Sitting of 16 January 1996

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

    Patient Care (Birmingham)
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last visited an NHS hospital in Birmingham to discuss patient care. [7491]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): My right hon. Friend visited Good Hope Hospital NHS trust Sutton Coldfield last Friday, when he met staff and patients.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that people in hospital may get too much care because their discharge is delayed by a lack of adequate, immediately available community care facilities? Will he study carefully the plans and proposals of a qualified constituent of mine that I sent him before Christmas? They suggest a fast-track approach with perhaps a small part of the budget being given to health service discharge planners to help people move more quickly out of acute beds so that there would be no bed-blocking. That would save the NHS a fortune, help people to be discharged more quickly and release more beds for acute care.
    Mr. Malone: I read with great care the letter that the hon. Gentleman's constituent sent him. It contained a number of very practical proposals, all of which, fortunately, need no change to national policy to be implemented. I, too, happened to be in the Birmingham area on Friday and travelled to Nuneaton, where I saw a hospital at which such a partnership was in action and social services had a halfway-home ward in which people were able to step down and get rehabilitation treatment before they went into the community. The NHS executive published a book in 1984 that gave guidance on discharge. Of course, we are always happy to learn where best practice tells us that we can do better, but with local action I believe that we can make a great impact on the problem. The hon. Gentleman's constituent made some very valid points on that.
    Sir Norman Fowler: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the action that he is taking to improve accident and emergency services at Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield? However, I hope that he will also recognise that a new admission ward is needed and that, if one was introduced, it would make long waits on trolleys a thing of the past. I hope that he will consider that.
    Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging the progress that has been made at Good Hope hospital, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able on Friday to be at a press conference where it was announced that 65 beds were being brought back into service. That was a step in the right direction. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the proposals put forward by the trust. I understand that they are being evaluated by the regional health authority, which I expect to look rigorously at the proposals and do what it can constructively to help to alleviate the problem at Good Hope.
    Mr. Burden: While I welcome the announcement on beds at Good Hope, when will the Minister recognise that Birmingham is being short-changed on national health service spending and the fact that the 1.1 per cent. increase on spending announced by the Minister before Christmas amounts to only 0.5 per cent. in Birmingham? That will result in cuts in the community facilities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and could make the difference as to whether 75 community psychiatric nurses are in post. When will he do something about that?
    Mr. Malone: I saw with some interest the proposal put forward by the local community health council, which seemed to suggest that there was underfunding in Birmingham of some 20 per cent. However, there is, of course, an equitable weighted capitation process in England that allocates funds. I should like to discover from the hon. Gentleman some time whether he is saying that he is committed to undoing the weighted capitation system. Can his Front Benchers commit his party to doing that in a way that would automatically bring more funds to bear in Birmingham? Unless he is undertaking to do so, his observation is entirely irrelevant. I would have hoped that what he might rather have done is to look at the forthcoming merger between the two Birmingham health authorities, which will immediately result in £1.2 million of savings, which will be available for added patient care.

    Psychiatric Community Nurses
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of psychiatric community nurses since 1979. [7492]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in the community psychiatric area has increased from 1,080 in 1981, which is the earliest year for which figures are available, to 4,760 in 1994, an increase of 340 per cent.
    Mr. Atkinson: While I think that my hon. Friend and his predecessor should be given full credit for that impressive increase, which clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to the mentally ill, does he agree that his Department's report into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people provides even more evidence that there are still not enough psychiatric community nurses to go round to give that essential face-to-face contact with patients—especially schizophrenia patients—to make a success of our community care approach?

    525
    In the light of the patients charter for the mentally ill, which our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced, can my hon. Friend now announce a further substantial increase in the number of psychiatric community nurses?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend has referred to the confidential inquiry report, which was set against the background of a decreasing proportion of homicides committed by mentally ill people.
    Any homicide or act of violence against oneself or somebody else is a matter of concern to us, which is why we asked the inquiry to investigate whether there are common threads that run through such cases. The thread it highlighted is professionals' failure, in some cases, to communicate with each other. That observation ties in with the requirements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has placed on every health authority in the country to report to us on the state of the care programme, the mix of beds and community services and the plans that they have in each case to correct any shortcomings.
    We shall look carefully at all those programmes to ensure that the service in every district is up to the standard that we know exists in the best districts.
    Dr. Wright: How does the Minister's reply relate to the case of my constituent, Dylan Thomas Jones, a mentally ill patient about whom I wrote to every agency that was involved in his case? I told them that he was likely to kill either himself or someone else unless the most urgent action was taken. A few weeks ago, he killed himself. I wrote to the Department of Health to say that that might happen.
    May I tell the Minister that, as far as the people of this country are concerned, including Mr. Jones' mother, community care for that category of patient has become a euphemism for the most monstrous neglect? Instead of waiting for another inquiry or another such death, will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do about the problem?
    Mr. Bowis: That case is a tragedy, and we feel for the family or families concerned. After any such case, the Department of Health and the national health service order a full investigation into what has gone wrong. The lessons learnt are fed into the programming and planning of our mental health services. I can make that pledge, today and always, to the hon. Gentleman.
    In return, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to acknowledge the real progress made in the care and treatment of mentally ill people, which is much more humane than it was some decades ago. Dedicated doctors, nurses and social workers are working with families and individuals to make that possible. When Professor Norman Sartorius, the distinguished president of the World Psychiatry Association, came to Britain, he said:
    "Our recent developments in improving mental health services will ensure that the UK continues to lead the world in this area".
    We should listen to that lesson, learn from it, and pay tribute to the work of our professionals, rather than downgrade them and abuse them every time we speak in the House on a particular case.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on developing the community psychiatric nurse
    526
    programme. Is he aware that there are times when that programme plays a crucial role in rescuing someone who is suffering from mental illness and ensuring that he reaches the appropriate help in time? Does he agree that his programme has now developed fourfold since the Government came to power? That is a far cry from the Labour party, which talked and talked, but did nothing.
    Mr. Bowls: My hon. Friend is right—the programme has developed since those days because the Government have made it a priority. My hon. Friend is also right to pay particular attention to psychiatric nurses working in the community and to others who act as the key workers in each case. Every patient who is discharged from hospital care or the mental health services should have a care programme around him or her, monitored and led by the key worker who is often a nurse and who is able to spot things when they are going wrong and alert the necessary professionals to help the individual get through the crisis that he or she may be suffering. If we work towards that end, we shall have a service that is in the best interests of both patients and the wider community.

    Community Care
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of community care provision. [7493]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Since April 1993, the Department of Health has monitored the implementation of the community care reforms. In addition, the social services inspectorate carries out regular inspections, statistics are regularly collected and published, and longer-term research is in hand to evaluate the progress of the policy.
    Mr. Hardy: While I pay tribute to the dedication of the medical and nursing staff engaged in the sector, would not they—and does not the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—point to serious and growing need? May we have an assurance not only that the Government are pledged to maintain supervision, but that they will provide more psychiatric hospital beds and improve staffing to assist those at the sharp end of sometimes horrifying and intensifying need?
    Mr. Dorrell: The House can certainly have the assurance that we shall continue to invest to ensure that adequate, up-to-date hospital space is available for those with acute hospital needs who are mentally ill. In addition, we have already announced our intention to introduce a mental health patients charter that will define the standards that patients are entitled to expect from the mental health services. I also announced at the time of the Budget a package that will provide an extra £50 million of new money for the delivery of mental health services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those steps.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resources that the Government have devoted to all community care services have more than doubled in only five years and have been increased by 9 per cent. this year over last year?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fast rate of growth in the resources available for the community care of elderly people. Indeed, my hon. Friend understates the scale of the public resources

    527
    committed by the Government to care for elderly people. The figure in 1979 was £851 million in total—almost all of it was spent by local authorities. In today's values, that figure is £2.5 billion. The figure that we, local authorities and the Department of Social Security are spending this year is just over £7 billion. There has been an increase, in today's values, from £2.5 billion to more than £7 billion. We have multiplied support by a factor of nearly three.
    Mr. Milburn: Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis in public confidence about care in the community policies that has culminated in today's report on the tragic toll of suicides and homicides involving severely mentally ill people? Has not the Government's mismanagement of mental health policy left the NHS in the worst of all possible worlds—with too few beds in hospitals, inadequate facilities in the community and a shortage of trained staff in both? Surely the Minister does not believe that vulnerable people should simply be left to fend for themselves. When will he address the serious shortcomings identified in the report in order to help to avert further tragedies in future?
    Mr. Dorrell: In dealing with this subject, the House is dealing with two separate issues: when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) I dealt with community care for elderly people; my answer to the two questions from the Opposition involves community care for the mentally ill. I might have hoped that, when he referred to the confidential report, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) would draw attention to the fact that it demonstrates that, despite public perceptions to the contrary, there has not been—
    Mr. Milburn: That is the point.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that the perception is the point. The fact that there has not been an increase in the number of homicides caused by people suffering from mental illness is important. It does not excuse—
    Mr. Milburn: One is too many.
    Mr. Dorrell: One is too many, of course, but there is no rising trend.
    To improve the quality of mental health services, we must first define our objectives. That is why we are setting out a charter to state the objectives. Secondly, we must ensure that the resources flow to deliver the improvement of mental health services that we all want. That is why, at Budget time, I announced an extra £50 million of public money over two years to enhance the resources available to develop mental health services.

