that is washing over the Benches in this Chamber. There are, of course, dangers as regards irresponsible behaviour of broadcasters, but I warn the Committee that there are also dangers in the over-regulation of broadcasting. In this field, the artistic field and the political field, one is constantly chasing a will-o'-the-wisp in trying to draw up some tight code which will achieve perfection. When one talks about taste and decency, or the portrayal of sex, or due impartiality, one is talking about subjective matters, the perception of which often changes from generation to generation.
There comes a point when a free Parliament in a free society has to defend the rights and freedoms of its citizens in a culturally important sector such as broadcasting. Sometimes their freedom to make mistakes must also be defended. Tonight we are hearing the language of restriction which I believe could have dangerous implications for a broadcasting system which in other respects, as I said earlier, Members of the Committee frequently hold up to the rest of the world as an example of excellence. It is an example of excellence, but I am not sure it would remain so for long if some Members of the Committee had their way as regards the restrictions they propose.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Lord has borne in mind that in recent years there has been—as has been said in this debate—increasing invasion of privacy, too much sex and too much violence. That is largely because the broadcasters are entirely their own masters. There has not been enough regulation. Quite frankly, unless we do something about this, those abuses will get worse; they will not get better.
Lord Chalfont: Not for the first time, and possibly riot for the last, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He used the term "political correctness". His speech was, in my view, a typical example of precisely that vice of political correctness. We heard the peddling of the idea that everything is subjective.
812
However, everything is not subjective. For the benefit of the noble Lord and the Committee I shall recount something that the editor of The Times once said to me when I was writing leaders for that newspaper. The editor was Sir William Haley who had also been director-general of the BBC. At the time of the famous Profumo case a leader writer said to him—the argument was conducted on very much the same lines as that used by the noble Lord today—"But Sir William, all these things are subjective". Sir William looked at him for a moment and replied, "No, they are not. Some things are evil and cruel and ugly and no amount of fine writing on your part will make them good or kind or beautiful".
There are things which are said and done on television and spoken on radio which are not subjective. There is open obscenity; there are gratuitous displays of sex on television which are totally unnecessary to the creativity of any artist; there is unfairness to people, ideas, organisations and controversies which is not subjective but one-sided and biased, and everyone can see that it is. I beg the Committee not to fall into the kind of political correctness that the noble Lord advocates.
As the noble Lord said, there are already codes of conduct, such as the code of the ITC, which are clear codes governing behaviour on television. There is the code of the Radio Authority, which I was instrumental in drawing up and which lays down clear rules about what is and is not permissible on independent radio. That has not led to any kind of obscurantism, oppression or fascism. It is a perfectly liberal and necessary regime.
I have a strong feeling that what the noble Viscount suggests is very much needed. We do not want any more guidelines which people can skate around. We do not want any more advice. We want some codes of conduct which can be enforced and which are so clearly and unmistakably drawn that those who flout them can be punished.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to add my strong support for the amendment. The issue here is that we want clarity and clear guidance. No sensible, competent organisation suffers from having that. Most of the troubles that the BBC has had from time to time have resulted from vagueness and people being able to say "I didn't realise that that was what was meant".
The BBC is so highly respected that it is all the more important that it should not allow itself, as it sometimes has out of political correctness, to be swayed into a tendency to rewrite history, using the most biased sources and in a spirit of arrogance. The need here is not to say that one will not do this or that but to make it absolutely clear to the people within the BBC who are doing the work what is acceptable and what is not and that what is not acceptable will no longer be tolerated.
Lord Inglewood: We have had an interesting and worthwhile debate. Before turning to the four amendments, I should like to begin by making quite clear that the Government believe that there must be proper rules relating to appropriate standards of broadcasting, and there must be proper enforcement of those rules, supported if necessary by appropriate disciplinary action.

813
On this occasion we are not talking about what those rules should be or their exact delineation. What we are talking about is the legal framework within which they will work. To use an analogy, it is rather like a piece of jewellery which comprises gems and a setting. The gems are the policies; what we are really talking about this evening is the setting. We must try to analyse how the system we have works and the interrelationship of the various elements of that system, which is part of the legal framework we are looking at.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in their Amendments Nos. 197 and 198, which relate to Clause 68, propose that the Broadcasting Standards Commission shall produce, and from time to time review, a code of principles to be observed and practices to be followed, as opposed to guidance relating to the principles to be observed and practices to be followed, in order to avoid unfair treatment and unwarranted invasions of privacy. I believe that the effect is much the same whether the requirement is described as a code or as guidance, because each formulation implies a similar if not identical compilation of principles to be observed and practices to be followed.
Since the purpose of the clause is to avoid a wrong—namely, unfair treatment and unwarranted invasion of privacy—I am doubtful whether a semantic distinction between the different verbal descriptions of the format in which identical principles to be observed are set has any material significance. In this context each of the words is, for practical purposes, a synonym for the other, in terms both of meaning and of overtone.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for sharing with me the thinking behind the amendment. I continue to think, as I have explained to him, that there is no material difference in effect between use of the words "guidance" and "code" in this context. However, I believe it is useful to retain the term "guidance" in order to distinguish it from the BBC's "code" on the portrayal of violence and sexual conduct and standards of taste and decency.
The guidance relates to provisions which take direct effect on to the regulator, and through him to the broadcaster and the programme. The use of the word "code" in Clause 69 relates to matters which are directly applicable to the broadcast programmes. I should like to come back to that in connection with Amendment No. 201 which relates to Clause 69.
On the question of whether the guidance should be mandatory, in practice pressure from broadcasters and other interested groups might achieve this effect even if the provision remains discretionary. But, as with a number of the noble Lord's amendments, the Secretary of State has only recently been able properly to discuss their effects with the current chairmen of the BSC and BCC. I would ask my noble friend not to press this amendment at this stage because I should like to consider it further and the suggested form of words about review and bring the Government's response back at Report stage.
814
I now turn to Amendment No. 199 which is in part complementary to the two earlier amendments. The Committee will recall that I have agreed to consider the amendments further, although I have indicated the nature of some of our concerns about them.
On Amendment No. 199, I can confirm that various codes or guidance are published which one might wish to relate to documents produced by the BSC. I also stress that, regardless of whether it is voluntary or mandatory, the BSC's guidance is intended to set standards and not to be a prescriptive test for regulations. It therefore seems inappropriate for the BSC to be required to monitor and report on the extent to which its guidance has been implemented by broadcasters and regulators. This would place the commission in the position of a regulator, albeit one without power to enforce compliance.
The broadcasting regulatory bodies, the Welsh Authority and the BBC already have in place guidelines on good practice with respect to the avoidance of unfair treatment and infringement of privacy in programmes which, as I have explained, derive their content from the BSC's work. The Government are satisfied that they have sufficient powers to ensure that the practice laid out in these guidelines is followed, and we have no intention of placing those regulatory responsibilities which are properly the concern of those bodies under the scrutiny of the BSC.
Amendment No. 201 relates to Clause 69. Clause 69 mandates the publication of a code which in turn is directly applicable to broadcast programmes. The amendment seems to suggest that the BSC draw up a more prescriptive code on broadcasting standards than "a code giving guidance" would in their view be. I should like to begin by saying that the Government's intention is that the BSC should play a standard setting and advisory role rather than a directly regulatory role in the maintenance of standards. A code which gives guidance relies on intelligent interpretation by producers and programme makers. It respects the fundamental right to freedom of expression. A rigid, all-embracing code trying to cover all eventualities would be vulnerable and more easily found wanting than one which gives guidance and allows flexibility for programme makers, broadcasters and regulators to engage in worthwhile debate in the light of developing perceptions of taste and decency.
In short, the key to understanding the relationship between the BSC and the ITC is that it is for the BSC to benchmark or identify the appropriate standards and it is for the ITC and the BBC governors to ensure that the broadcaster adheres to them by drawing up rules whose purpose is primarily to ensure that standards are adhered to and only secondarily to be a device to punish those who fail to do so.
In his helpful remarks the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that he felt the BSC should be a watch-dog with teeth. With respect, I think that his analogy of watch-dogs is helpful. Perhaps I might compare them with guard dogs. The BSC is a watch-dog. The function of a watch-dog is to bark and to alert people to what is going on. That seems to me to