    Basildon Hospital
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at Basildon hospital during the last year. [7494]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): In 1994–95, there were 49,873 finished consultant episodes—in-patient and day cases—at Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust. In addition, there were 158,552 out-patient attendances.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hospital on achieving the shortest
    528
    waiting list time in Essex? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon hospital's success in achieving trust status may be judged by the 14 extra consultants employed in the past year, the 35 extra nurses, the opening of a new postgraduate centre, the award of a charter mark for its X-ray services and the 23 per cent. increase in patients treated?
    Mr. Horam: I shall not add to my hon. Friend's magnificent list of statistics, for they are all accurate. It is obvious that Basildon has a great hospital as well as a great Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Minister see that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) recently called for the sacking of the Basildon hospital management? How does the Minister square that with his most recent remarks?
    Will the Minister also note that, as a result of the health authority closing the Orsett hospital accident and emergency department in the new Basildon constituency, my constituents in Thurrock and the constituents of Billericay and Basildon must wait five, six or sometimes seven hours in the accident and emergency department of Basildon hospital? Is he proud of that? Does he share the opinion of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and me that it is a lousy hospital, which needs to be reformed and differently managed?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should bring his facts up to date. The episodes that he complains about were in 1992. They were apologised for at the time—and rightly so; they were extremely regrettable episodes. Those hospitals have reformed their procedures and, since then, put in the performance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) described.
    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the fact that Orsett hospital has been reconsidered and will be made into a big community hospital, that a new minor injuries unit will start soon and that day surgery will be retained. In other words, my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was wrong; the area has two great hospitals, not one.
    Mrs. Gorman: May I divorce myself from the derogatory and disgraceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the hospitals in my constituency? I remind the hon. Gentleman, as well as my hon. Friend the Minister, of the wonderful service being done by the Thameside health authority, which covers the community needs of our area. It has recently provided almost 100 new beds for the elderly infirm. They therefore do not block hospital beds in the mainstream hospitals, with the result that we have practically no complaints as sitting Members about bed blocking, which cannot be said for many trusts in Labour-dominated areas.
    Mr. Horam: I should have said that not only does the area have two great hospitals, but it has two great Members of Parliament.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss the provision of care for elderly people. [7495]
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss community care. [7504]
    Mr. Bowis: The Association of County Councils is representing the Association of District Councils on social care matters where district authorities are becoming unitary authorities. We meet it and other local authority associations regularly to discuss community care issues. I last met them on 23 October 1995.
    Mr. Marshall: Did those organisations convey to the Minister the concern that many elderly people feel about the cost of long-term care? What will the Government do to reduce the number of people—now about 40,000—who are forced to sell their homes each year? What additional measures do the Government intend to introduce to make the system more equitable and to ensure that that figure is reduced dramatically this year?
    Mr. Bowis: The basis of charging policy is exactly the same as it was when it was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. We have listened to local authority associations and others and we have sought to ease the cost of people's accommodation. That is why we came forward with the proposals on occupational pensions, and it is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced decisions in the Budget on capital disregard and consultation about the partnership concept. We are looking for ways to encourage and enable people to prepare for their future care needs.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, our planning is rather different from that of the Labour party. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) delivered the verdict on that in his Fabian Society address, in which he said that Labour's health policy
    "leaves many important questions unanswered".
    He referred to Labour's policy on the long-term care of the elderly as "fudging the issue".
    Mr. Olner: Will the Minister confirm that the £16,000 disregard is nothing but a cruel hoax on elderly people, whose homes, on average, are worth about £67,000, as many of them will still lose their homes? Will the Minister say something about the inconsistency of eligibility as between local areas which makes care for the elderly a lottery in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Bowis: The question of charging comparisons in different areas does not apply because there is a standard national system of charging. Although there are some areas of discretion for local authorities, they are perfectly open and it is for the elected members of those authorities to decide whether they are fair.
    The change has been widely welcomed by organisations that represent the elderly and carers. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice not only the rise in the upper limit from £8,000 to £16,000, but the rise in the lower limit from £3,000 to £10,000. That has a significant impact on people who, in the past, were worried about matters such as funeral expenses. That burden has been lifted from their shoulders, which is why the change has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities, including mine, have worked very hard to implement community care both in the spirit and in the
    530
    letter and that it is generally working well? Does he accept also that there is evidence that some authorities do not meet the standard required? Will he confirm that his Department is not only carefully monitoring the implementation of community care but taking steps to elevate those laggard authorities to the standards and the quality of the best?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, there has been a very good start in implementing community care around the country. We always said that it would take a decade to implement it fully. Secondly, he is correct to say that, for a variety of reasons, some authorities are less than good. I fear that that is sometimes due to incompetence and that it is sometimes due to ideological hostility to the use of the independent sector, for example. That fact is borne out by the reports of the independent Audit Commission, not just by my Department's monitoring. The social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission do a great deal of monitoring and we try to follow that up with good practice guidance and by pursuing those authorities that are falling behind.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend consider what action can be taken against Labour and Liberal-controlled authorities that waste thousands of pounds by insisting on placing elderly people in local authority-run homes rather than those operated by the private sector? Is he aware that, in Essex, that ideological and blinkered policy is wasting £90,000 every week?
    Mr. Bowis: I am aware of problems in Essex. As my hon. Friend knows, it is an area that the social services inspectorate is examining. I am aware also that authorities waste money by failing to use the most cost-effective placements. There are two remedies to that: first, there is statutory direction of choice that allows individuals to choose the home of their preference; secondly, district auditors have responsibility for checking value for money. A third response—perhaps it is the ideal solution—is to change the nature of the Essex authority so that it is run by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister recall that community care was introduced with all-party consent on the basis that elderly people would be able to choose between care in residential homes and their own homes? Did not the Government seriously underestimate the number of elderly people who would make the more expensive choice of living at home rather than in residential homes? How does he intend to ensure that resources match need?
    Mr. Bowis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the policy of community care. It has always been the intention that there should be the maximum choice possible within the resources available in an area. Resources must be taken into account as well. We have been putting massive resources into community care policy. This year, £5.1 billion will go into English local authorities—an increase of 12 per cent. on last year. No one can say that we are not putting our money where our policy is.

    Health Funding
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was

    531
    spent on the NHS in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978. [7496]
    Mr. Dorrell: National Health Service spending in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1978–79 to an estimated 5.7 per cent. in 1995–96.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show clearly the different priorities of Conservative and Labour Governments for the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The figures show also how right the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was when he wrote in his paper to the Fabian Society:
    "Labour's health policy will not look credible at the General Election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives in recent years."
    The hon. Gentleman is precisely right to set our spending as the standard to which the Labour party has yet to rise.
    Mr. Bayley: The Secretary of State should read more than the articles that his civil servants dig out. He might have read my recent article in the New Statesman in which it was acknowledged that health spending has increased in real terms under the Conservatives, but not as fast as it did under the Labour Government. The real issue is whether all patients in all parts of the country are given equal priority.
    The Government have introduced a weighted capitation funding formula for hospital services; why do they not do the same for general practitioner and family health services, given the recent York report that shows that the north of the country and inner-city areas are deprived of GPs when compared with the leafy shires?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting prospect, which is that the Labour party should commit itself to tearing up the GP national contract. I look forward to hearing that policy endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The increase in expenditure on the health service by the Government is extremely commendable and I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Does he accept, however, that there is still a problem in community care, which has already been referred to this afternoon? Does he accept that there is a gap in the provision of care between the health service and social services when it comes to the mentally ill and those with behavioural problems? I refer especially to the cases in my constituency of Lynn Fox and Emma Larkins. Lynn Fox was stabbed to death because of the tremendous problems that she was creating for her neighbours. Emma Larkins burnt herself to death. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these things should not occur in a modern, civilised society and that we need to close the gap in the provision of care?
    Mr. Dorrell: What my hon. Friend shows is that, not only in the mental health services but across the other services of the health service, expectations of the quality of service that we want to see are rising, and that opportunities to improve the quality of service provided by medical science are rising, too. The Government's spending record has allowed us to reconcile those rising expectations with the resources available.
    532
    My hon. Friend can certainly have the assurance that we shall continue to deliver our election commitment: to increase the resources available in real terms to the health service and use them to improve the quality of all the health services, which include the mental health services to which he referred.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If the view of the professionals in the health service and those who speak on their behalf is that there are insufficient resources to ensure that the core services of the NHS—the acute and emergency services—can be comprehensively delivered in the country, what is the explanation? Is it that the NHS, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, is not efficient with its resources? Or is the truth that, although there has been real growth of about 10 per cent. since 1979, there is now barely any, and the next two years will see a cut in real resources to the NHS in real terms for the first time in 25 years?
    Mr. Dorrell: Almost every one of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted was wrong. He talked about an increase in real resources since 1979 of 10 per cent.; the actual figure is 71 per cent. He talked about a decline in real resources in the years ahead; that is not true, either. I announced before Christmas an increase of 1.6 per cent. in the real spending resources available to the health service next year over this year. That is building on the Government's record since 1979 of demonstrating the priority that they attach to health care by increasing the real resources available to the health service.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS trust has used its share of the increased gross national product to build the most up-to-date hospital in the country, including an overhead X-ray gantry in the resuscitation room, which is linked directly with the X-ray room, and to install—the first in Europe—a digital X-ray system that puts images immediately on to computer, which can be flashed out instantly to general practitioners in other hospitals anywhere in the world?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend referred to the use of capital within the health service. She was quite right to say that, because we have a record capital programme in the health service, we are able to invest in the things to which she referred. There is a problem for the Labour party in the capital programme. We made it clear that we abolished capital rationing in the health service by introducing the private sector through the private finance initiative.
    That policy was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition when he said during the Budget debate:
    "The PFI is right in principle."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
    His health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), said, in my hearing on Saturday morning, "I don't call it the private finance initiative. I call it the privatisation initiative."
    Either Labour is in favour of privatising the health service or it is against the PFI—or should be, according to the views of the hon. Member for Peckham. Is the Labour party for or against the PFI? We need to know.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his claims about extra resources, many hospitals are so overstretched that they are turning patients away

    533
    from their casualty wards and that patients face waits of up to 20 hours on trolleys before they can get a bed? Will he consider my proposals today for a four-point plan to tackle the casualty crisis? Will he declare a moratorium on further bed cuts? Will he appoint someone in each health authority to identify and take action locally? Will he monitor and publish a weekly report on the crisis and issue clear national guidelines to end the uncertainty about who pays for continuing care?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady asks for a moratorium on bed cuts to deal with the pressure on the emergency services. Let me tell the House what has happened since the beginning of the year with regard to the availability of beds for emergency cases. An extra 10 beds have been opened in Consett, 26 in Sunderland, 24 in Good Hope hospital in Birmingham, 12 in the West Middlesex, 32 in Newham general, 28 in Chester, 28 in Crewe, 10 in Warrington, 25 in Aintree, and so on. So much for bed cuts. I do not think that the hon. Lady is quite up to date.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome the extra resources that have been put into the NHS, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that they are used effectively? Does he agree that it is important that health authorities identify the health needs in their area, look at those procedures that are ineffective and ensure that less money is spent on them so that more money can be spent on those procedures that are effective and will deliver improved patient care?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an extremely important point. What we need to do in the health service is to ensure that clinical effectiveness is the test applied by clinicians in making their clinical judgments. That is not controversial within the clinical profession; the profession is committed to delivering it. That is why, when I announced guidelines on the subject last week, I was pleased to have the specific endorsement of representatives of the general practitioner fraternity and the hospital doctors for the important principle that my hon. Friend enunciates.

    Private Sector Provision
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has further to involve the private sector in the provision of health services. [7497]
    Mr. Malone: We welcome public and private finance working together in health and have long argued for public-private partnerships. I am sure that the hon. Lady tabled her question so that she could express her agreement with that policy.
    Ms Corston: Will the Minister confirm that NHS spending on private health care has shot up by 50 per cent. in the past year and that, since the creation of the internal market, £1.5 billion of NHS money has gone on private treatment? Is he also aware that in my constituency people find it increasingly difficult to obtain NHS dental care? They are faced with the stark choice of paying the full cost of private care or taking out private Den plan insurance. When the health service was set up, people were told that dental care would be provided. Why have the Tories broken that promise?
    Mr. Malone: I was fascinated to see that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to agree with the policy that
    534
    I set out, for the simple reason that the first clause was in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the second clause was in the words of the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, conveniently, has just taken his place. The point is simply that the Opposition cannot decide whether they welcome public-private partnerships, which is precisely what the hon. Lady's question is all about. They reject it one day and accept it the next. That is an absolutely ludicrous policy with which to go to the nation. They cannot make up their minds.
    Sir John Gorst: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be fostering the development of the private sector in the borough of Barnet simply to facilitate the closure of Edgware general hospital's accident and emergency unit?
    Mr. Malone: Certainly not. I congratulate my hon. Friend on looking down the Order Paper and anticipating a point that he might have wished to raise slightly later.

    Intensive Care Beds
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of staffing for intensive care beds [7499]
    Mr. Dorrell: It is for health authorities and trusts to determine the level of intensive care provision, including the level of staffing, that is needed by their local populations.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern, certainly in Rotherham, and in all other hospitals, at the cuts in intensive care beds? He will have seen the recent British Medical Association report.
    I pay tribute to the work done in Rotherham in handling the recent meningitis scare by doctors, the public health authorities and school authorities. But the plain fact is that, when it comes to intensive care beds, there are severe cuts. The Secretary of State may claim that he is a one-nation Tory, but, under him, the NHS is not safe in anyone's hands.
    Mr. Dorrell: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's question is that he talked about intensive care bed cuts, including some in his constituency, when the reality is that the Rotherham trust is discussing the commissioning of an extra intensive care bed and of an extra high-dependency bed in Rotherham as well. Opposition Members say that that is happening only in Rotherham, but the figures show that, compared with 1990, an extra 1,000 intensive care nurses are now employed. It simply is not true to say that there is reduced availability of intensive care beds in the national health service. What is certainly true—and this far I will go with the hon. Gentleman—is that we need to ensure that the structures in health service hospitals make the most effective possible use of the expensive resource of intensive care beds. That is why we set up a review to give advice and guidance on precisely that, the report of which I expect will be available shortly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7521]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Prime Minister justify sacking 3,000 prison officers at a time when his Home Secretary has forecast that the prison population will increase, and what will he do with 3,000 extra pairs of handcuffs? Is he going to use them on Lady Thatcher and the bastards in the Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to ensure that we receive from the Prison Service the efficiency that both we and taxpayers have a right to expect from the Prison Service. The hon. Gentleman may not be concerned about efficiency for taxpayers' money, but we are.
    Mr. Trotter: Did not the Saudi Government prove to be stable and sound allies in the Gulf war? Is it not in the interests of Britain that the Saudis should continue to have a stable Government, and has not Mr. Al-Masari abused his position as a guest in this country? Do not the thousands of people whose jobs he puts at risk, especially in the north of England, feel that he is very fortunate to be offered a home on a Caribbean island, rather than being sent back to where he came from?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, the United Kingdom has a long and honourable tradition of protecting and helping people who seek asylum, but if people abuse that hospitality, we should not ignore that. The stability of the Saudi Arabian Government is a matter of importance throughout the Gulf and for stability more generally, and we should not give comfort to people who seek to undermine it.
    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister tell us why the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has been reprimanded for writing his letter to The Times?
    The Prime Minister: I set out my views on that issue last week and they have not changed.
    Mr. Blair: What we would like to know is: has the Minister been reprimanded, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: Matters in my Government are for me and not you.
    Mr. Blair: To which I can only say, looking at the Government, thank goodness.
    So the Prime Minister cannot tell us. He cannot make up his mind whether he has reprimanded the Minister or not. He cannot make up his mind, presumably, whether he agrees with the Minister, or whether he agrees with Lady Thatcher. Is it any wonder, when the Prime Minister cannot even answer simple questions about his own Government, that the country despairs of weak leadership and a divided Government?
    The Prime Minister: While we are on the subject of being clear about views, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether he would renationalise British Rail to please his party, or leave it alone to give his slogan some substance. Let him tell us some more. Would he abolish the grant-maintained schools that he voted against, or would he let parents enjoy the choice that he talks about? Would he tax more successful people to please
    536
    his left wing, or does he believe that success should be rewarded? Can he make up his mind about any of those examples, and a dozen more that I can give him—or does he not know the answer?
    Sir Norman Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Land Rover on the major new overseas order that was announced this morning, on its continuing success in the overseas market and, above all, on the design of its new military ambulance?
    The Prime Minister: Land Rover is an excellent company with a long and honourable record, and I am delighted to congratulate it.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7522]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Jackson: If, as the Prime Minister claims, his policies have created strong economic growth, why are the appalling 500,000 job losses in the construction industry due—according to the Building Employers Confederation—to rise by a further 22,000? Where will those workers look for jobs, and where will thousands of homeless families look for homes?
    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the hon. Lady of some of the economic circumstances—including the fall in unemployment—that now pertain in this country. No significantly sized country in western Europe has as much of its population in work; none of the major European countries has unemployment as low as ours; none of them has seen unemployment fall for over two years; and none of them can combine that with the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the best prospects that we have seen for many years.
    Mr. Marlow: Are more murders, muggings and mindless acts of violence carried out by adolescents now, or were there more in the days when corporal punishment was available both in schools and to the courts? If the answer is now, can we have corporal punishment back? I am sure that many people are concerned about the state of our streets and cities.
    The Prime Minister: I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I can tell my hon. Friend, if he wishes to exercise arguments of that sort, that if he went back far enough and extended his thoughts to capital as well as corporal punishment, he would find that the number of murders committed many years ago when capital punishment applied was far larger than it is now. I am not sure that I draw the conclusion that was implicit in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7523]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the average age of a member of the Conservative party is now 62, that there are no more than 5,000 members of the Young Conservatives and that the Young Conservatives'

    537
    conference had to be cancelled this year owing to lack of interest? Will he tell us why young people in Britain have lost all interest in the Conservative party, and want nothing to do with it?
    The Prime Minister: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's three questions are no, no and no; so the last part of what he said does not apply.
    Q4. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7524]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to give people a stake in society is to allow them to own their homes, to own shares, to have their own pension schemes and, above all, to pay low taxes? Does he agree that that contrasts sharply with the Labour party's vision of a stakeholding society, which would place burdens on business men and, indeed, bring back vested interests in Labour's old friends?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in what she says. There has been some discussion recently about the term "stakeholder society" or "stakeholder economy". The Leader of the Opposition now tells us that it is a slogan, and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) tells us that he has not the faintest idea what it means. But we know and have been practising what it means for the past 16 years. It means giving people a direct, personal interest in what happens—lower taxes, more home ownership, more personal pensions—exercised by the holders themselves, not exercised by other people allegedly on their behalf.
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7525]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pickthall: Will the Prime Minister look into the case of my elderly constituent, Teresa Stewart, who was referred to Fazackerly hospital by her GP? She arrived there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon but was not seen by a hospital doctor until 10 o'clock that evening. Thereafter, she remained on a trolley until noon the next day. Does not her case, and the hundreds of others up and down the country, demonstrate yet again that the national health service is not safe in the Tories' hands?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I will look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to him. But the hon. Gentleman should realise that, with a service the size of the national health service, he will from time to time find matters of concern. There are now something over 8.5 million patients treated in total each year. The hon. Gentleman might care to consider how much lower that number was when last his party was in government.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition in seeming to imply to the nation that he has rejected everything he has ever believed? Will he also give an assurance that he
    538
    will never, as Prime Minister and leader of our party, give the impression that he has accepted totally the philosophy of the party that he has fought all his political life? Will he assure Conservative Members of that so that we will not have a similar fear to that of many Labour Members—that the leader of the Labour party is about to cross the Floor and join us?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The Leader of the Opposition seems to base the prospects for his future on the belief that he has always been wrong.
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7526]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Khabra: Does the Prime Minister have any new policies to end the recession in the housing market?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a very welcome trend. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seems neither to understand nor to hear anything that is said to him. I repeat the point—house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a welcome development, and I hope and expect to see it continue.
    Mr. Legg: Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the latest book by the Labour guru, Will Hutton, especially the chapter entitled "Stakeholder Capitalism"? If my right hon. Friend has read that chapter, does he agree that Labour's vision of stakeholder capitalism owes more to the failed corporatism of the 1970s than to anything happening in Singapore today? Does he have any plans to introduce stakeholder trade unions, which would enjoy extra powers and rights?
    The Prime Minister: The distinction between the Government and the Opposition on this matter is that we believe people should have a personal interest, personally owned, in the country. The Opposition seem to believe—if the idea is more than just a slogan, although that is not clear—in a corporatist approach in which special interest groups operate on behalf of the public at large, as the shadow Secretary of State for Transport said just the other day. The Leader of the Opposition, desperately trying to put flesh on his slogan, has failed to do so and has reaffirmed me in my belief that all he is concerned about is the readmission of a corporatist Britain of the sort we rejected in the 1980s and will not have back in the 1990s.
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7527]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Miller: We are always on the look-out for fresh ideas from the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] So is his own party. What new plans does he have to increase investment in the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right, in that the Opposition have sought, rather inadequately, to borrow many of our ideas—just as they have sought, without real conviction, to ditch their own.