815
contrast with a guard dog, whose function on occasion is to snap its jaws round some offender. That is the distinction which we see as central to the proper understanding of the relationship between the BSC and the regulators.
Lord Ackner: Will the noble Lord agree that the warning sign, "Beware of the watch-dog", does not mean, "Beware of a dog that only barks"?
Lord Inglewood: The sign "Beware of the watchdog" is an indication that the dog barks. "Beware of the guard dog" indicates that there are two dogs looking after the best interests of the person concerned. That seems to me to be the appropriate way of looking after the public's best interests in that context.
Lord Chalfont: The sign usually says, "Beware of the dog". That indicates an animal that barks but might also bite and that is what we want.
Lord Inglewoods: I understand that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, seeks is a dog with a huge bark and vicious teeth.
We feel that the amendment takes away an important part of the regulator's function and transfers it to the BSC. As I explained, that is not a substitute regulator or a kind of court of appeal or an alternative regulator. It is for those reasons that we cannot support the amendments, although they contain a number of aspects on which we intend to reflect further.
The Earl of Stockton: Before my noble friend sits down, he said that the guidelines were intended to produce compliance. I ask him: whither leads the road of good intentions?
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend's point is a good one. The problem which I and a number of people have faced in examining the provisions of the Bill and the relevant sections of the Broadcasting Act 1990, to which they relate, is that the words are not set in the wider context of what we are discussing.
In my opening remarks I explained that in regard to the distinction in the first amendment between a code or guidance, the important words are neither one nor the other. The important words to which that part of the amendment applies are,
"principles to be observed, and practices to be followed",
in order to avoid unfair treatment and unwarranted invasion of privacy. The practical steps are the crucial part in ensuring that wrong does not occur, rather than the epithet attached to the provision.
Viscount Caldecote: I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. There was strong support, with the only dissenting voice being that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in defence of freedom. However, he forgot that freedom must be used responsibly. Recent experience has indicated that too often freedom has been abused, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said. I wish in no way to denigrate the BBC, it is a fine organisation and probably one of the best in
816
the world. The intention of the amendments is to help the BSC to prevent the BBC making mistakes which lower its standards.
The Minister mentioned dogs barking and biting. It is an interesting analogy, but he did not draw the right conclusion. If a burglar hears a dog barking, but knows that it will not Hite, it will not stop him doing wrong. My noble friend made the point that my friends and I have been trying to make. We need teeth as well as barking in regulating for higher standards. I am not happy about that point.
I am sorry that my noble friend feels that there is no, or hardly, any difference between guidelines and codes. Experience has shown that programme makers see a difference. When on occasions complaints have been made they have replied, "But those are only guidelines which we use at our discretion". There is not complete agreement between myself, my noble friends and the Minister. Nevertheless, he has given a very sympathetic response in many ways and has promised to consider further the points that we made.
In view of the Committee's almost total agreement to support these amendments, I urge my noble friend to give very careful consideration again to what we have said, even though he argued this evening against them. On the understanding that he will do so and has promised to bring back some further ideas at Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 59, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) the unfair or negative portrayal of women, different racial groups and disabled people amongst the listeners and viewers").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I believe that it will save the time of the Committee if, with the Committee's permission, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 197B, 200A, 207A, 214A, 214B and 214C. These amendments have a common theme related to disability and disadvantaged people and it would take a long time to cover them all separately.
I have been very disappointed with the Minister's response during the course of these debates and discussions to issues of disability. I hope that he will be more forthcoming in dealing with these amendments. They are matters of very great importance to people who are disabled and those who are disadvantaged in different ways.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B, it is absolutely necessary for the Broadcasting Standards Commission to consider the representation or the portrayal of women, racial groups, disabled people and those of differing sexual orientation. That is the purpose of the amendments. Those people, differing widely as they do, hold varying views about broadcasting. But the broadcasters tend to veer away from those people and certainly do not often portray them accurately. There are honourable exceptions but in the main those groups tend to be pushed aside.
A good example of the kind of false portrayal of those groups is the presentation of disabled people as rather pathetic, incapable creatures, and certainly they are extremely patronised. Broadcasters nearly always show disabled people who have obvious disabilities, such as those in a wheelchair. They never deal with the complexities of those particular groups. It is surprising to me that that should be the case. People can see through the failures of the broadcasters. As the broadcasting channels proliferate, it is inevitable that those groups will be covered more and more. But they need to be properly portrayed. That is the purpose of the amendments.
Amendment No. 200A provides for the satellite television and licensable programme services that are already provided in this Bill for digital programme services. Although that provision has weaknesses, nevertheless it is very important. It calls upon the ITC to give guidance on the extent to which those with a sensory disability understand and enjoy the programmes. It calls on the ITC to do all that it can to ensure that the code is observed and for the publication of the code. So far as I am concerned, that is the starting point for strengthening access to television for deaf and visually impaired people. It is a matter of vital importance to those people.
There are two very strong reasons why the provision for a code should be extended to satellite and other services. First, it should be done because those forms of broadcasting are bound to grow in importance over time. Disabled people will want and deserve access to them as much as to other television programmes. Secondly, it is extremely unfair to expect some companies to provide subtitling and signing and not others. If some people are allowed to be excluded from those services, then they do not have to pay the cost and the people who are fulfilling the moral and in some cases legal responsibility carry a heavier financial burden. That is why it is important that all companies have the same responsibility. It is of real importance to deaf and blind viewers. Unless all television providers observe the same code there will be reluctance and resentment on the part of those who are bound by the rules.
Amendment No. 207A relates to the provisions in the Bill which require complaints about fairness and standards to be in writing. It is unreasonable to require people to communicate in different ways from those that are usual to them, such as signing or Braille. If they cannot write in the normal way because of their disability, then they are barred from making a complaint. I cannot believe that the Minister intends that. The Government should accept the methods of communication of those who are sensorily impaired.
I want now to deal with Amendments Nos. 214A to 214C. As the Bill intends to give power to the Broadcasting Standards Commission to pay allowances to those attending meetings, it is only fair that allowances should also be paid to any auxiliary helper; for example, a signing interpreter. After all, they have to eat. It is a crucial point. There are some circumstances in which there may be no communication without such a helper. If no expenses are paid it may be impossible
818
for the helper to attend. Sign language interpreting is a finely honed skill. It cannot be done by just any Tom, Dick or Harry—or Harriet, to be politically correct. This is a clear case of ensuring genuine fairness by ensuring that the means for it are made available. I hope that the Minister will be able to give not only sympathetic consideration, but also a positive response to the amendments. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: I support this group of amendments. They cover an important area of broadcasting especially aimed at those who are least able to fight their own battles. I would be happy to extend that support to other groups such as the elderly, the single, the married and those of ethnic, cultural, religious or social traditions which are in any way different. In other words, the code should be extended in the same way as the group of amendments moved recently by my noble friend Lord Caldecote.
I am surprised to find myself rising in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, when no one on his Benches supported the amendment moved by my noble friend which would have embraced all the groups of which he speaks without particularising them. However, I am happy to continue my support not only for these amendments, but also for the subsequent ones that I know the noble Lord will be moving.
Lord Inglewood: We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for bringing his well-known expertise to bear on the specific points we are discussing. I begin with Amendment No. 197A which proposes that the BSC should draw up guidance specifically to be followed in connection with the avoidance of the unfair or negative portrayal of women, different racial groups and disabled people among listeners and viewers. The Government wholeheartedly believe that such unfair portrayal should be discouraged but do not agree that it is necessary to single out specific groups for explicit consideration in the way proposed.
The predecessor bodies of the new BSC have taken a keen interest in such matters in the past—for example, by responding to complaints about racist jokes and by conducting research into the portrayal of disabled people. On matters of unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy, with which Clause 68 deals, I have no doubt that the guidance which the BSC will draw up will be of general application and thus embrace matters covered by the noble Lord's amendment. Similarly, where such portrayal falls into the area of taste, it will generally be dealt with in the code on broadcasting standards to be drawn up under Clause 69. For these reasons, the Government would resist explicit reference to any particular group.
I now move on to Amendment No. 197B. The amendment proposes that, when the BSC draws up guidance relating to the avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or interference with their privacy, such guidance explicitly includes the avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment in the representation or portrayal of disabled people. Again, of course the Government wholeheartedly support the principle that

819
disabled people should not be unjustly or unfairly portrayed by broadcasters, and in wider terms the Government have demonstrated their commitment to disabled people through the Disability Discrimination Act and the announcement of appointments to the National Disability Council. However, the Government believe that the BSC, in drawing up the guidance about the avoidance of unfair treatment, should do so in general terms which would be inclusive of the interests of disabled people and everyone else.
The research which its predecessor body, the current Broadcasting Standards Council, has conducted into the portrayal of disabled people demonstrates a track record of interest in this area and I have no doubt that the BSC too will pay attention to the portrayal of disabled people when drawing up and reviewing its code relating to broadcasting standards generally. The Government would resist explicit provision for any particular group.
In Amendment No. 200A, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, proposes that the BSC should be required to draw up a further code giving guidance as to the extent to which understanding and enjoyment of programmes by the deaf and visually impaired might be promoted. The noble Lord's amendment also requires the BSC to do all it can to ensure observance of the provisions of such a further code. While the Government wholeheartedly believe that the interests of the deaf and visually impaired should be taken fully into consideration in matters of portrayal and treatment, they are concerned that the amendment takes the BSC into unexplored waters in two respects; first, in the direction of exercising a regulatory function in requiring the BSC to do all that it can to secure observance; and, secondly, in requiring the BSC to address the function of programmes and, arguably, choice in programming rather than their content, which is where the two predecessor bodies, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, built up their expertise.
In so far as the provisions of the amendment might bear on portrayal or unfair treatment, the Government believe that the BSC will take account of a diverse range of interests in drawing up its code on standards and guidance on treatment and do not believe it necessary to make explicit provision for particular groups. For that reason, the Government would oppose this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, proposes in Amendment No. 207A to make complaints available to BSC members and staff in forms accessible to sensorily impaired persons whereas the clause in question—Clause 75—currently refers only to complaints having to be in writing. The Government recognise that the consideration of complaints by sensorily impaired members of the BSC would be rendered more difficult if complaints could only be presented in writing, and they are therefore willing to consider the amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 214A, 214B and 214C. In these amendments the noble Lord proposes an amendment to Clause 79 which would enable the BSC to make provision, either directly or through payment of an allowance, to enable full participation of people with impairments when they are attending the BSC in
820
connection with a complaint. The Government recognise this real concern and would like to consider the point with a view to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage.
I have covered all the various amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken and I hope I have adequately responded to each and every one in a way—
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether I may presume to reinforce his argument by referring to a very important point of drafting and interpretation. It is recognised that, if we express one fact or refer to one group of people, we are excluding others. It is best expressed in the Latin tag, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The courts interpret statutes very strictly in accordance with that well-established principle.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for drawing to the Committee's attention that important drafting consideration.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Dealing with the serious points raised by the Minister, it is obvious that he and his officials have gone to a great deal of trouble on these amendments and I appreciate that very much indeed. I also appreciate the agreement he has made as regards some of the points that I raised. I am very glad that something is being done about them. As regards the other issues on which he was unable to meet us, unless we protect those vulnerable people in this Bill they will go on having very serious problems. I am hoping that at a later stage of the Bill something can be worked out to help them. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 197B to 199 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 59, line 39, after ("Authority") insert ("or included in the service referred to in section 57(1A) of the 1990 Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Amendment No. 195J was wrongly placed on the Marshalled List. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
[Amendment No. 195J not moved.]
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]
Clause 69 [Preparation by BSC of code relating to broadcasting standards generally]:
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 60, line 21, at end insert ("or included in the service referred to in section 57(1A) of the 1990 Act,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 202A:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES: BSC TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON STANDARDS AND PRACTICE
(". It shall be the duty of the BSC to draw up, and from time to time review, guidance as to standards and practices to be followed in connection with programmes which fulfil the obligation of the BBC to provide—

(a) education; and

(b) educational content.").

The noble Baroness said: I draw to the attention of the Committee that this amendment places a duty on the new BSC to draw up and review guidance on the contents and nature of broadcasting defined as "education" and broadcasting defined as having "educational content". It is a probing amendment which we recognise will require for completion at least the equivalent of Clause 69, subsections (5) and (6).
However, it is desirable that some provision should appear on the face of the Bill. The education broadcasting role was weakened by the decision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to take away the obligation on ITV companies to include adult education programming.
Because ITV and BBC compete, that increases pressures on the BBC to squeeze one area of education programming, and that is adult education. The need for an amendment of this kind further arises from concern about recent changes during the past year. The BBC is seeking higher ratings by diluting its education mission. Evidence of that dilution is provided by the fact that, however entertaining, the chat-show "Esther" presented by Esther Rantzen and the antiques show "Going for a Song" are now defined as examples of programmes funded from the education budget.
The BBC's ring-fenced budget for adult education is now being transferred into general programming. The controllers of BBC 1 and BBC 2 have effectively been given the power to decide what programmes are educational and who should make them. Seventy per cent. of programmes will be made by independents or other BBC departments. The BBC justifies that by arguing and contending that any factual programme-maker can make education programmes.
Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee support the Government's stated support for the European "Year of Life-Long Learning", which is intended to be not merely the year itself but the beginning of an attempt to tackle the issue of education. Education broadcasting is an important part of attracting adults who may have failed at earlier stages of their educational careers to take advantage of opportunities. Education broadcasting is important.
I understand from listening carefully to the Minister's replies to earlier points that have been raised that it is possible that the Government will look with more favour on guidance as opposed to codes. In that context, I hope that the Minister will give a positive response. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness, Lady Farringt on, proposes an amendment focused entirely on the BBC which would be required to follow guidance to be prepared by the BSC on education or educational content in programmes. The Government are clear that the amendment is well beyond the intended remit of the new BSC and believes that the two predecessor bodies have had limited experience in this area. We are not prepared to accept this amendment because the imposition of such a duty would divert the energies of the new body from its principal functions of dealing with the treatment of individuals in respect of fairness and privacy and standards in relation to taste and decency. The amendment also seeks to treat the BBC on a different footing from that of other public service broadcasters and, in requiring the BBC to follow such guidance, may cut across the governors' own responsibilities for programme content.
It is of course the general object of the BBC in its Charter to provide sound and television programmes of information, education and entertainment. That provides the appropriate statement in law of the BBC's duties in respect of education. I should add that in its new Agreement the corporation will be required to contain in its home service programmes of an educational nature, including specialist factual, religious and social issues programmes as well as formal education and vocational programmes. I hope that what I have said enables the noble Baroness to understand our position and why we feel that we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is disappointing that the Minister is not prepared to accept the need to strengthen the position of education programmes and of programmes with an educational content. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [General functions of BSC in relation to complaints]:
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 61, line 15, after ("treatment") insert ("of individuals, of bodies of individuals or of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Clauses 72 and 73 which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and I are seeking to remove from the Bill.
The collective effect of those three changes—I recognise at once that this runs counter to some of the things that the Minister has been saying this evening—would be to constitute the new BSC as an independent regulatory authority with powers to adjudicate on genuine complaints about taste, decency, fairness, and objectivity, including any such complaint from any listener or viewer made about problems within the independent sector or in BBC programmes. I believed—at least I did until this evening—that that was in line with the declared intention of the Secretary of State for National Heritage who recently said that it is the Government's intention to strengthen the BSC's role.

823
I had assumed that strengthening it meant also giving it some teeth with which to enforce its adjudications. In all parts of the Chamber, with the possible exception of the powerful voice from the Liberal Democrat Benches, there seems to be a feeling that the BSC needs strengthening.
In one of the many excellent briefing papers which have been produced for the debate, one from the BBC put its finger precisely on one of the crucial issues. I quote from it:
"As we enter the digital age, it will be essential to develop the right regulatory regime".
The truth of that is obvious to most of us, especially to anyone who understands some of the implications of digital technology. The cliché "The camera cannot lie", has always been a somewhat dubious proposition, but it has no validity at all now when the editing of digitally generated pictures places enormous power in the hands of unscrupulous producers, presenters and editors who might wish to manipulate the views and reactions of their viewers.
The need for independent, responsible broadcasting legislation, especially of television, takes on a new dimension. The amendments which I propose, taken together, are designed to strengthen the regulatory system and to make it apply more widely.
I shall, by implication, be speaking also to a great number of other amendments in the Marshalled List as they are consequential to the three to which I am now speaking. For the sake of the record, they are Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 217, 221 and 223. I shall not of course speak individually to any of those amendments, but what I say will apply to them as consequential amendments to my substantial ones.
The main purpose of the amendment to Clause 71 is to clarify the significance of the concept of fairness in the context of complaints made to the BSC which is being established under the Bill's provisions. The amendment is directed specifically to the reference in the Bill to "unjust or unfair treatment". That wording does not adequately define the nature of the unfair or unjust treatment upon which the BSC is required to adjudicate. Unjust or unfair to whom or to what? It is possible of course to be unfair to a person. It is possible to be unfair to a group of people, to an organisation. But it is possible also—this seems to be a ground of some misunderstanding—to be unjust and unfair in the treatment of an issue or controversy; for example, by presenting only one side of an argument, mixing factual reporting with opinion and commenting in a misleading way. There are many ways in which an issue, a controversy, can be treated unjustly or unfairly.
That aspect is at present referred to in shorthand usually as "due impartiality", although "impartiality" seems to be an unpopular word nowadays. It is dealt with in the independent sector of broadcasting in the codes published by the ITC and the Radio Authority. I suspect that the Government will say that the new BBC Charter and Agreement establish a similar duty on the board of governors to ensure compliance with the producers' guidelines. But I remain unconvinced that those safeguards are adequate.
To use a much worn cliché—perhaps not as much worn as "the level playing field"—that approach perpetuates a situation in which the BBC is judge and jury in its own case.
Experience suggests that that has not been an effective regulatory mechanism in the past, when programme makers often persistently and openly disregarded the producers' guidelines. Furthermore, it may be worth mentioning that the governors of the BBC have no machinery for investigating complaints made against the BBC outside their own ranks. They have to ask officials of the very organisation being complained about to advise them on how they should respond to the complaint.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an example. It has been strongly argued by Mr. Norris McWhirter and others that the BBC's treatment of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in two programmes which were broadcast in 1989 and 1995 was grossly unfair and unjust. As I shall be suggesting when I come to oppose the Motion that Clauses 72 and 73 stand part of the Bill, it is eminently reasonable that listeners and viewers should be able to complain to an independent regulatory body about this kind of unfairness, unjustness and lack of objectivity as well as about such things as matters of taste and decency.
As I have said, and as other Members have said on many occasions, there is a widespread belief that the governors of the BBC face an impossible task in trying to reconcile the role of corporate governance, the running of an organisation, with that of effective and independent regulation. Various suggestions about how we might resolve the dilemma were advanced in our debate on the Charter and Agreement. In the customary and accommodating way of the Minister, the Government undertook to consider them. But the Government subsequently decided that,
"Any concerns expressed are already effectively addressed by the draft Charter or they do not enjoy such a level of support as to warrant a change in the proposals".
That is a dusty answer if ever I heard one.
That issue runs through all the amendments to which I am speaking. The amendment to Clause 71 is designed simply to introduce a concept of objectivity or impartiality into the complaints procedure of the BSC so that there is, as in the commercial broadcasting sector, an independent regulatory body to which complaints can be addressed about alleged lack of objectivity, impartiality or fairness in any programmes, including those of the BBC, which, as I have suggested, does not have an independent regulatory body.
I concede at the outset that my amendment, if accepted, would have one incidental consequence of which much has already been made in what was a slightly premature debate on my amendment. It would perpetuate, perhaps even aggravate, a situation in which the two existing independent regulatory bodies—the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—would be subject to a form of second guessing by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which might come to different decisions on a complaint from those arrived at by the ITC and the Radio Authority.
Of course, that is likely to happen, but it happens already and it is bound to happen so long as there are a number of separate organisations charged with the regulation of broadcasting. Furthermore, it is not an entirely undesirable arrangement. I believe that the existence of a Broadcasting Standards Commission as a regulatory body with some real teeth would wonderfully concentrate the minds of the BBC governors and perhaps even on occasions members of the independent regulatory authorities.
As I have said on many other occasions, I should like to see a single regulatory authority comprehending the whole spectrum of broadcasting and concerned solely with regulation and with no responsibility for broadcasting. That lesson was learnt in the Broadcasting Act 1990, when the old Independent Broadcasting Authority, which tried to be a broadcaster as well as a regulator, was abolished. The ITC and the Radio Authority were set up not simply and solely but predominantly to remove that anomaly; in other words, to separate the regulator from the broadcaster. It is almost an axiom of broadcasting that you cannot be a broadcaster and a regulator of broadcasting at the same time.
In the absence of a single, over-arching regulator—and the Government do not seem disposed to contemplate that—there is an argument that the BBC governors should cease one or other of their activities. They should cease to be involved in managing the corporation. In other words, rather than being broadcasters they should become regulators in the public interest or vice versa, but they cannot do both. Indeed, when the Secretary of State made her splendid speech to the Television Society last autumn, I thought that that was what she had in mind. I paraphrase but she thought that the time had come for the BBC governors to stand back from managing the BBC and become regulators in the public interest. That is also called for by the National Consumer Council but it seems that the Government are now ruling it out.
Failing that separation of powers, it is important that the governors of the BBC, like broadcasters in the commercially-funded sector, have the safeguard and support of an independent regulator. Given the nature of the BBC Charter and Agreement, which is now, to some extent water over the down, the Broadcasting Standards Commission is the only body equipped to fill that role. That could require the BSC becoming larger and perhaps more costly than is envisaged at present but the whole transition to a digital environment will be an expensive business in any event. As the BBC has rightly said, regulation is one of the most important elements in the process. Unless the Minister has something new to say this evening, I have not heard any argument against that concept other than a financial and administrative one. I have heard no conceptual or logical argument against setting up BSC in the role of a really effective independent regulator. Although this amendment to Clause 71 is relevant to the others to which I am speaking, it is a useful amendment on its own irrespective of the success or otherwise of later amendments.
I wish to have Clauses 72 and 73 removed from the Bill. They go right to the heart of my concern about the BSC. As the Bill is drafted, any viewer or listener is entitled to complain to the commission about standards. In other words, anyone may complain to the commission about matters concerning taste and decency. But complaints about fairness, however defined, may be made only by someone affected directly by the programme complained of or by someone authorised to make a complaint for him. That distinction seems to be based upon a curious system of values. It implies that if someone is offended by explicit sexual activity or obscene language in a programme it is quite right that he should complain to a regulator and that the regulator should adjudicate on the complaint. But if you, I or any other listener or viewer is offended by grossly unfair treatment of an important political or social issue which may have a direct impact on all our lives we may not complain unless we are personally targets of the alleged unfairness. That seems to me to represent a curious system of values.
The removal of Clause 72, taken together with the consequential amendments I mentioned, is designed to remove the distinction. Clause 73 is largely consequential. The ultimate purpose of the amendments—and I do not seek in any way to conceal it—is to make the BBC, like the commercial broadcasting sector, subject to the regulation of an independent authority. The present situation is clearly totally unsatisfactory and neither the draft charter, the agreement, nor the Bill in its present form, do anything to change it. I recognise that the amendments, if accepted, would have some administrative and financial side-effects. That is clear.
It is possible that the Government will be able to propose other means of achieving the same purpose as my amendments. Perhaps they will be able to propose some other machinery to bring the BBC under the aegis of an independent regulator and thereby remove the conflict of interest which is at present obvious in the dual role of the governors of the BBC. If so, I should be most happy to listen to such proposals. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say in his reply that the Government will consider the amendments and that, even if they are not able to accept them in their present form, they will at least bring forward something which will have the same effect. I beg to move.
Viscount Caldecote: I should like to express my support for the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The noble Lord put forward the arguments most clearly and cogently and there is little to add. However, I should like to emphasise one or two points in a few comments. As the noble Lord indicated, the problem arises from the dual responsibilities of the governors of the BBC as regulators and in their corporate role, which is akin to that of directors of a plc.
When complaints are received, the governors naturally—and maybe rightly as leaders of a big organisation—are inclined to support their staff. Therefore, no proper adjudication is possible. The new BSC is strengthened compared to the old BSC and BCC