    539
    Investment is rising, which is why this country has a higher growth rate than elsewhere in Europe. It is why unemployment is falling; it is why the economy is in
    540
    better shape at the moment than it has been for many years—and in better shape than the economy of anywhere else in western Europe.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I raised a point of order with you yesterday about the barbaric practice of shackling pregnant women, I inadvertently referred to the Home Secretary as "odious". Of course, I meant the practice, so I unreservedly withdraw the remark.
Madam Speaker: The House is grateful to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order with you on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends who have been in the House for a long time. May we have your guidance on the changing use of personal statements in this House? The Chair must find itself in a very difficult position when a senior Minister asks to make a personal statement—by tradition and definition, a statement not subject to questions, to scrutiny or to challenge at the time of delivery.
As an hon. Member who has, alas, been required himself to make a personal statement, I know that the rules required a Back Bencher to grovel, and a Minister almost always to end up resigning from office. That was the quid pro quo for not being subject to challenge or to questions.
What the House witnessed yesterday was an exercise in self-justification, unchallenged and unchallengeable. If that happens again, the personal statement will become little more than a device for ministerial escape and an unlovely pouring of blame on to civil servants who cannot answer for themselves.
My complaint is the stronger because it would not occur to me to ask questions about women prisoners in England; but some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), tell me that they would have liked to ask questions.
Should not statements—especially truculently delivered statements—be open to question and not provide a ministerial escape route? This is a House of Commons point, not a party point.
Madam Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point in some detail. The House has, however, entrusted me with complete discretion as to whether to allow any Member to make a personal statement. I am quite satisfied that, in allowing the Minister of State, Home Office to give a personal explanation on one strictly circumscribed aspect of the matter in question about which she had previously misinformed the House, and to apologise to the House for so doing, I was not breaking any new ground.
What happened was, incidentally, fully in line with the new version of the document "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which the Chancellor of the Duchy of
542
Lancaster explained to the House on 2 November last, at column 456. That requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. Nothing which occurred yesterday will prevent Members from pursuing the main issue, or indeed, if they wish, the subsidiary issue, by all parliamentary means available.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 25 May 1994, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made an unreserved apology to the House for misleading it over tabling amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In an extensive article in Sunday's edition of The Observer, she not only said that she did not understand why she had had to make an apology, but added that she had had nothing to apologise for. In the same article, she called into question your own involvement at that time.
Is that not discourteous to the Speaker, and is it not within the rights of the House to expect the hon. Lady, to whom I gave ample notice that I was raising this issue and who has just left the Chamber, to make a public apology in which she can explain to the House her change of attitude over the past 18 months on this very serious matter?
Madam Speaker: I have not treated myself to reading the article in full. At the time in question, however, the hon. Lady was of course required by me to apologise to the House, and she did so. I said at the time that her behaviour
"fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect".— [Official Report, 25 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 342.]
I think that my comments at that time were most pertinent.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the House divide on the use of the word "odious" by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) as regards the Home Secretary?
Madam Speaker: Although I agree that that is a point of order for me, I would need a notice of motion on the Order Paper before allowing that suggestion to proceed.
Ms Jean Corston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Among today's questions to the Secretary of State for Health, I asked about the provision of NHS dentistry as a supplementary to a question about the increase of private provision in the health service. In a long answer, the Minister of State made absolutely no reference to dentistry at all. Is it in order for a Minister to abuse the procedures of the House and not to make any reference at all to the question asked? What action would you propose I take?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, it is not for the Speaker to comment on Ministers' responses. They are responsible for the answers they give. I shall look carefully at the answer to which the hon. Lady has drawn my attention. She will notice that senior Ministers are sitting on the Government Front Bench, and I hope that they will also take note of her comments.

Delegated Legislation
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ROAD TRAFFIC
That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I.,1995,No. 2869) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3000) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

Tobacco (Protection of Children and Restriction of Promotion)
3.38 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect children, young people and others from the harmful effects of tobacco by restricting the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and tightening existing legislation on enforcement of illegal sales to minors; and for connected purposes.
In the autumn, the British Medical Association produced data which clearly showed that, if one takes the top 10 brands of cigarette advertised and compares the smoking habits of children and adults, three out of the four most heavily advertised brands also figure in statistics of the top four brands smoked by children aged between 11 and 14. It is clear that adults are much less sensitive to tobacco advertising than children. Adults are much more affected by price.
The other extremely pertinent figure showed that the top four brands smoked by children make up over three quarters of all the advertising done by tobacco companies within the United Kingdom. That is also more than those companies had advertised before.
It is now unarguable that tobacco advertising and smoking by children are linked. They are linked in a way which I hope that the Government will accept should be worrying for them. By their own figures, their "The Health of the Nation" targets are not being reached, and attempts to reduce smoking by children are failing. Indeed, smoking by children and young people is going up rather than down. For the first time in over 10 years, over 10 per cent. of teenagers are smoking. The increase in smoking by girls and young women should give the House particular cause to reflect on what we can do about it.
This issue has come before the House several times before, and as long ago as 1965 we agreed that there should be a ban on television advertising. Subsequently, it was agreed that there should be a ban on radio advertising of tobacco products. We should now ban advertising on hoardings or through promotion, particularly by sponsorship of sporting events.
I am happy to approach this in a reasonable manner and say that the legislation could be for a temporary and trial period in order to prove the case—five or 10 years, properly monitored by all those with an interest. The interest is not simply to make a case against the tobacco companies, but to win the argument about protecting the health of vulnerable young people.
It is clear that tobacco sponsorship of sport is a particularly insidious form of advertising. I am a keen follower of sport. I believe that sport should be well promoted and I support the Prime Minister's initiative to promote it, particularly among young people and across the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, research has shown that children as young as six associate brands such as—I will name them—John Player Special and Marlboro, both of which sponsor motor racing, with excitement and fast racing cars.
It is interesting that the images that young children associate with certain brands must have been gleaned from sponsorship of sporting events; that is increasing, with the growing amount of sporting sponsorship by tobacco companies.

545
Tobacco companies are honest about it. They do not pretend that it is a matter of selfless corporate generosity. Somebody from Gallaher said recently:
"Sports sponsorship is a form of advertising which enables us to introduce glamour and excitement."
A spokesman from Rothmans said:
"No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling."
There is not a huge amount of tobacco money involved in sports sponsorship—£10 million out of about £250 million. There is no real concern that sponsors could not be found elsewhere. When sponsorship has been sought among other sponsors for sporting events, it has been found and the market has plenty of people willing to take the place of the tobacco companies.
Another unsatisfactory fact is that, although there is supposed to be a law banning the sale of cigarettes to those under 16, in reality it is not working. We all know that, and nobody deludes himself otherwise. A properly monitored and controlled survey carried out last year showed that almost two thirds of young people who had tried to buy cigarettes when they were under the legal age said that they had never been refused. Only 143 people were prosecuted in the last year for which figures are available, and only 85 were fined. In reality, there is very little monitoring or enforcement.
I am not naive about this. I know that three things significantly influence tobacco smoking by young people: adult activity, especially by parents; peer group pressure; and advertising. The second is largely the result of the third: peer group pressure often comes indirectly from advertising. Anyone with children who make demands for trainers and designer tops and clothes will know that demand is much more often led not by instinct but by advertising.
Yesterday, the British Medical Association published the British Medical Bulletin, which I commend to the House. It included a considerable number of expert articles edited by people eminent in their fields, which bear out my argument. In particular, it bears out the fact that advertising is one of the ways in which children with low esteem, who are often from backgrounds where smoking is more prevalent, pick up the habit early on.
I do not come to this subject from a nanny state view, or believe that there should be restrictions on adults who smoke. I do not shoo out of my house people who smoke. I do not take a purist or rigorous attitude. However, in respect of young people, for whom we all have a responsibility, the issue is different.
The reason why advertising is so important is because of the clear, unarguable impact on the young. Five out of six people who become regular, adult smokers have begun smoking by the age of 15. The tobacco industry spends about £100 million or more a year on advertising. Expenditure on health promotion to discourage smoking is under £10 million.
That imbalance produces young people who become hooked on what is—there is no dispute in the House about this—the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom. More than one third of middle-aged deaths are smoking-related, and in many places lung cancer has replaced breast cancer as the most common form of the disease, especially among young women.
546
Last night, we had an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) argued that there should be much better publicity for the health risks of Ecstasy; and so there should. Ten people are known to have died in the past year from Ecstasy; 100,000 people have died from tobacco-related disease. It is hypocritical and inconsistent to say that something should be done about Ecstasy, but that we are happy as a nation to go on allowing the tobacco industry, for its own benefit, to promote something to which young people become addicted and which could, or will, kill them.
I know that there is a benefit from tobacco revenues to the Exchequer. I realise that that is one of the reasons for the current position. There are people who regard that as a vested interest that they need to protect. However, I have never seen evidence that there would not be a greater benefit to the Exchequer from cutting the cost to the health service of trying to put back together the broken bodies and lives caused by tobacco-related diseases than from tobacco advertising, which has gone on for far too long.
Children say that they are influenced. There is the broadest support, in every corner of the House, from among Members from each of the countries of the United Kingdom, for the Bill. I pick up from where colleagues such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) have been in the past. I ask the House to allow the Bill a First Reading, and to pass it into law, even if only on a trial basis to prove that we are right.
3.48 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I oppose the Bill, although the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has, as one would expect, put the argument in a plausible and reasonable manner. Nobody in the House would dispute the fact that every discouragement should be given to try to prevent children from smoking and people from taking up the habit in the first place. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman's Bill goes far wider. He failed to put forward his Bill in several of the examples that he used in regard to promotional activity.
What bothers me is that the Bill is the thin end of a wide wedge. I regret to say that, although the hon. Gentleman told the House that the Bill involved only young people, it is far wider—to the extent that he talks in the Bill about the effect on young people "and others". I must tell him that, plausible though his argument may seem, the facts do not justify the emotion of his argument.
In his Bill, the hon. Gentleman sets out the need to enforce the law against the illegal selling of tobacco. That measure would have the full support of the House. He is right to say that retailers must be urged not to sell cigarettes to people under 16, because that is against the law. He is right to urge local authorities to discourage, and to prosecute, retailers who sell tobacco products to children under the age of 16. He omits to say, however, that the Home Office report, which was published only one year ago, states that the local authorities' success rate in imposing fines and other penalties is more than 90 per cent. That success may not be sufficient in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman and others, but the existing system works.
The Bill bothers me, because it is yet another tranche of legislation intended to add additional measures to the existing agreements between Government and the tobacco