827
and that will provide a partial solution to the problem, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made clear, not on issues of impartiality.
The amendments aim to fill that gap and to bring impartiality into the remit of the new BSC as is the case with the ITC. Of course, that could have been done by amending the new BBC Charter and Agreement. However, when we made that case, it was not accepted by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, some duplication will still remain in the complaints procedure as it has in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, suggested, the problem could be tackled in a more logical way. The fact is that we must start from where we are and not from an ideal position where we would like to be. In fact, no serious problems have arisen as between the BSC and the BCC on the one hand and, on the other, the ITC, nor in respect of the BBC, except on some occasions where the governors have not accepted a complaint upheld by the BSC or BCC and have said so.
On a slightly different point, it has been represented to me that Amendment No. 203, which relates to Clause 71, would be further improved by including the word "religious" after the word "political" so as to make clear that the BSC would have a duty to ensure impartiality in programmes relating to religious issues, for example, as regards the customs of food preparation in some faiths. I believe that such controversies would be covered by the words "bodies of individuals" which are included in the amendment. However, no doubt the Minister will clarify that point when, as I hope, he accepts at least the principle of the amendments. This group of amendments would fill a serious gap in the present proposals of the Bill. They would further strengthen and make more valuable the work of the new BSC. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord McNally: Given the pattern of this evening's discussion, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will be amazed to know that I hope that the Minister will resist these amendments, especially as they introduce the matter of political adjudication by the BSC. We are now—
Lord Chalfont: I said nothing at all about political adjudication. I have spoken of impartiality and objectivity in matters of political controversy. That is a very different thing from making political judgments and decisions. It is important to make that point.
Lord McNally: I am reading the noble Lord's amendment. I read many of his speeches. I am what one might call a news addict. I watch news programmes on BBC, ITV, Sky, CNN or any other channel. Quite honestly, I do not recognise the coverage of news and public affairs as recounted in some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and some of his noble friends. I believe that on the whole the coverage of news and current affairs on British television represents a strengthening of our democracy. When one hears some of the arguments that are put forward, one imagines that we have serried ranks of politically motivated broadcasters pushing out their propaganda to political innocents. Would it amaze the noble Lord to know that
828
in the political headquarters there are skilled spin doctors who use their professionalism to intimidate broadcasters, who encourage complaints and who try to set the framework in which newscasters do their job?
What we have to understand, particularly in discussing political coverage by broadcasters, is that there will constantly be tension between broadcasters and politicians. I have worked for political parties in government and in opposition. Certainly when I have worked for parties in government I have rarely known a time when those in No. 10 thought they were getting an absolutely fair deal from broadcasters. That to me is remarkably reassuring in a free society. We are living in a different age. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that Sir William Haley recognised only constants. I wonder what Sir William would think of The Times today. He would have noticed a few constants wobbling about there.
In a liberal democracy one has to allow one's broadcasters freedom to criticise and the freedom to be partial occasionally. As we said in an earlier debate, what we need are many sources of information and opinion. That is why I want a strong ITN. I do not want market forces to water down ITN into news bulletins. I want a strong ITN and a strong BBC news service. That is why I welcome the strength of Sky News. It is that which strengthens one's democracy, not layer upon layer of watchdogs with teeth and extended powers. That is not the voice of a liberal democracy. It amazes me that some of the characters who so often talk about deregulation in almost every other aspect of our life want to pile regulation upon regulation on our broadcasters. That is not good enough. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, talked about the strong voice from the Liberal Benches. If it was only one small voice, it would still be there because I believe that what he and his noble friends are proposing is basically illiberal and would endanger our democracy.
Viscount Caldecote: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether he really believes that it would be quite in order for a broadcaster to portray, in a matter of controversy, only one side of the picture and not ensure that the other side was also given prominence so as to ensure impartiality of discussion and opinion forming?
Lord McNally: No, of course not, but there are many safeguards to prevent that already. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that I wanted no regulation at all. That is not true. The noble Lord discussed how the Radio Authority had used regulation. I want the BBC governors and the ITC to take responsibility in that matter. I swear to the Committee that within a few years of a BSC with teeth wandering around biting at will, noble Lords will probably still be complaining that some programme or other has offended them. It is not what the programme-makers do that is the problem; it is that Members of the Committee have opinions and prejudices. Out of thousands and thousands of hours of broadcasting by the news services they pluck out one programme from 1988 and another in 1989. That is ridiculous.

829
We have to ensure that our broadcasters are given as much freedom as possible in which to operate. If you put too many regulations on them, as we have seen with the broadcasting system in France, you get cowed broadcasters anticipating the will of their political masters. That is not the way forward.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: After 14 years as a journalist and broadcaster and 25 years in publishing, and having worked for four-and-a-half years in France, I can speak with some of the authority that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has addressed. I too would defend to the death the freedom of broadcasters and journalists to report and to comment, to create and to develop and to expand frontiers in broadcasting. I will not defend their freedom to use sloppy or partial thinking or corrupt intellectual practices, or to distort the truth, because that is a far greater corruption of freedom. Worse, it is the destruction of freedom itself.
I believe very strongly that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which put the BBC on to the same footing as the independent television companies should be supported. That is not out of any sense of wishing to get back at my old employer, the BBC (I was very happy in my days there), but in the sense that I think that it is only right that if we are going to have that dreaded level playing field we should have it for all broadcasters, whether domestic or foreign, terrestrial or satellite, digital or analogue. It is totally unreasonable and unfair that one of the competing channels—competing not in a commercial sense but for our minds, our opinions and values—should not be subjected to the same rigorous defence of that fundamental freedom as the other.
The Earl of Halsbury: The basic distinction is between liberal democracy on the one hand and liberal anarchy on the other. My noble friend Lord Chalfont has many more years practical experience of distinguishing the two than anybody else who has taken part in the debate or is likely to.
Lord Renton: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I think that if he reads carefully in Hansard tomorrow the speeches that he has made this evening he will find that he has contradicted himself more than once.
This is a very important group of amendments. I warmly support them. The most important point is that in our free society, where we believe in freedom of speech, normally people are answerable to the public, with or without a trial in the courts, and to the bodies which have statutory responsibility for overseeing them. However, we have to be very careful that when we give such immense power to those who broadcast, especially on television, we ensure that they are answerable in a responsible way and are not merely judges in their own courts. For them to be answerable to an independent body established by statute is absolutely right.
In order for that body's work to be effective it must not merely have the power to draw attention to mistakes that have been made; it should have the power to correct
830
those mistakes or to take some action which will lead to a correction. That goes a little further than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It is in respect of that last point that the amendments are of great importance. I hope that they receive careful consideration by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Viscount Tenby: I support the amendments. Perhaps I may throw myself on the mercy of the Minister. If, as I suspect, this debate will run and run, I hope that he will excuse me if I depart before it ends because I have to catch a last train. I apologise.
As my noble friend Lord Chalfont said, we are today teetering on the brink of a digital revolution. As anyone who recently attended the very useful course on digital broadcasting run by the BBC will confirm, the future ability to amaze and, it has to be said, to deceive through new technology is awe inspiring. Those of us who have been at the receiving end of programmes compiled under the old technology will ruefully acknowledge how a bit of judicious splicing and transposing can give a quite different emphasis and interpretation. But all that will seem like the Ark once digital techniques come on stream.
It is therefore absolutely essential to have a workable and enforceable regulatory regime in place both in respect of matters of taste and of fairness. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the point is to make it possible for people to complain, not just about sexual matters and matters of taste and decency, but also about matters of fairness. The two areas should surely be indivisible in the rights accorded to the viewer or listener.
I have always personally felt—I wish to make the point quite strongly and I know that my noble friend has made it too—that there should be one regulatory body covering all forms of broadcasting. Offair is how some wags would describe it. After all, the second report of the National Heritage Committee made just such a recommendation as long ago as December 1993. But the Government have resolutely refused to take that eminently suitable step and an opportunity has been sadly lost.
It is true that bringing the BBC within the new BSC's audit would not be particularly attractive to the ITC whose own procedures in that respect are undoubtedly effective as anyone who has studied its annual report, as I have, will confirm. But such a course of action might encourage the Government to place the governors of the BBC on the same footing as the ITC, leaving the running of the BBC to its own management team. What has not worked in the past, however, and is unlikely to work in the future is the BBC governors wearing two hats as regulators and as the ultimate management team in the corporation.
Individuals who feel that a programme is biased should have the right to complain to the BSC just as they will be able to do in matters of taste. To those who argue that such a step would be an open invitation to every crank in the country, the fact is that the number of such complaints received by the ITC in 1995 was 65, or 1 per cent. of the total, and of those only 16 were upheld—hardly an opening of the floodgates.

831
Experience has shown that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was seriously flawed in certain areas. Six years later we have a chance to put in place a regulatory regime which will be effective, stand the test of time and benefit not only the public but also the broadcasters because they will know where they stand.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wish briefly to add my voice. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, believes that when we talk about fairness in programmes we are talking about the presentation of the Government. I absolutely agree that the BBC has always proudly said that it is absolutely even-handedly anti-Establishment and that whichever government are in power they are liable to receive stick from the BBC. That is as it should be. I have no quarrel with that. The quarrel is with those programmes where improper methods are used to present situations as truth which are not.
I can give one example; I know that there are plenty more. A famous programme on Solidarity in Poland was totally destroyed in its value because the Polish Government were able to prove that the programmers had purported to interview Lech Walesa in some secret area and it had not occurred. They had used a technique that we, as governors, were told at the time was "wallpapering"—matching two pictures together. They had taken a photograph of the place and a photograph of Walesa and married them. That has happened on several occasions and it is the dishonesty in presentation that I am worried about, as we have a right to be. It will affect relatively few people, but the important tiny minority can discredit the BBC and its otherwise splendid reputation for good documentaries and history. I mind about history being tampered with and so do many others. It is proper for there to be provision for that kind of programme and unfairness to be identified and acknowledged. It is not unreasonable to expect that of an organisation with high standards.
I entirely accept the noble Lord's point that it is difficult for the governors, and always has been, to combine being managers of a large business with being regulators. Generally we have properly delegated that to the director-general. Nevertheless, that situation must continue and be made to work. It will work much better if we all ensure that there is a proper mechanism for catching the rogues—because we must face the fact that there are some rogues.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have been fair in proposing the amendment and explaining the thinking that lies behind it. They propose that the Broadcasting Standards Commission should consider whether the treatment of issues in programmes—whether ITC-licensed or not—is fair. That means that it would have to consider complaints of general impartiality by individuals and representative bodies.
That is a large extension in the new body of powers for the two component bodies. In that context, the existing functions are twofold: first, to act as a standard-setter; to set a benchmark for the standards for the regulators to administer and for those involved in broadcasting to adhere to. Secondly, the functions are to
832
provide what I described earlier this evening as a user-friendly mechanism so that individuals could have some judgment on whether they personally had been treated to their detriment by actions taken by broadcasters.
Decisions about programme content and scheduling must be a matter for the broadcasters themselves. It is for them to decide how to meet their obligations to observe due impartiality in the treatment of controversial issues. I might have been forgiven at some point in the debate this evening for supposing that there were no regulators. There are those who are entrusted with the job of regulating matters: the ITC and the governors of the BBC. I shall come to the governors of the BBC in a moment. Inherent in the arguments promoting the amendment is that broadcasters should be subject not to one regulator but to two. It cannot be right that broadcasters should be subject to double jeopardy. A regulator is fine, but to have two bodies which might punish people for the same offence is not appropriate.
I wish to turn to the BBC. In the way in which the BBC is arranged it is for the governors to secure its compliance with its obligations on programme standards and on treating controversial subjects with due impartiality. We have heard considerable debate this evening and I know that the way in which the task has been carried out in the past has been controversial. The Committee may recall our debate last month on the new Charter and Agreement. I explained in detail the specific responsibilities being placed on the governors to ensure compliance with the BBC's impartiality code in order to ensure that their activities as regulators would not be subject to the kind of criticism to which they have been subject in the past, because the arrangements of the BBC would work more effectively.
I understand those who argue that the way in which the BBC is set up is inherently unsatisfactory. That was a matter which this Chamber considered on several occasions when debating the White Paper and the Charter. That is a matter which has been debated and, if I may be allowed to say so with respect, that chapter is now closed. Surely the right thing to do now is to give the new arrangements that are coming forward a chance to work. They are different.
The Earl of Stockton: When my noble friend says that that chapter is closed, is he in effect saying that the supremacy of Parliament in a parliamentary Bill has been overriden by a charter?
Lord Inglewood: In politics there is a debate about an issue, policy decisions are taken and then, in order for the system that one is endeavouring to change to work and for the rest of society to work, one cannot come back in every Bill and tinker with it. In this case, after long debate, the Government have concluded—I believe they are supported by Parliament— that the current arrangements for the BBC, whereby the governors are both the regulator and the trustees for the public and the corporation itself, provide the way in which this matter should proceed. We ought to give them a chance.

833
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, made one point referring to the role of the BBC in the digital future. It is important to be clear that the BBC's commercial services—and much of the BBC's activities in the new digital future almost certainly will be concerned with commercial services—will in fact be regulated by the ITC.
I should like to move on and come back later to the question of the BSC itself and its scope. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the ITC and the Radio Authority each have a statutory duty to draw up and enforce a code of practice on impartiality and other programme matters. The programme codes produced by the ITC and Radio Authority lay down detailed requirements for programme makers on maintaining balance in programmes and have worked well in practice. As the Committee knows, the regulators, in the case of things not going as they should, have various sanctions at their disposal including, ultimately, removal of the licence. The real concern, which has been expressed this evening—it lies behind these amendments and I touched on it earlier in my remarks—is that those responsible for regulating in the public interest are not exercising their statutory obligations as they ought. The proper response to that, I believe, is either to go to the courts if the law has been broken or to exert political pressure generally, and in Parliament in particular, if it is felt that those who lawfully exercise their judgment have been doing so in an inappropriate manner.
It may be of some help to the Committee to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently spoken to the new chairman of the BBC, expressing the sentiments which were contained in her August speech and told him that her hope is that he will keep that tougher vigilance in mind. She will meet him regularly and keep that wish on her agenda.
As I hoped to explain this evening, I do not believe that introducing the BSC as a kind of intermediary between, on the one hand, the regulators—i.e., the ITC, the BBC governors and the Radio Authority—and, on the other, the courts and Parliament in respect of these general impartiality issues is either desirable in policy terms or helpful in practical terms. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, he said several times that the governors are regulators as well as being responsible for the BBC. But surely there is a conflict of interest if they are in that dual position. Is it correct to say that they are regulators, because they cannot be totally impartial?
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend touches the nub of the problem. This is one of the aspects inherent in the debate about the appropriate form which the BBC should take. On the one hand there are advantages in having a system with the BBC established under Royal Charter and governors who have a regulatory role, who are the trustees of the public interest in respect of the BBC and who are also the embodiment of the corporation itself. On the other hand, there are also disadvantages.
834
In deciding which way one should go with the BBC it was necessary to weigh those matters in the balance. It was the Government's view—a view that I believe was shared by Parliament as a whole—that the former course of action was the appropriate one. A great deal of what we have been talking about this evening flows from that decision. What I am anxious to emphasise in respect of this amendment is that what I understand to be being proposed is the establishment of the BSC as a kind of alternative regulator to the regulatory system that is currently in place. I do not believe that that is desirable, for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships.
Members of the Committee suggested in opposing Clause 72 that the Broadcasting Standards Commission should no longer consider privacy and unfairness complaints only from individuals and their representatives, but that anybody should be able to make a privacy or unfairness complaint, whether or not they are affected by the matter that is the subject of the complaint, and whether or not they have any agreement from those who are affected.
As I explained earlier, that runs contrary to the original purpose of the establishment of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which was to consider issues of unfairness and invasion of privacy in television programmes as they affected individuals, and to provide a relatively simple and user-friendly consideration of their concerns so that they could assess whether or not they had been wrongly treated.
The continuing need for the protection of individuals in this area is evident in the increasing number of complaints received and dealt with by the present Broadcasting Complaints Commission. To remove the restriction on complainants, thus enabling any single person or group of people who felt moved to complain but who were not personally affected by the subject of the complaint, would, in our view—I recall the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in this regard—be likely to expose the Broadcasting Standards Commission to a considerable increase in the number of complaints by interest groups about issues contained in programmes. That might well lead to gross infringements of an individual's privacy where an issue was taken up without either the consent or the knowledge of the person concerned.
People who are concerned about these matters have a direction in which they can go if they wish to take steps about it; that is, they may go to the relevant regulator in respect of the specific programme in question—the BBC in the shape of its governors, the ITC or, if appropriate, the Welsh Authority. It is not the case that we are arguing about this in vacuo. There exists a perfectly good line of action which people who are concerned about these points can go down if that is what they wish to do. What is being argued for is not the intended role of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Just as it was not the intended role of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it is not the intention of the Government that the Broadcasting Standards Commission should go in that direction.

835
Finally, I turn to the proposal in respect of Clause 73, where my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wish to remove the BSC's obligation to set up a separate committee to consider fairness complaints and the concomitant requirement that members of that committee be prevented from involvement with standards complaints.
It is proper that fairness complaints, which are of a different character from standards complaints—the consideration of which require different processes—be handled separately and in a manner appropriate to this kind of issue. The intention of this clause is to ensure that the work of the fairness committee is not vulnerable to possible accusations of impropriety in case of judicial review. It was originally felt that members of the fairness committee should dedicate themselves to working on such complaints so that they developed an expertise on that topic. However, after further reflection, the Government are now considering whether such ring-fencing may be unnecessary or even unduly restrictive. In the light of the meeting of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State earlier this week with the chairmen of the existing BSC and BCC, we are currently considering an amendment of our own to be introduced at Report stage which would effectively remove all but the first subsection. This would be amended to allow the commission as a whole to determine the method of publication of the findings of the fairness committee.
That concludes the remarks I wish to make about the three principal amendments. My understanding of the other amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is speaking is that they are all consequential and therefore I do not see any need to say more about them.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain why it is all right for matters of taste and decency in BBC programmes to come within the remit of the BSC but not matters of impartiality?
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend makes a good and fair point. The reason is that the impact of matters of taste and decency affect individuals' sensibilities as individuals in a way that matters relating to impartiality do not.
Lord Chalfont: I shall not delay the Committee overlong but I feel that a few comments are in order. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was speaking for his party. I must confess that that has given me a new view of the Liberal Democrats' attitude towards regulation. He may be aware that the language of my amendment is taken directly from the Broadcasting Act 1990. There is nothing new in it at all. It had been my understanding that the Broadcasting Act 1990 had in this respect cross-party agreement. I am somewhat surprised to find that there is a new radical and polemical approach in the Liberal Democrat Party towards the whole concept of regulation. But that is what we have heard tonight.
836
The noble Lord said that he thought that because it was evident that broadcasting authorities were attacking No. 10, whoever was in it, they must be doing something right. But there is a fairly good argument on the other side that they are probably doing everything wrong. I think the noble Lord is relying upon a somewhat old-fashioned interpretation of bias or impartiality. No one is talking about Left and Right impartiality; no one is talking about whether people are in favour of the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, in or out of power; what we are talking about is the fair and objective treatment of matters of controversy. That has always been my complaint about a number of broadcasters—that they do not seek after the truth; they seek merely after those selective facts which will serve to buttress their own arguments. That is why the impartiality clauses, with the very wording contained in my amendment, were built into the codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority. All I am seeking to do now, through this amendment, is to bring the BBC within the ambit of those requirements.
Freedom is a dangerous concept to start discussing at this time of night, but the noble Lord thought that the freedom of the broadcaster was a matter of predominant and primordial importance. I can only remind him that in the more classic analysis of liberal democracy freedom is defined as being the freedom to do what you wish provided that it does not limit or damage the freedom of others. It is manipulating the facts and corrupting the truth that limit the freedom of the people who listen to radio and watch television. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wishes to place our broadcasting system in relation to that of the French, I can only say that, like those who are constantly denigrating American television, there are things in French television and in American television from which the BBC and indeed our independent broadcasters could learn some lessons.
Perhaps I may now return to the very elegantly phrased, as always, and cogent reply of the Minister. He spoke about the existing concept of the functions of the BSC and the BCC as though they were engraved in tablets of stone. This Bill takes us into the next millennium and it is supposed to set out the regulation of digital broadcasting well into the next millennium. It is no good trying to take lessons from what the BSC and the BCC do now. The Government have already had the good sense to amalgamate those two bodies. Let them now have the good sense to make sure that the body they form is effective and has some teeth with which to do its job. I am sorry to keep returning to the canine image. We really want a body that is effective.
The noble Lord said that it was for the broadcasters to decide on scheduling and programming—and it is—but when it comes to a matter of scheduling and programming being the subject of complaint about decency, impartiality, standards and objectivity, then it is not for the broadcaster to decide. The Government conceded that in 1990 when they abolished the IBA, which was a broadcaster, and set up independent regulatory bodies. At that moment they accepted and agreed that it was not for the broadcaster to make these decisions but for an independent regulator. That is all I am asking for now.