547
manufacturers, which, as the hon. Member knows, were fought over with difficulty for a long time. Most of the agreements are extremely strict—far stricter than those of the past—and have been reached with the support of all sides of the industry, and the argument.
I am also bothered by the hon. Gentleman's argument about drugs and their illegal use. I should remind him that the BMA report he quoted said that between 10 and 12 per cent. of children try cigarettes between the ages of 11 to 15. He is right to say that that 10 to 12 per cent. may represent too many children. He did not mention, however, that a report from Leicester university, which was issued on the same day as the BMA report, suggests that one in four children under the age of 15—or 25 per cent. —try drugs.
It does not befit the hon. Gentleman to use the drugs argument when, two years ago, his party conference suggested that cannabis should be legally used, inevitably by young people. Of course that embarrasses the hon. Gentleman, but I think that his Bill, his wrath and his indignation are directed at the wrong quarter.
The premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that advertising attracts young children to smoking. I am a non-smoker, although I will not say that I have never touched the weed, because I had the odd one behind the hedge at school, many years ago. It is a total mystery to those of us who are non-smokers how he can tell the House that 14 or 15-year-olds are influenced by cigarette advertising. It has been proven that those advertisements are used purely to attract existing smokers to different brands. That is a flaw in his argument.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Marlboro cigarettes, and said that six-year-olds were influenced by those advertisements. I must confess that I did not know that six-year-olds have started buying cars—although possibly in a Liberal world they should be allowed to do so. I know that the Liberals want the age of driving reduced. The hon. Gentleman and his friends—apart from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who I see is not in his place today, but who wrote an excellent article some three weeks ago decrying the hon. Gentleman's argument—are advocating a nanny state.
The problem with this Bill, as with any such intended legislation, is that it totally ignores the real world. The Liberals want to see the creation of a nanny state, which stops people doing something that they want to do. The Liberals are hiding behind the subject of children. The hon. Gentleman does not mention that, under the existing agreement, it has been agreed not to erect poster sites within three miles of schools; not to place advertisements in young people's magazines; and that there should be no such thing as glamour advertisements, which might attract the young.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that everything should be done to discourage young people from smoking. As he said, however, the pressure to smoke comes from peer groups and from brothers and sisters.
The Bill, should it receive the approval of the House, is totally unnecessary because of existing legislation. What a pity that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to take up the time of the House on something that is totally unnecessary, and based on pure emotion rather than pure fact.
I therefore urge my hon. Friends to reject this stupid and illogical Bill, not merely on the basis of liberty and fairness, but because the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not borne out by the facts—his Bill will do nothing to help to protect the young children of whom he talks.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 39.

Division No. 23]

[3.54 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Harvey, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Hayes, Jerry

Alton, David

Heppell, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Armstrong, Hilary

Hinchliffe, David

Ashton, Joe

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernaulcd)

Austin-Walker, John

Home Robertson, John

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Battle, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bayley, Hugh

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Beggs, Roy

Hutton, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Illsley, Eric

Benton, Joe

Ingram, Adam

Betts, Clive

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Blunkett, David

Janner, Greville

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Jessel, Toby

Burden, Richard

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Keen, Alan

Campbell-Savours, D N

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Canavan, Dennis

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

Cann, Jamie

Kilfoyle, Peter

Chidgey, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Llwyd, Elfyn

Church, Judith

Loyden, Eddie

Clapham, Michael

Lynne, Ms Liz

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

McCrea, The Reverend William

Cohen, Harry

McKelvey, William

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Corbett Robin

McMaster, Gordon

Corbyn, Jeremy

MacShane, Denis

Corston, Jean

Madden, Max

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mahon, Alice

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Marek, Dr John

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dafis, Cynog

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Dalyell, Tam

Martlew, Eric

Davidson, Ian

Maxton, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Meale, Alan

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

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Dowd, Jim

Morley, Elliot

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Mudie, George

Eastham, Ken

Mullin, Chris

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Etherington, Bill

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

O'Hara, Edward

Fabricant, Michael

Olner, Bill

Fatchett, Derek

Parry, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Pearson, Ian

Flynn, Paul

Pickthall, Colin

Fyfe, Maria

Pike, Peter L

Galbraith, Sam

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Galloway, George

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Garrett, John

Purchase, Ken

Godman, Dr Norman A

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Rooker, Jeff

Grocott, Bruce

Sedgemore, Brian

Hain, Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Hall, Mike

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hanson, David

Simpson, Alan

549

Sims, Roger

Walley, Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Watson, Mike

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Welsh, Andrew

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wicks, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Wigley, Dafydd

Stevenson, George

Wilkinson, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Sweeney, Walter

Winnick, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wray, Jimmy

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace,James

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Mr. Don Foster.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

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

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Knox, Sir David

Bendall, Vivian

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Mills, Iain

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Carrington, Matthew

Riddick, Graham

Cummings, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Dover, Den

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Durant, Sir Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Gardiner, Sir George

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Hawksley, Warren

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Hicks, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Hunter, Andrew

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Mr. Harry Greenway.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Roger Sims, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Eddie McGrady and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

TOBACCO (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND RESTRICTION OF PROMOTION)
Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to protect children, young people and others from the harmful effects of tobacco by restricting the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and tightening existing legislation on enforcement of illegal sales to minors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that, in recent months, I have repeatedly raised with you, both on the Floor of the House and in correspondence, the question of the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. As I understand it, he is currently responsible for deregulation and the co-ordination of Government policy.
The publication of the unemployment figures is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and they are due to be announced tomorrow. I draw your attention to a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning at the Pilkington technology centre in Lancashire, in which he announced that the real news of today is that unemployment is down for the 28th month in a row. I remind Government Members that the figures are fiddled, but that is a matter for another day.
The central argument is the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. He is now usurping the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by announcing the figures 24 hours in advance, and probably without her permission.
Madam Speaker: I cannot be responsible for what Ministers say in the House, and I am certainly not responsible for what Cabinet Ministers say outside the House. Ministers' duties and responsibilities are a matter for the Prime Minister, and I hope that the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be brought to his attention.

Opposition Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  BBC World Service
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and goodwill for Britain; expresses its concern at the effects of cuts imposed on the World Service and its alarm at the likely reduction in the range of foreign language broadcasts; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that policies on the Private Finance Initiative and public support for the World Service enable it to maintain its present level of services and to build on their success.
  I am conscious of a novel experience. On Supply days it is normal to move a motion that divides the House. I think that I can say that on this occasion there is much in the motion that unites the House. It is agreed in all corners of the House that the BBC World Service is a great British success. It is by far the largest of any of the external broadcasting services of the western nations. Its audience is still rising. In the past three years, it has risen from 120 million to 133 million. The audience would be larger still if there were not uncounted millions in places such as China and Iraq. We cannot be certain whether they listen to the World Service, because were they to be asked and were they to say yes, they would be liable to be put in prison.
  In a now notorious speech, the Secretary of State for Defence assured the Conservative party conference that the letters SAS were feared throughout the world. If there is a British organisation that is known by three letters round the globe, it is surely the BBC. They are letters that inspire not fear for Britain but respect, admiration and good will. It would be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to name any way in which he could spend his money that would give him a better return on a positive environment for good will towards Britain.
  I know of one letter that has been sent to the Foreign Secretary by a listener in Africa, which expresses the point well. The letter reads:
  "The BBC World Service is the diplomat who can enter the rural home, the urban business centre, the civil servant's office and the country hospital ward."
  It is for that reason that Members on both sides of the House support the World Service. It deserves also the support of all parties. The World Service demonstrates in practice our democratic values, including truthful reporting, independent comment and all the other features on which an open society must be based. As a result, the World Service provides a beacon for countries with regimes that suppress truth and independent comment.
  When the Burmese opposition leader emerged from years of house arrest to claim her Nobel prize, she said:
  "The BBC World Service really was a lifeline."
  When Nelson Mandela emerged from prison, he said that what he really wanted in prison was a receiver that would enable him to listen to the World Service. As his name
  552
  reminds us, the dissident of today is the leader in power tomorrow. It is impossible to exaggerate the influence for Britain of the politicians throughout the world who have come to rely on the BBC for their independent news.
  We all recognise the importance of the World Service. Both sides of the House are agreed on its value. Even more unusually, both sides of the Tory party are agreed. It is one of those issues around which Euro-sceptics and one-nationers can find common cause. Even Ministers agree with us. Last week, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognised the
  "great value and high quality"—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 201.]
  of the World Service. This morning, the Foreign Secretary described it as "superb value". If superlatives would pay wage cheques, the World Service would be on the verge of major expansion. Instead, its executive met this weekend to consider where it would cut services.
  The real crisis that the executive faces will come in 1997–98, when the revenue budget—the one that pays for the services that it provides—will be reduced. The Foreign Secretary has written to the World Service saying that it can expect a cut in 1997–98 of £2.5 million. That will be on top of a cut of £2 million in the same year's budget, which was imposed in November 1994.
  Those cuts cannot be replaced by the private finance initiative because they are cuts in the operating budget. It may be that the Foreign Secretary is right and that cuts in the capital budget can be replaced by the private finance initiative.
  Perhaps somebody will come forward and build a new transmitter in Oman and lease it back to the BBC World Service. I would, in passing, express a worry about the commercial relationship that that would create. I am concerned that it might compromise the most prized and respected quality of the BBC World Service—the independence of its editorial comment and its freedom from external pressures, whether political or commercial.
  This month, we were reminded of the risks of such a commercial relationship when BBC World Service Television bulletins covering the expulsion of Muhammad al-Masari, which were broadcast to the middle east, were disrupted at the transmitter in Italy, which, of course, is funded from the middle east. That example shows the potential conflict between commercial funding—I presume that the Foreign Secretary does not exclude foreign funding—and the freedom of the BBC World Service to broadcast without interference.
  For the purposes of the debate, I offer a deal to the Foreign Secretary. I shall not object to the private finance initiative as a source of capital funding for the World Service if he stops pretending that the PFI will solve the financial pressures on it, because if the World Service is successful and manages to get the PFI money, that will not solve the pressures on its operating budget. Indeed, it will increase the pressures because the BBC World Service will have to find extra cash to pay the bills for leasing the transmitter.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that I agree with much of what he has said, as I worked many years ago for the BBC World Service and I still have some connections with the BBC. In total, the cut amounts to around 1 per cent. of the BBC World Service's operating budget. Will he now give a