837
The noble Lord spoke of double jeopardy or second guessing. As I said in my earlier comments, that is already the case. The BSC adjudicates on complaints made to it which are also made to the ITC and the Radio Authority, and very often they come to different conclusions. That will always be so for as long as one has this proliferation of regulating bodies. I do not believe that there is anything particularly evil about that. If someone complains to the BSC that, for example, they have made a complaint to the ITC or to the governors of the BBC and it has not been upheld, is it not then fair that there should be an independent body to go to and say, "I believe that I have been badly done by. My complaint has been turned down when it should not have been"? I do not believe that this matter of double jeopardy is quite the bogeyman that the noble Lord has set it out to be.
The noble Earl commented on the "chapter closed" and that struck me, too. The Minister said that the chapter was now closed and that we must give the new arrangements a chance to work. For how long? To the next review of the BBC's charter or the next Broadcasting Bill? It seems odd to me that we should now be saying that we have a system which is based on the old system, as the noble Lord suggested when he mentioned the remit of the BSC and the BCC, and that we are now prepared, in his exhortation, to give it a chance. Give it a chance for how long? It could be another eight or 10 years and we could still be suffering from the paralysis of regulations, especially in the BBC, caused by the fact that the broadcasters are also the regulators. This is the time to do something about it and not wait until we have further mini-disasters of the kind we have been accustomed to in the past.
There is a good deal more that I could say. I shall make one final comment. Again, it is a fallacy; that of the opening of the floodgates. The suggestion is that if one allows the Broadcasting Standards Commission to take complaints from people about programmes in which they are not directly involved it will open the floodgates to a great mass of nutcases who will be sending in frivolous complaints and subjecting the BSC to mounds and mounds of unnecessary work. There are two things I say to that. One is this: it has not happened in the ITC and the Radio Authority. They have the right to take complaints about impartiality to anybody. It does not have to be anybody directly affected by the programme. Any complaint about impartiality may be made by any listener or viewer in independent television or independent radio. It is only in this instance that we are trying to make a distinction between them. The other is that the BSC would always in any case have the right to decide that the complaint was frivolous and throw it out. On both counts, the great nightmare about opening the floodgates simply does not stand up.
The Minister said that everybody has a perfectly good line of complaint already. They can go to the ITC, the Radio Authority or the governors of the BBC. I would only ask the Minister rhetorically whether he has ever been to the governors of the BBC with a complaint. I have, and the result has always been the same. The BBC closes ranks, as you would fully expect it to do.
838
I would be surprised and disappointed if it did not. It is behaving like a corporate body normally behaves, and that is what is wrong with it; it should not be a corporate body. It should be a body which has an independent regulator over its activities and somebody else to run the organisation.
So I come to my concluding remarks. Clause 73, as the Minister said, is largely consequential. It does not begin to hold up unless some of the other amendments are accepted. The Minister said that the amendments cannot be accepted by the Government. Clearly it would be irresponsible, to say the very least, to divide the Committee at this stage, although with the single exception of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, every speech has been a ringing endorsement of my amendment. However, on the understanding that the Minister will undertake to look at the problem again and assure us that he will try to find some way of meeting the concerns of myself and my colleagues, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Complaints of unfair treatment etc.]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 61, line 38, at end insert ("or organisation").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 208A, 208C, 216A and 216B.
I must first declare an interest. Until just over a year ago I was a member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I have tabled these amendments following my experience as a member of the BCC, participating in and observing the process which takes place under the 1990 Act. The BCC is seriously underfunded and complainants have to wait far too long to have their cases dealt with.
When one considers the thousands of hours of broadcasting time over a year and also the very small number of complaints that are received, one has to accept that, by and large, our broadcasting is of good standard and good quality and is fair and accurate on balance. However, when we received complaints at the BCC, I was appalled at some of the programmes which were made by supposedly professional journalists and programme-makers. That small number of complaints gets the whole industry a bad name. I was appalled too at the sloppiness of some of the journalism and at the way in which some programmes seem to set the agenda for the outcome before they carry out the investigation. That affects just a small number of programmes.
We must remember that the BCC and the BSC are merging. We welcome that merger. We believe it is a step forward. It provides for members of the public an opportunity to complain where otherwise they would have to go to the courts. Referring a complaint to the courts cannot be the right way to deal with it. The complaints system that exists is important if we are looking at fairness and balance and at a broadcasting system which is there for members of the public.
Amendment No.203A refers to direct interest which is a difficult area to define. Of that there is no doubt. We had hoped that the Bill would be clearer about direct interest. It is not. We understand the problems; nevertheless we think that a better shot could perhaps have been made of it. For instance, there can be a programme that looks at a narrowly defined area. It may be one for which there is a national body generally and publicly recognised as being an organisation where the subject matter of the programme is the essential main element or the raison d'être itself of the organisation.
Under the Bill as it stands, and indeed under the 1990 Act, there is no automatic right of complaint. What we have seen is broadcasters objecting to any complaint coming from an organisation. It has to come from an individual. I shall give one example. There was a programme made some two years ago—distant enough for it not to he controversial today—about single parents. It focused on single women parents. The National Council for One-Parent Families made a complaint about the programme. The broadcaster objected and said that there was no direct interest there. Yet the Government consult that body on matters affecting that group in our community.
Defining a direct interest, as I said, is difficult, but there are occasions when organisations do have a direct interest. We are not talking about party political broadcasts or similar programmes. There will not be a long queue of people in that category and, if there are, what happens to them under the new body will be what happened to them under the BCC. We refused to accept their complaints, and we did receive a number. The area of direct interest is a key element.
Amendment No. 208A deals with the provision of unedited recordings at the request of the BSC in respect of unfairness complaints. Again, that does not apply to all broadcasters. My experience is that there were a number of broadcasters who, when asked for the full unedited tape—the rushes, as they are called—handed them over voluntarily. One might wonder why they are important. There is an individual complainant who says, "This programme has not been fair to me." The BCC looks at the programme. The complainant will say, "Ah yes, but that is one little part of my interview. If you look at the whole interview, you will see that they have extracted out of context the points I was making." If the broadcasters are not required to hand over the full unedited tapes, the complainant does not receive a fair hearing. The BCC is put in a difficult position.
Amendment No. 208C requires that when a complaint has been accepted by the BSC as a legitimate one, that programme will not be rebroadcast until the complaint has been adjudicated upon. Where the adjudication finds in favour of the complainant, the part complained about will be edited out. There have been instances of a serious complaint being made by an individual, the company rebroadcasting the very programme, and the complaint being ultimately upheld. Where the complaint is not upheld, no damage is done. In some respects it negates the matter; it is like double jeopardy for the complainant.
I do not intend to pursue the amendment tonight. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and I understand that in drafting the amendment I have included not only the programmes but the advertisements. The 1990 Act and Clause 89 of the Bill provides that the definition of "programme" is the content of the programme including the advertisements. Clearly, the Broadcasting Standards Commission does not cover advertisements. They are rightly covered by the ITC. It was never my intention to provide for that. The word "programme" is a lay person's term and appears in Clauses 69, 70 and 71. In the light of that legal difficulty, it is not my intention to pursue the amendment tonight but I have raised the issue and would welcome the Minister's comments.
Amendments Nos. 216A and 216B amend the Bill to provide that, where a complaint has been made, heard, adjudicated upon and found in favour of the complainant, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will in most instances require its adjudication to be broadcast. In the past that has not happened and the balance has not been redressed as regards the complainant. For instance, the case relating to the one-parent families resulted in the BBC making a statement after the broadcast of the adjudication to the effect that it did not agree with the adjudication decision, and why. That negated the impact of the commission's decision.
Recently, Central Television broadcast an adjudication relating to one of "The Cook Report" programmes. Before the adjudication was broadcast, Mr. Cook appeared on the screen and stated that the company was required by law to broadcast the adjudication. He stated that it found the adjudication perverse. The adjudication was then broadcast and back on screen came Mr. Cook, who made a long statement in which he chose selectively to put his case. He concluded—and I paraphrase—that the company stood by every word it broadcast in the programme against which the adjudication had been found. The complainant was not invited on screen to make a comment, nor was the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That incident completely negated the impact of that adjudication and, I suggest, the integrity of the complaints system.
Fortunately, the story does not end there. About an hour ago, on the instructions of the ITC, Central Television rebroadcast that adjudication. It is to be hoped that the balance will be redressed. But such events should not occur and that is why I have tabled the two amendments. I apologise for taking 10 minutes but these amendments are important for individuals and for the viewers. They are tabled as a result of my observations during my membership of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which, despite lack of resources, does a worthwhile job. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure that all of us found the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, most helpful, bearing in mind her wide experience in these matters. Amendment No. 203A relates to fairness complaints and to the fact that a person affected in this regard is already allowed to instruct another person to complain on his behalf to the Broadcasting Standards

841
Commission. That other person could, of course, be a member of an organisation such as a representative body.
As has been explained, what is not allowed is an organisation to make a complaint without the authorisation of the person affected. The Government would oppose such a proposal for the reasons that I gave tonight in respect of earlier amendments. The noble Baroness makes an important point about the problems relating to the definition of "direct interest". If she has any suggested improvements to the form of words which may help to deal with a difficult definitional problem, we should be very pleased to know about them.
In her remarks the noble Baroness referred to the "Panorama" programme entitled "Babies on Benefit." My understanding is that the National Council for One Parent Families did not represent an individual in that respect. The judicial review which arose from the complaint that it made found that the BCC acted beyond its powers in entertaining the complaint without a named individual. Therefore, it seems to me that that was not a matter of an individual who was affected by the programme not being able to bring a complaint. In fact, it was a complaint brought by an organisation which was outside the remit of the BCC because it was not brought by an individual who was affected.
I have explained some of our anxieties about the noble Baroness's amendment and, as a result, we cannot support it.
Amendment No. 208A seeks to require broadcasters, regulatory bodies and production companies to make available to the Broadcasting Standards Commission all unedited as well as edited material such as transcripts and recordings that had been gathered in the process of making a programme which is subject to an unfairness complaint. Already broadcasters and regulatory bodies are required to retain recordings and transcripts of all programmes broadcast in the event of a complaint. To require them to retain, in addition, all unedited recordings and transcripts that have gone into the making of a programme is in practice an almost completely open-ended obligation and the volume of material would be many times greater than that used in the actual recording. It seems to us that this is a disproportionate requirement because that would impose, in turn, an unreasonable demand on broadcasters, regulatory bodies and their production companies in both administrative and financial terms. That is our concern and that is why we resist that amendment.
Amendment No. 208C is concerned to extend effectively the role of the BSC to that of a censor and regulator by giving it the power to prevent the retransmission of a programme under investigation or a part of a programme on which the BSC has made an adverse ruling.
The BSC exists as a forum for public concerns in broadcasting and the airing of personal grievances, as I have already mentioned. To enable the BSC to prevent the retransmission of the whole or part of a programme would be to give it powers of censorship which do not
842
at present exist in the broadcasting regulatory framework. If this amendment were accepted it seems to us that there would be a possibility that pressure groups may go beyond the spirit of the amendment and take advantage by making a hardly genuine complaint to the BSC in the hope that it will be entertained in order to prevent, thereby, the retransmission of a programme which they disliked or with which they disagreed.
We believe that it would be wrong to extend the powers of the BSC beyond its present remit. It seems to us that the potential abuses with which this amendment is concerned are best left to the person who is responsible for the regulation of the broadcaster concerned. We believe that is the way to deal with that problem and that is why we oppose that amendment.
Finally, the noble Baroness spoke to Amendments Nos. 216A and 216B in which she proposes that broadcasting bodies and licence holders be prevented from adding their own comments alongside any published summary that they are required to make of the BSC's findings. The proposal is one with which the Government have considerable sympathy. With the agreement of the Committee, we would like to consider most carefully the implications of what is being proposed and to consult with the broadcasting and regulatory bodies and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission before making the Government's position clear in due course. I hope that we may be able to return to the matter on Report with some proposals in the area.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for responding to all the amendments. I only moved Amendment No. 203A, but spoke to the others. The noble Lord gave me quite an interesting invitation as regards our bringing forward some further words on direct interest. If the Government would see their way to funding the Front Bench of the Opposition with researchers and secretarial support even to a minimal degree compared to that enjoyed by them, we would have some further words available in time for the Report stage. If the Minister would like to take up that counter invitation, we would be delighted to comply.
I accept that it is difficult to define the concept of direct interest. I also take the point about not representing an organisation. I believe that the Minister has been somewhat misled on the matter as regards the "Panorama" programme. I chaired that complaint, but I left the commission before the court case took place. There were two young women who actually went to the National Council for One Parent Families with their complaints. It is indeed a difficult area, and we will consider the Minister's response. Perhaps we could hire a lawyer who does not charge the normal fees and ask him to look into the matter. I invite the Government to do likewise. If it is just the question of words that is keeping us apart, I am sure that we can find a way to resolve the matter.
As regards pressure groups, my experience in life has been that those who get away with pressurising are those who are pretty well looked after; indeed, it is those in the vulnerable, small groups who do not know where to go, and do not even know that the system exists, who need help. Therefore, I was disappointed with that reply.

843
As regards Amendments Nos. 216A and 216B, clearly I am pleased with that response. We await to hear the Minister's further comments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Complaints relating to taste and decency, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Supplementary provisions as to making of complaints of either kind]:
[Amendments Nos. 207A and 208 not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Consideration of fairness complaints]:
[Amendment No. 208A not moved.]
Lord Inglewood moved Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 208B:
Page 65, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Where the BSC have adjudicated on a fairness complaint, they shall send a statement of their findings to the complainant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208C not moved.]
Clause 77 [Consideration of standards complaints]: [Amendments Nos. 209 to 211 not moved.]
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 212 to 214:
Page 66, line 6, after ("BSC") insert (" and the complainant").
Page 66, line 9, after ("BSC") insert (" and the complainant").
Page 66, line 12, after ("BSC") insert (" and the complainant").
The noble Lord said: The above amendments do in fact contain a new element which is not entirely consequential to the original amendment. However, as I shall be returning to the whole matter on Report, I do not propose to move the amendments tonight.
[Amendments Nos. 212 to 214 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Power to pay allowances to persons attending hearings]:
11.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 214A to 214C not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Publication of BSC's findings]:
[Amendments Nos. 215 to 217 not moved.]
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 67, line 9, at end insert—
("(d) a correction or an apology (or both).").
The noble Viscount said: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has asked me to apologise to the Committee on his behalf as he has had to leave. He asked me to move this simple amendment on his behalf.
It seems a sensible and logical proposal that if a complaint is upheld it is reasonable that a correction or apology should be made. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: This amendment requires the Broadcasting Standards Commission to publish an apology or correction that it has directed the broadcaster or regulatory body to make, after a complaint has been upheld. The Broadcasting Standards Commission, however, can only direct a broadcaster or regulatory body to publish a summary of its findings. It cannot direct them to make an apology or correction.
The mechanism for the broadcasting of apologies is contained in Section 40 of the 1990 Act in respect of licensed services, and in Section 109 in respect of licensed radio services. In the case of the BBC it would be incumbent upon the governors to determine where an apology or correction is appropriate. It is right that the responsibility for these matters should rest with the broadcasting or regulatory bodies. Where an apology or correction has been made, however, this would be reported to the BSC and included in the BSC's report through the requirement contained in government Amendment No. 221A. The Government will therefore resist this amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I am not quite clear why. My noble friend says that the BSC could not have the power to do this, but surely the whole of Clause 80 gives the BSC power to issue directions, and this is simply an additional direction that it could issue if it so wished. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that point.
Lord Inglewood: Were there a power to compel a form of apology, the apology itself would ring entirely hollow. A self-regulating way of determining how a broadcaster responds to a finding of the BSC is to see whether or not he apologises, because the mechanisms we have put in place are intended to draw clearly to the wider public's attention whether or not any response has been given by the broadcaster. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that broadcasters will take seriously the findings of the BSC, because it will be made apparent to the wider world when a description of the upheld complaint is made public that the broadcaster has done nothing about it. That will lead to pressure from the press, the public and politicians. If, however, the broadcaster were simply compelled to issue a form of words which carried none of his sentiments, we believe that would provide the broadcaster with a way out.
Viscount Caldecote: My noble friend has made a logical case although I cannot commit the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to it, as he may want to raise the matter again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
("provided that in the case of a summary as provided for in subsection (3)(b) above a clear statement is included as to whether each separate part of a complaint has been upheld or not upheld").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 220. These are simple amendments which I hope will commend themselves to the Government. They are merely designed to correct a situation where at the moment an adjudication can be made on a complaint without telling the complainant whether or not any part of his complaint has been upheld. Sometimes this can cause confusion and indeed dismay to the complainant if he has made a complaint in several parts and it is not made absolutely clear to him in the adjudication whether or not each part has been upheld. It is a simple amendment and I hope that the Government can accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 218, 220 and 221 is to require the BSC to state for each part of a complaint that has been considered whether it has been upheld. In the case of complaints about fairness, Clause 80(11) as it stands already requires the Broadcasting Standards Commission to do just that. The BSC is required to make findings which state whether a fairness complaint is upheld, and those findings are to be made on each part of the complaint.
With respect to complaints about standards, we feel it is inappropriate to expect the BSC to consider and give findings on each part of a complaint. There are proper reasons why part of a complaint may not be considered. Those are laid out in Clause 75. Last year the Broadcasting Standards Council received a total of 2,838 complaints, of which it gave findings on 1,492. Those numbers can be expected to grow considerably with the advent of the merger. It would be a considerable drain on the resources of the BSC if it were required to state its findings on every part of each complaint.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand why I say that the Government consider that the amendments as drafted would place unnecessary burdens on the BSC and will resist them.
Lord Chalfont: The purpose of Amendment No. 221 is to remove a clause which would have become unnecessary if the other two amendments had been accepted.
This is largely a matter of wording. I was not entirely happy that the existing wording made it clear that an adjudication had to be made on each part. If that is the intention of the current wording in the Bill, and if it has the effect which I sought to achieve in Amendments Nos. 218 and 220, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and to examine the position between now and Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 67, line 19, leave out ("at such intervals") and insert ("monthly").
The noble Viscount said: At present the Broadcasting Standards Council publishes monthly bulletins setting out complaints received and whether they were upheld. As drafted, Clause 80(7) gives the BSC discretion as to how often it publishes such reports. No doubt the
846
intention is to continue to publish monthly reports, but in future that policy might be discontinued. Reports issued at half-yearly intervals would be of little value. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the BSC to continue to issue monthly reports.
The reason for my anxiety about the way the Bill is presently drafted is that from time to time pressure is put on departments to reduce expenditure. It would be simple for the BSC to save a few tens of thousands of pounds or more by issuing the report only once a year. Therefore, it is important that this simple and logical amendment should be approved so as to ensure that we continue to have the excellent monthly reports. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend's amendment requires the Broadcasting Standards Commission to publish reports, giving details of its findings, on a strictly monthly basis. This would allow no flexibility or discretion for the new organisation in the management of its resources according to demands. It may be that there are so many findings in any one month that the Broadcasting Standards Commission decides that it should publish two reports within that month. On the other hand, it might be that the BSC wishes to miss a month due to there being an insufficient number of findings to justify publishing or to difficulties caused by staff absence or a holiday period. The amendment does not give the BSC the flexibility to do either.
The Government are willing to consider introducing at Report stage an amendment of their own requiring the BSC to publish its reports monthly or at such intervals as it sees fit. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very sympathetic and encouraging reply. On that basis I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 67, line 33, leave out ("or 74(1)") and insert (" 74(1) or 75(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 220B:
Page 67, line 38, leave out ("complainant") and insert ("complaint in question").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 220C to 221 not moved.]
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 221A:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
REPORTS ON ACTION TAKEN VOLUNTARILY IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS ON COMPLAINTS
(".—(1) This section applies where the BSC have given a direction under section 80(1) in relation to a fairness complaint or a standards complaint.
(2) Where the relevant programme was included in a licensed service, the appropriate regulatory body shall send to the BSC a report of any supplementary action taken by—

(a) the regulatory body,

(b) the licence holder, or

(c) any other person appearing to the regulatory body to be responsible for the making or provision of the relevant programme.

(3) Where the relevant programme was broadcast by a broadcasting body, that body shall send to the BSC a report of any supplementary action taken by—

(a) the broadcasting body, or

(b) any other person appearing to that body to be responsible for the making or provision of the relevant programme.

(4) The BSC may include, in any report under section 80(7), a summary of any report received by them under subsection (2) or (3) in relation to the complaint.
(5) In this section "supplementary action", in relation to a complaint, means action which, although not taken in pursuance of a direction under section 80(1), is taken in consequence of the findings of the BSC on the complaint.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 222:
Before Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
REGISTER OF BROADCASTERS' INTERESTS
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the BSC to draw up and maintain a register of broadcasters' interests.
(2) The register shall contain details of—

(a) consultancies, or any similar arrangements, whereby broadcasters accept payment or other incentive or reward for providing broadcast services;

(b) any financial interests of broadcasters in businesses involved in providing broadcast services on behalf of clients;

(c) broadcasters' membership of or affiliation to any political party or organisation; and

(d) any other particulars which the BSC considers may affect the public perception of the way in which broadcasters provide broadcast services.