  553
  firm commitment to restore that 1 per cent. and say how much would be allocated to the BBC World Service in grant in aid if there were a Labour Government?
  Mr. Cook: I have already answered the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question several times today. [Interruption.] If Ministers will be quiet, I shall repeat what I said before: that I give an undertaking that, under the next Labour Government, which, I hope, will be with us in 1997, we shall maintain the present level of language broadcasts by the BBC World Service. The hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong. The total cut in the operating budget of the World Service is about 8 per cent. Yet that is less than 1 per cent. of the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is spending £77 million this year on management consultants—almost half the total budget of the BBC World Service. Is that really better value for money than putting money into the BBC World Service?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman has repeated to the House what he said on the radio this morning: that he was prepared on behalf of a future Labour Government to commit them not to cut the language services of the BBC World Service. He has, however, declined to give an assurance that he would replace any reduction in resources that might have been implemented. The only way in which one can reconcile those statements is on the basis that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, through better value for money, the BBC should be able to maintain its existing language services without the restoration of the cuts, otherwise he would be committing himself to such a restoration, and he is not prepared to do that.
  Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State followed me on the radio this morning and said that it was not his wish to cut the language services. I do not understand, then, the problem that he is putting before us. If I was confronted by BBC World Service executives saying that they could not provide those language services on the present budget, I would go back and look at the £77 million that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was spending on management consultants and ask how much of that could be put into the World Service.
  We have a Government who can always find the money that they want for their political priorities. They are currently spending £1 billion on privatising the rail service. They are spending £1 billion more a year on extra bureaucracy in the NHS to make the reforms work. One per cent. of either of those sums would fully fund the BBC World Service and do much more good for Britain than either objective.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend moves on, is not it the case that the Labour party has a long tradition of supporting the BBC World Service, whereas the Government have a patchy record? I remember, when I was first in the House, when the Government wanted to cut the language service to Latin America—to Argentina in particular—because it was not necessary any more, just before the Falklands conflict. That is the sort of long-term view that the Conservative Government have of the BBC World Service. Every time that they are in a bit of a squeeze, they want to cut the BBC World Service.
  Mr. Cook: I press home my hon. Friend's point by turning to the point that the Secretary of State was leading us on to about value for money.
  We are not dealing with an overweight organisation in which the savings can be found by a crash course in slimming. The BBC World Service has already been through three lean years. Its operating budget has already been slimmed by 8 per cent. during those past three years. In that time, it has implemented many of the recommendations of the National Audit Office. In the same month in which the Government revealed the cuts, the National Audit Office published a second report in which it praised the World Service for an "improvement in management performance" and significant strides forward.
  I hope that, against that background of an efficient organisation that has already made major savings, the Foreign Secretary, when he comes to speak, will treat hon. Members as adults and not continue with the pretence that the cuts in grant aid do not matter because no service will be affected.
  I heard also this morning the managing director of the BBC World Service tell the nation that the cuts will mean cuts in services—cuts so significant that it would be wrong to try to meet them by salami slicing, but which would have to be met by dropping whole discrete services. That is why, on Sunday, the executive of the World Service met to consider which languages could be dropped from its portfolio if those cuts went ahead in 1997.
  I repeat the question that the Secretary of State failed to answer last week. If Ministers were at that conference, which languages would they drop to save the £10 million? This, after all, is the moment in history when the European Union is opening its doors to central and eastern Europe. The Governments of those countries will take part in joint decisions that will affect the lives of our citizens. This is not the time when we should be reviewing broadcasting in Czech, Polish or Hungarian.
  I shall be frank with the House. The House needs to pay attention to the very real possibility that enlargement of the European Union may strengthen the hand of Germany, which already has substantial influence in that region of Europe. One of the strongest cards that Britain has in its hand is that the BBC World Service is listened to by 10 times the audience of its German rival. That gives us tremendous access to influence and good will. We should be guaranteeing, not threatening, the future of those programmes.
  If central Europe is not the place for cuts, where else in the world might they be made? During the past few months, both sides of the House have joined in an enjoyable debate on the lessons that the tiger economies hold for Britain. We differ on what those lessons might be, but I think that we are agreed on the exciting growth of those economies as markets for British trade. Is this the time to be reviewing whether we should supply the Mandarin service that goes to Taiwan or the services to the younger tiger economies of Indonesia, Burma and Thailand? If we drop any of those, at what cost to British trade do we make the saving in public spending?
  The Foreign Secretary will know that British companies and British business leaders, from Standard Chartered to Unilever, have written to him opposing the cuts because the BBC World Service opens doors to business by creating a favourable image of British standards.

  555
  In my current portfolio, I am obliged to accept Governor Patten as above party politics. Therefore, I shall seize this opportunity of agreeing with him. When he was here last October and gave his lecture on the tiger economies, Governor Patten, speaking of the BBC World Service, said:
  "It is worth every penny of public money it receives."
  That is true—true not just in that it backs the influence of British diplomacy, but true also in that every penny put into the BBC World Service produces pounds in British trade and probably also pounds in inward investment into Britain. I do not therefore rest my case on altruism. The case for the House backing the BBC World Service rests on British self-interest, because it gives us a source of political leadership and diplomatic influence, and it is the basis of the trade expansion on which our economy thrives or fails.
  The BBC World Service also, however, provides valuable support for humanitarian relief and for economic development. In Rwanda and Serbia, it provided a missing person link line, which has brought together parents and children separated in different refugee camps. In eastern Europe, the World Service has provided programmes as part of the Marshall plan of the mind, which has helped the populations of the former communist countries come to terms with modern technologies and market economies. If the debate is to be, as the Foreign Secretary seems to suggest, about value for money, I should like to hear what better value he could get in helping the people of those regions than by investing through those services.
  Sir Peter Emery: I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument and criticisms. Will he clearly tell the House how much extra he and the Labour party believe should be given to the World Service to fulfil the tasks that he has outlined?
  Mr. Cook: The irony of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the BBC World Service is asking not for extra money, but for its budget not to be cut. It could live even within a stable budget after the 8 per cent. cuts of the past three years. If we want the BBC World Service to build on its success, surely the least that we can offer it is the stability and security of the assurance that that budget will continue.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will, but this must be the last occasion, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Arnold: Bearing it in mind that the real increase in spending on the BBC World Service since 1979, during the years of the Conservative Government, is 50 per cent., what was the real increase in spending, if any, by the Labour Government on the service?
  Mr. Cook: I understand that it is now permissible for Opposition Members to put in a good word for Lady Thatcher, and I would concede that she carried through a major expansion of World Service resources because she had a proper grasp of its importance in world affairs. That has not been the story in this Parliament, when BBC World Service resources have gone down by 8 per cent. It is now faced with another 8 per cent. cut in the next two years. I do not wish to take sides on Lady Thatcher's general observation that the Government are letting down the Thatcherite legacy, but on this point, they are certainly letting down the record that she left behind.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Answer the question.
  Mr. Cook: I have answered the question of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in that, in this Parliament, the Government are cutting the World Service's budget.
  Mr. Arnold rose—
  Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press me again on a point on which, I believe, central office has briefed him, I shall tell him—because I was here at the time and he, I think, was not—that, despite difficult economic circumstances, and the fact that we had not a penny in oil revenues and did not sell off any of the nation's industrial assets, the previous Labour Government managed to maintain the services of the World Service and the resources going into it.
  I shall give this advice to the hon. Gentleman, and judging by his majority, he needs it. He may want the Government to escape from the trap in which they now lie in the opinion polls, where they are perceived as being out of touch by 85 per cent. of the population, but he will only confirm that perception, if every time people ask him how we solve a problem in 1997, he wants to talk only about 1977. If he wants to go to his constituency and talk from now until polling day about the 1970s, I warn him that that will suit us perfectly because it will restore neither his electoral fortunes nor the funding of the BBC World Service.
  Mr. Arnold rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will not give way.
  I shall now return to the problems. I was describing the services provided to countries where we provide humanitarian relief. The people of those countries have no doubt about the value to them of those services. For that matter, other countries that maintain external broadcasts have no doubt about the value to them of such services. The Government of France will be increasing the budget of RFI, the French international broadcasting service, by an eighth in the same year that we shall cut the BBC World Service budget by 8 per cent.
  The Foreign Secretary has said that he does not wish any language service to be closed. If he really does not, I cannot understand why he does not accept the motion, because that is its central demand. We could set a new precedent in parliamentary procedure: this could be the first occasion on which the Government accepted an Opposition Supply day motion.
  If the Foreign Secretary is serious—if he really wishes to keep the present language service—he must answer one question. What will he say if the BBC World Service tells him, "We are sorry, but we cannot make the savings for which you have asked without cutting services"? Will he be willing to look again at the funding for 1997 to ensure that language services can be continued?
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: He has already said that.
  Mr. Cook: No, he has not. That, however, is the key question that the Foreign Secretary must answer in the House—and I warn him that he must not evade it by saying that he agrees that the British World Service is a great success. The more the Government tell us that it is

  557
  a great success, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they are not prepared to build on that success by backing it.
  The BBC World Service is a great national asset, and those who work in it provide a quality of service that does Britain credit. They are entitled to know that they have the confidence of the House. I urge all hon. Members to use today's debate and tonight's vote to express their support for the work of the BBC World Service and their recognition of its immense value, and to demand that the Government give a commitment tonight that the present level of services will be maintained and will not be cut.
  4.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and good will for Britain; expresses its welcome for the 50 per cent. growth in real terms of its resources since 1979 as well as the significant increase in foreign language broadcasts over the same period; and shares Her Majesty's Government's determination to ensure that the World Service will continue to enjoy unrivalled success.".
  I know that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House are long-standing devotees of the World Service, who have given it unstinting support for many years. I intend to concentrate on responding to any worries that they may have, and assuring them that the World Service will have a future as glorious as its current excellent position.
  I hope that I was forgiven a wry smile as I observed the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) trying to don the mantle of a champion of the World Service. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), he implied that the Labour party—as opposed to individual Labour Members—had given good service to the BBC over the years. I must remind him and also the House that he, too, will be judged not by his words but by his deeds.
  Like me, the hon. Gentleman was in the House in the 1970s; like me, he remembers clearly what happened under the Labour Government of 1974–79. He recalls the stagnation that affected the World Service throughout that period, and the 7.7 per cent. cut in its resources that was made in the final year of that Government.
  We also remember the capital allocations that were available. I shall not detain the House long as I wish to deal with the present position, but we need to put the facts on the record. In 1977, the central policy review study concluded:
  "Because of public expenditure constraints in the UK, the BBC has not been able to modernise its transmitters sufficiently fast to keep up with its international competitors. As a consequence, there has been a decline in the audibility of its programmes, and an extensive capital programme is now needed to restore that audibility".
  That was the position when the present Government came to office. Now let us consider what has been achieved under the Conservative Government. First, let us compare the stagnation during Labour's term of office, when there was zero growth, with the growth—50 per cent. in real terms—that the present Government have secured for the
  558
  World Service. In contrast with the failure to fund the BBC's capital requirements glaringly identified by the central policy review staff two years before the end of the Labour Government, we have presided over a capital programme of no less than £166 million, which was completed in 1991. That is why the BBC has expanded in the dramatic way that it has. Since then, we have continued the work on a new relay station in Thailand as part of a future programme of work.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that whereas a BBC internal estimate in the 1970s suggested that more than half the land mass of the world could not receive any BBC transmissions, now more than 90 per cent. of the world can receive BBC on short wave? Most of the world is also covered in stereo by satellite transmission. That has happened since the Government have been in power.
  Mr. Rifldnd: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The figures reflect that fact graphically. When the Labour Government left office, the number of people who listened to the BBC World Service was 75 million. The hon. Member for Livingston paid tribute in his speech to the fact that the number now listening has increased from 75 million to 133 million. He should reflect on the fact that the BBC World Service—thanks to the investment programme funded by the Government—now has more listeners than any of its competitors; indeed, it has more than double the number of listeners of its nearest competitor.
  If the hon. Member for Livingston wished to be as objective as his rhetoric implied, he should have paid tribute to the achievements of the BBC World Service under the Conservative Government. Those achievements have continued during this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman implied that the period of expansion somehow ceased in 1992, but that was incorrect. In the past four years, no fewer than four new language services have been introduced. In 1992, Ukrainian was introduced for the first time. In 1993, Albanian was re-introduced, having been withdrawn in 1967 under a Labour Government. In 1994, we introduced a language service for Rwanda, because of the tragedy in that country. In December 1995, we introduced Macedonian.
  I heard the hon. Member for Livingston muttering about the French for Europe service. He knows perfectly well that that service was withdrawn by the BBC World Service, not for public expenditure survey reasons, but because the target for people listening to the programme had not been met. The BBC therefore decided, for its own understandable reasons, that the service was not good value for money.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State claimed "we introduced" a new service for Rwanda, implying that the Government had done so. Is he aware that funding for the Rwanda service does not come from grant aid but is provided by a number of non-governmental organisations?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am informed that it is funded through the BBC World Service, which is funded by the Government. We could have a splendid discussion on that subject, but the fundamental point is that a significant number of additional languages have been introduced by the BBC World Service during this Parliament. That should be warmly applauded.

  559
  I have made those points because the Government have been responsible for the largest ever expansion in the capital programme and in the number of listeners to the BBC World Service. It is unlikely, therefore, that we would now be contemplating reversing those achievements or preventing the BBC World Service from maintaining the high standards that it has achieved. What we are doing—and I make no apology whatever for it—is expecting the BBC, like any other international organisation, with regard to both capital and current expenditure, to seek efficiency through use of the private sector and other means so as to reduce the burdens on the taxpayer, but without reducing the successful language services that have been expanded under the Government.
  That is the framework of our policy. I notice that the hon. Member for Livingston, in the words of the motion, in his interview this morning and in his speech, did not dare to disassociate himself from value for money as a desirable objective, or from the private finance initiative as a desirable way to achieve value for money. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a legitimate objective, he is using weasel words when he condemns the Government for proposing such a reform.
  Mr. Robin Cook: This morning the Foreign Secretary heard the managing director of the BBC World Service say that he cannot meet these cuts by value for money or efficiency savings. If the managing director is still taking that view after he has completed his review of the funding for 1997–98, will the Foreign Secretary be prepared to provide the resources necessary to preserve the current 42 language services?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that, but first I wish to quote for the record the formal position of the BBC. The chairman of the BBC acknowledges that the World Service
  "cannot be seen in isolation from the totality of the budget".
  The managing director, Mr. Younger, has said that the World Service
  "will be taking a fresh look at the scope for further efficiency savings in our operations."
  I welcome the fact that he added in respect of the capital programme:
  "We are already looking positively at how the Private Finance Initiative can be applied to our capital plans and I am hopeful that we can make significant progress."
  The formal statement that the BBC issued did not say that cuts were inevitable or even likely. I have the document before me and I have looked at it rather carefully. The BBC said:
  "if we are not successful, there will inevitably be a reduction in our range of programme services."
  The chairman of the BBC said:
  "I am worried lest these proposed cuts will have a greater effect on our service than is immediately apparent".
  The deputy director general said:
  "I am deeply anxious at any cuts which might threaten damage to programme services".
  So the BBC is not saying at this moment that cuts are inevitable; it is expressing its understandable concern. Time will tell. Certain of my remarks today will reassure the BBC that the damage will not happen.
  Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary has paraded a range of quotations expressing grave concern on the part of
  560
  BBC executives. I repeat my question to him: if they are not successful, and if they return to the Foreign Secretary saying that they have been unable to meet the cuts by efficiency savings, will he consider again the funding necessary to maintain the 42 language services?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that in my own time. The hon. Gentleman says that the BBC has expressed concern at the reduction in resources given to it. He knows perfectly well that there is no organisation known to man—in the public or private sectors, the Labour party or the Conservative party—which does not express concern when its resources are reduced. That is the human condition. No one welcomes a reduction in resources. If the stewardship of the nation's financial resources is ever entrusted to the Labour party, and if it responds to every expression of concern by assuming that that concern is justified and therefore more resources have to be provided, God help the taxpayer.
  We have a duty not to accept automatically all expressions of concern, but to look at them sympathetically and sensitively. We need to discuss them with the BBC to determine whether the concerns are justified and to see whether there are ways of making do with slightly reduced resources. Then we must come to a final decision on the implications.
  The BBC has made it clear—on the radio this morning, for instance—that it is not particularly worried about next year. It is concerned about 1997–98 and beyond—on the basis of current planning figures. As the BBC has rightly said, what happens then depends partly on how many efficiency savings it can achieve and on the rate of inflation. None of us can be certain about either factor in future years. Thus there is clearly a great deal of hypothetical discussion, although it is only right and proper that such debate should take place.
  Like the hon. Member for Livingston, I would say that we have no intention of removing successful language services. Indeed, I can go further and tell the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that we have suggests that life will be considerably easier for the World Service than is feared. The reasons for that flow from Government policies.
  The major changes that we have asked the BBC to consider are on the capital side. We have asked it to identify alternative methods of funding, via private finance, totalling £22 million over three years. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Livingston that on the basis of accumulating evidence it appears that there is scope for about £30 million of private finance funding for the World Service's capital programme. That means that the service will probably not just meet the target that we have set it without damaging its capital programme but will more than meet it.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will just restrain himself, I will give way to him later.
  I come next to the specific question that the hon. Member for Livingston asked me and in which I know that my hon. Friends are interested. It arises out of what may prove to be the greater than anticipated success of the Government's private finance initiative. Both the Chief Secretary and I would look sympathetically at providing the flexibility to allow resources to be moved into

  561
  programmes, assuming that the PFI is successful. In other words, there will be flexibility because the Government's policy looks like being even more successful than the target that we gave the BBC. That is exactly what we would have hoped for, and it should reassure the House.
  Mr. Banks: I find this intriguing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the private finance initiative will somehow produce free money which does not have to be paid for. How is the World Service to pay for it? The money will have to be paid for in terms of interest payments, leasebacks and so on, out of operating costs. We know that the World Service will already be suffering from a significant £8.6 million reduction in operating costs, so how will it afford to pay for the PFI?
  Mr. Rifkind: The service will not be suffering a £8 million reduction in operating costs. There will be no such reduction in years one or three. In year two, there will be a £2.5 million consideration on top of the £2 million—a problem that can be resolved by a combination of greater efficiency and moving money from capital to current costs if the capital savings turn out higher than expected. The BBC is also actively pursuing a number of other ways of resolving the problem.
  I noted that the hon. Member for Livingston—despite many requests from the radio interviewer this morning and from my hon. Friends today—refused point blank to give any commitment that any future Government in which he might be involved would increase or restore the cash allocated to the World Service. He took refuge in a general statement about not being prepared to see any successful language service removed. That showed that he clearly believes that there is scope, through efficiency and other means, to preserve the services. That is a powerful admission.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Judging from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House today, he himself is not convinced that the savings can be met by efficiency or any other means; otherwise, he would not have outlined the new proposals for the World Service, which I welcome.
  This debate will be justified only if the Foreign Secretary agrees that he is now saying that if the BBC World Service exceeds its target for the PFI, it can transfer that capital into revenue. Does he agree that that, in effect, is to concede that the BBC has made the case for more revenue support?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I am saying that there are a number of ways whereby we can ensure that the language services are maintained—one of them being greater efficiency. If, as now seems quite possible, the BBC more than meets its PFI targets, that will provide another means of ensuring the outcome that we all want without increasing public expenditure. The Government have every intention of being flexible; we have presided over the greatest ever expansion of the World Service and we are hardly likely to want to reverse that.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Do I infer from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said that he is confident that neither the range of language services nor the breadth of those services—including the vital English language services—is in jeopardy? Is he further
  562
  saying that if there should be a problem, he will be prepared to look at it with great sympathy and do what he can to help?
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can give that absolute assurance. I am very relaxed about giving it because it coincides entirely with the priority that I personally and the Government as a whole attach to the importance of the World Service and our determination not to damage the very high standards that it has achieved under our stewardship.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Following on from interventions on this central question, may I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the private finance initiative? We all welcome that finance; however, at present it is planned, targeted, hopeful, but not definite. Were it not to be as successful as we all hope, and my right hon. and learned Friend has to address the concern expressed in the Opposition motion—the likely reduction in the range of foreign language broadcasts without expecting hope or help from the PFI—with regard to the next triennium, which is of crucial concern to us all, will my right hon. and learned Friend approach the matter with an absolute determination to preserve those foreign language services?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the Government's position and I am happy to state it. We have provided the figures for next year and the BBC has said that it is generally content with them. This debate is about how much it is reasonable to assume might be available for future years through greater value for money and the private finance initiative. The final figures for future years are not yet determined. The figures determined relate to next year and the BBC has said that they do not present a significant problem; it is very relaxed about them.
  The BBC has expressed concern about what might happen from 1997 onwards. The final figures for 1997 will be determined next year in the public expenditure survey round. Much more will be clear then than is possible to determine at the moment about the precise sums that might be available through the PFI and any other achievements from greater efficiency.
  Mr. Mike Watson: The Foreign Secretary seems to have conceded today that the World Service needs additional money. His civil servants conceded that fact five months ago, when they agreed in the joint capital spending review that it should receive an additional £5 million. What has happened since then, other than the Budget and the Government's long-term election prospects, to change that view to require the World Service funding to be financed through the PFI? What is the difference between now and August for the Foreign Secretary?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been interested in using private finance for public sector programmes for more than the past five months. The outcome of the previous PES round was a major programme of private finance, which applied to all Departments. What I am saying today does not contemplate an increase in the total resources being provided for the BBC. What I said with regard to the private finance initiative was that it appeared that even more of the programme than had been anticipated looked like being able to be financed other than through the