(3) Any person who is engaged in the production of current affairs or news programmes or who is the holder of a licence under the 1990 Act or Part I or II shall register any details under subsection (2) above.
(4) The BSC may make arrangements to enable any other person employed by a broadcasting body or by any holder of a licence under the 1990 Act or Part I or II to register any details under subsection (2) above.
(5) The BSC shall make arrangements for the public inspection of the register.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment requires the BSC to draw up and maintain a register of the interests, as elaborated in subsection (2), of certain categories of broadcaster as defined in subsection (3).
It is important to recognise that what has motivated me in this has little to do with impartiality per se. I am entirely comfortable to maintain that UK broadcasting continues to be the best in the world so far as concerns quality, integrity and impartiality. As a nation, we should count ourselves extremely fortunate that we continue to enjoy that considerable privilege.
Therefore, I could at a pinch be persuaded to accept that principles of impartiality are adequately buttressed by existing systems—the more so had the Minister been more receptive to the amendments of the noble Lord,
848
Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote. However, what should concern us is our responsibility, with the onset of digital, to sustain this reputation for pre-eminence combined with a recognition that the people need to be able to recognise in a tangible and concrete way that their interests are being properly protected and looked after.
In effect, my primary purpose with the amendment is to enhance the principle of accountability within the broadcast media. No one disputes the immense power of the broadcast media. I am spoilt for choice in finding quotations to support this supposition. For example, the paper of the Department of National Heritage, Media Ownership: the Government's Proposals, published in May of last year states that the Government recognise,
"that broadcasters in particular use a powerful and instant form of mass communication, delivered through a limited number of outlets, which are in a strong position to inform and influence public opinion and to help set the agenda for public debate, and may also have an effect (for good or ill) on the outlook and behaviour of individuals".
This is serious stuff—"influence public opinion"; "set the agenda for public debate"! To my mind, it is arguable that we, as a nation, should be comfortable with the concept that an intellectual medium, with access to an essentially malleable constituency of quite literally millions, should be free to operate outside the remit of transparency and public scrutiny. Of course, I concede that the various regulatory bodies and practices within the industry exist as a check and balance in this regard. However, they do not address the core problem here of democratic accountability: that of the public being afforded the opportunity to see for themselves that the regulatory framework is operating effectively and adequately. It is my belief that this amendment would achieve that objective.
The other point I wish to make is that the primary purpose of the Bill before us is to establish a framework for digital for the future. Inevitably, this involves a degree of crystal ball gazing, but the one thing that can definitely be said is that digital will create considerably more capacity than currently exists in UK broadcasting. It does not stretch the bounds of possibility to suggest that there will be a proliferation of new channels and new broadcasters as and when digital comes on stream. A potential and undesirable by-product of such a proliferation could be a diminution in the high standards under which the UK broadcasting industry currently operates.
Thus, in holding to my belief that we in the UK still enjoy the best broadcasting in the world, I am keen to ensure that the situation can be maintained into the digital age and that new players in the field are left in no doubt as to the standards to be achieved, particularly with respect to accountability. Again, it is my view that my amendment would achieve that. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I support the noble Earl's amendment. There is a delicious irony about the proposal. As I was reading the first draft of the amendment, I was checking my own entry in the House of Lords register of interests. It seemed to me that as

849
soon as the amendment made its appearance we would hear a loud uproar about infringement of freedom. There is an irony about considering the proposal this evening.
One area in which I am led to agree fully with what the noble Earl said and with the content of his amendment is this. I often wish to know when watching a television programme or listening to a radio broadcast—to use a trendy modern idiom—where the broadcaster is coming from. In other words, what emotional, political or ideological baggage has he carried with him into the studio. It is an important point. If one speaks to presenters, interviewers and programme-makers among the broadcasters, they will say in the idiom of their profession that they leave their political opinions at the studio door. However, I do not believe that that is always the case. It was the case in the old days when legendary figures in the BBC such as Grace Wyndham-Goldie and Huw Wheldon were running affairs. It would have been a brave BBC person who would take his own opinions into the studio, whether radio or television. However, it sometimes now happens. The concept of transparency and knowing where people are coming from deserves attention.
Like the noble Earl, I have no great confidence that the proposal will be met with universal approbation. I doubt whether the Government will be prepared to do much about it. However, the amendment is worth considering because it does something to cut across the feeling that we all have sometimes that we are listening to someone peddling a political line on radio or television under the guise of an objective comment.
Lord Inglewood: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Northesk would place a duty on the BSC to create a register of interests to which broadcasters would supply details of their consultancies or similar arrangements in return for payment or other reward; any financial interests of broadcasters in businesses providing broadcasting services on behalf of clients; their membership of or affiliation to any political party or organisation; and any other particulars that the BSC considers may affect the public perception as to the way in which broadcasters provide broadcasting services. My noble friend's amendment also requires any person involved in producing current affairs or news programmes or holding a licence under the 1990 Act or Part I or Part II of the Bill to register the same kind of details. The BSC is required to make the necessary arrangements, including those for public inspection of the register.
The BBC and those broadcasters licensed by the ITC are subject to strict requirements as to impartiality. In particular, the ITC is required to do all that it can to secure that every licensed broadcaster applies the requirement that any news given, in whatever form, in its programmes is presented with due accuracy and impartiality and that due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. The ITC is required to draw up appropriate codes to give effect to those requirements. In respect
850
of services licensed by the ITC, the commission must also satisfy itself that each prospective licensee is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. The ITC is further required to ensure that the broadcasting licence holder is not disqualified by a number of criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act including political connections and circumstances where a prospective licensee is open to have influence exerted over him by another body giving financial assistance. The disqualification also extends to advertising agencies and those associated with such agencies.
As I previously said in respect of the BBC, we have made express provision in paragraph 7 of the draft Charter that the governors are under an express obligation to ensure that the corporation, its employees and all its programme-makers comply with codes and guidelines covering programme standards. The draft Charter specifies that all activities of the BBC should be carried out to the highest standards of probity and propriety. The Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC being considered in another place this evening contains a clear requirement that the BBC draw up a code relating to due accuracy and impartiality of treatment in paragraph 5.3 referring to paragraph 5.1(c). The BBC is required to do,
"all it can to ensure that the provisions of the Code are observed".
There are many other activities where these kinds of standards are properly demanded. Yet doctors, lawyers and judges, to name but three, do not have to complete such a declaration. Indeed, it is only in the field of politics where an obligation to complete such registers may be required because politicians take decisions as decision-makers of government.
The general provisions of the 1990 Act applicable to the ITC's duties and the framework set out in the BBC draft Charter and Agreement are, in the Government's view, a sufficient safeguard against breaches of impartiality arising from potential conflicts of interests of broadcasters. It is a matter for the broadcasters themselves to secure that their employees and programme-makers act in accordance with obligations placed on the broadcasters. For example, the BBC's standard contract of employment expressly deals with those matters.
I refer the Committee to paragraph 19 of the monthly standard contract where it is specified that,
"You [the employee] will devote your whole time ability and attention during your working hours to the BBC and the performance of your duties. You will not allow your outside or private activities to interfere with your BBC work or your ability to carry out your duties effectively or permit any conflict actual or potential to arise between your BBC duties and your outside or private interests. You will not allow any outside or private interests to place the BBC in a position whereby it is brought or is likely to be brought into disrepute or its reputation for impartiality is likely to be affected irrespective of whether or not its reputation is actually affected".
It goes on to say that,
"in case of doubt you should seek the prior written consent of your manager before entering into or commencing any additional employment or appointment whether voluntary or otherwise".

851
It seems to me that an unwillingness to comply with that criterion is more or less a guarantee that the register will be improperly filled in. I am far from convinced that that approach will deliver the benefits that its proposers maintain.
In addition, the amendment would take the work of the BSC into areas considerably beyond its intended remit and into an area which is properly the responsibility of the regulators and the governors. The fact that broadcasting is subject to the regulatory regime of the BBC governors, the Welsh Authority, or in receipt of an ITC licence, should of itself be the guarantee of impartiality. It goes back to a great deal of what we have been talking about this evening. If that is not the case, it is a matter for those who have the job of exercising a regulatory function. It is not a matter which we believe should or could be well done by the BSC whose function, as I have explained, is different.
For those reasons, if my noble friend seeks to press his amendment, we shall oppose it.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and to the Minister for his lucid explanation of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was absolutely right in foreseeing that my noble friend the Minister would not be wholly sympathetic to the amendment.
I am conscious of the lateness of the hour and have no wish to detain the Committee any longer than is necessary. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, intimated, that there may be room to seek out a more useful airing of the subject when more people are around to discuss it. With that reservation and with the Committee's leave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Power of BSC to commission research]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 68, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) the avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment in programmes to which section 68 applies and of unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with the obtaining of material included in, such programmes,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Duty to publicise BSC]:
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 223:
Page 68, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: As this will be, to my relief and probably to everyone else's, my last intervention in the Committee stage, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister, not only for the constructive and helpful way in which he responded to the debate, taking us so carefully and effectively through it, but also for the co-operation that he and his officials have given to us all—certainly to me—
852
throughout the preparation of these amendments. I look forward to returning to the fray at Report stage, when I know that the Minister will come with great armfuls of government concessions. The amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Annual reports]:
Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 68, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 69.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 223B:
Page 69, line 7, at end insert ("together with a copy of the statement of accounts for the year and of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on that statement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Contributions towards cost of BSC]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 223C:
Page 69, line 27, leave out from ("must") to end of line and insert ("be such that the aggregate of—

(a) that total, and

(b) the amount of any contribution towards the expenses of the BSC for that year which is received, or to be received, by the Secretary of State from the BBC, represents one half of those expenses.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 70, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) any qualifying service (within the meaning of Part 1 of this Act) provided by a person other than the Welsh Authority,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 93 agreed to.
11.45 p.m.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to services provided by BBC companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 230 to 233 not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  Overseas Military Training Assistance
  Overseas Military Training Assistance
  Prison Standing Order 7A
  Prison Standing Order 7A
  Environmental Pollution: Royal Commission Reports
  Environmental Pollution: Royal Commission Reports
  Chemicals: Risk Ranking
  Chemicals: Risk Ranking
  Impaired Function: Prevalence
  Impaired Function: Prevalence
  Electroconvulsive Therapy: Related Deaths
  Electroconvulsive Therapy: Related Deaths
  Simulated Nuclear Testing
  Simulated Nuclear Testing
  Flying Training
  Flying Training
  Varroa: Statutory Infected Area
  Varroa: Statutory Infected Area
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dip: Adverse Reactions
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dip: Adverse Reactions
  Warble Fly Treatment: Adverse Reactions
  Warble Fly Treatment: Adverse Reactions
  Warble Fly: Compulsory Treatment
  Warble Fly: Compulsory Treatment