  563
  taxpayer, and that that could allow a flexibility between the BBC's capital and current obligations, which would make it even easier for it to carry out its operating tasks.
  Mr. George Galloway: Before leaving the question of private funding and the very high standards of journalism and editorial integrity for which the BBC has become famous, what can the Foreign Secretary tell us about the Government inquiry—which I presume must be going on—on the compromising through negligence by the BBC of its editorial independence through the commercial relationship with the private company Orbit Communications operating in Rome and broadcasting BBC World Service Television pictures to the middle east? The Foreign Secretary will know that the middle east has been repeatedly blacking out broadcasts from this country which carry news and film about the Government's deportation of the Saudi dissident Al-Masari. It is a critical matter for the Government, for the BBC and for standards of journalism in this country. Will the Foreign Secretary deal with it at this stage?
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not know of any evidence which suggests that the BBC has in any way compromised its editorial independence. I do not believe that the BBC would for one moment contemplate doing so. If the hon. Gentleman has any allegations to the contrary, he must provide the hard evidence and not just generalised allegations. Moreover, that is not a matter to put directly to me. He obviously must put that to the appropriate quarter to be properly investigated. I have seen no such evidence.
  Mr. Tim Renton: I remember discussions between my right hon. and learned Friend and myself about the importance of the BBC World Service when we were both Ministers of State at the Foreign Office some years ago. It is clear that all hon. Members have come to the House today to praise the BBC World Service and not to bury it. It would, however, be helpful to the House if my right hon. and learned Friend would explain how he envisages the £30 million from the PFI being used. It is obviously very helpful to know that there could be £30 million available, but what area does he envisage it going into—the building and operating of transmitters, the leasing of them to the BBC World Service, and their eventual repayment many years ahead?
  Mr. Rifkind: Two particular projects have already been identified as being likely to be suitable for the PFI. One is the Oman relay station and the other a small project at Bush house here in the United Kingdom. Of course there may be many other projects, but those two alone already amount to some £32 million compared with the £22 million target over three years that we have set the BBC. I accept that those projects are not absolutely guaranteed at the moment. Nevertheless, the signs are extremely encouraging; otherwise, I would not be referring to them in those terms.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government have a very fine record of support for the BBC World Service over the years. Does he agree that since there are severe public expenditure constraints, which must apply to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as they do to other Departments, it is all the more important that we should put our support behind the service, which covers the whole world and benefits so many other countries where
  564
  constraints must inevitably be tight? Is it not important to send the right messages—politically and to our friends overseas?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. His comments allow me to draw my remarks to a conclusion as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  The Government took a strategic decision way back in 1979 to reverse the stagnation of the previous five years and to finance spectacular growth in the BBC World Service. Unlike the hon. Member for Livingston, we relied not only on rhetoric and protestations of good will, but on providing hard cash. Unlike the zero growth during the Labour years, the BBC World Service has enjoyed a 50 per cent. growth in real terms, a £166 million capital programme, and an expansion of its listening public around the world from 75 million to 133 million people.
  As we are intensely proud to be the Government who have presided over that remarkable achievement, I can without any difficulty at all give the House the assurance that the Government do not intend to do anything that would damage the BBC World Service. On the contrary, we look forward to expanding its activity and continuing to provide the very best World Service that the world knows at the present time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next Member to speak, I should tell the House that unless Members exercise considerable self-restraint, it will not be possible to call all those who wish to speak in this short debate.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Foreign Secretary may have bought off possible opposition from Conservative Members very cheaply as a result of his remarks.
  I first came across the quality of the work of the World Service when I was a diplomat in Hungary in 1963–64. I saw the yearning among the Hungarian people for knowledge of the west and the way in which the BBC was able to spread democratic values, especially, of course, to young people, and with the English language. I had the privilege to speak for the Opposition on foreign affairs for nine years, and mostly dealt with the third world. I shall cite two examples of the way in which the World Service impacted on people who were important in their own countries.
  I recall meeting a number of nomadic Arabs in a tent in the Sahara desert. Suddenly there was a noise: the alarm on the watch of my Arab host had sounded. He immediately left. I asked his colleagues why, and I was told that it was his practice always to listen at that time to the World Service, because of the purity of the Arabic language on it and because he valued what it told him about the world generally.
  Later, I was with the present Lord Healey at a private dinner in State House in Lusaka, with the then President Kenneth Kaunda, who had listened to a debate from this House about Africa on the World Service. He clearly used the World Service as a key source of his knowledge of world events generally. He told me how opinion leaders, statesmen and potential world leaders relied so much on the World Service. That said, I suspect that there is total consensus in the House on the value of the World Service.

  565
  The question is whether we are prepared to see that endangered, and whether that commitment is translated into cash and resources.
  How can one try to assess the real value to Britain of that unique and respected service? What will happen if we opt out, or abandon part of that service, which may well be the result of the Government's policies? I heard the apologia from the Foreign Secretary in the House today and on the "Today" programme this morning. He said that the impact will not be felt this year. That is correct, because the budget for 1997–98 is the key concern of those in the World Service. He said that efficiency savings are possible, without seeking to put a figure on them. He must do so in the context of the favourable National Audit Office report and the reductions that have already been made in the budget for the World Service.
  The Foreign Secretary mentioned the private finance initiative. In principle, one cannot be against a contribution from the private sector, but, as colleagues have said, there are political sensitivities in certain areas. The private finance may or may not be available. The Foreign Secretary expressed confidence that it will be available, but there will certainly be knock-on costs of any contribution from the private sector. Those knock-on effects will mean a cost to the budget of the World Service.
  The Foreign Secretary said that there will not be any impact on what he called "successful languages". It would be helpful for him to define what he means by that phrase. For example, the Finnish service may now be under threat, yet it is listened to by 25 per cent. of the population in Finland, and half the costs are covered by purchases from local radio in Finland. Is that a successful language? There are broadcasts to Afghanistan in Pushtu. Is that a successful language? Surely it is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to define what he means. What would be his priorities for cutting, when there is likely to be an impact on the range of services?
  The Foreign Secretary said that there has been an increase in resources of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is true. The listening audience of the BBC World Service has increased from roughly 80 million in 1979 to 133 million today. That shows that there is a correlation between audibility and the listening audience. Surely cuts in the capital service will prevent a further and similar expansion of the listening audience.
  The Foreign Secretary said that there will be a cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his excellent speech, put that in the context of all the unwanted Government expenditure on areas such as rail privatisation, where estimates are well in excess of £1 billion. That is unwanted and irrelevant, but, for ideological reasons, the Government are pressing ahead with it.
  The Government are inclined to use brave words about our world position—phrases such as, "We are punching above our weight." What is clear from the way in which they are seeking to treat the World Service is that they are prepared to countenance a reduction in the effect of one of the key instruments which allows our country to punch above its weight.
  We are now approaching a general election, when no doubt the platform rhetoric of the Conservatives will be along the lines of putting the "Great" back into Britain. Given the value of the World Service, the threat of this
  566
  potentially barbaric policy means that the Government are devaluing much of what makes us "great" abroad in the full meaning of that term.
  5.4 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: Both Front-Bench spokesmen have rightly emphasised their pride in the work of the BBC World Service, and I join them fully in that. Those who listen all over the world will share the same view. Those who listen outside will not be able to understand why, having expressed that view, the debate then deteriorated into a petty little party squabble. They are not interested in what happened in 1977, and neither am I, for that matter—my autobiography will finish before then. They are not interested in what a Labour Government might do, should such a Government ever come about. The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly protected himself by saying that he wants to see the results before he can say what will happen in 1997. Therefore, it is essential to look at the real aspects of the problem.
  Of course, when there is a financial review, the World Service and the BBC generally are considered by every Government. When a Government take office, they look at it. I recall that, when we took office in 1970, we looked at the World Service. One argument then was that things had changed so much in the 25 years since all this started. The amount of information available world wide had been limited, but, with modern technology, people could obtain information wherever they were. That was one side of the argument.
  However, that was overthrown by the fact that, wherever the issue was discussed, in whatever part of the world, support for the BBC was so strong and so obviously in our interests that we said that it must continue. I am glad that the Government have greatly increased the amount going to the World Service for its performance.
  I am worried about several aspects of the future of the World Service. I am not happy about privatising it. The suspicion will grow in other places in the world that the BBC is no longer completely independent. That is a great danger. What we learned in 1970 and ever since is that the greatest possible advantage of the World Service is the trust it inspires everywhere, and the confidence that people have in it. The outside broadcasts of some other countries, particularly the United States of America, do not have that confidence or trust. In fact, a great deal of what is heard is disbelieved, and rightly so.
  As a general word, privatisation can go too far, as can Government ownership. I believe that this sphere should remain entirely under BBC control. The discussion about handing over Whitehall to private enterprise is incredible. There has never been an open discussion about it. Like the BBC World Service, Whitehall is renowned for its integrity and administrative ability. Will people say that all that remains the same when enterprise people take it over, and are there to make their own money out of it?
  It is a horrifying thought, and cannot do the country, the House or our party any good. One knows of the low morale of so much of the civil service today, and that can only get worse with such discussions. So I am not at all happy about the idea of privatisation.

  567
  I do not accept that we cannot afford it. It is a small amount compared with total budgetary involvement. It is completely unacceptable to say that we are not in a position to carry on with what the BBC wants to do. We can and should do so.
  Another argument is that to deny the BBC World Service some Government expenditure will make it improve its efficiency. I doubt it. Because the calculation for increased efficiency is too high, the instrument may be damaged. As the World Service will be unable to increase the efficiency demanded of it, I am afraid that it will have no alternative but to abandon some of what it does.
  We have seen many examples of that, the greatest of which, alas, is the lack of emergency beds throughout the hospital service today, which has been caused because funding was reduced to such an extent. People said that that would make the hospital service increase its efficiency, but it reached the stage where that simply was not possible. Instead of putting funds into reserve for emergencies, we took them away to increase hospitals' efficiency. That is the most blatant example of how that philosophy has gone wrong.
  Thus there is a severe limit on how much one can increase the World Service's efficiency. One must be immensely careful about that. As the Foreign Secretary cannot say what he will do in 1997, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that we want him to ensure that the World Service maintains its full efficiency and coverage, including languages. He spoke clearly about the additional languages that have now been taken on. If there are more languages, let us take them on. With the service's increased range and penetration, we can cover vast areas of Asia, even though some countries may not want to be covered. That must be one purpose of our policy.
  I said that people trust the World Service. I listen to it a lot. I always get the news from it, and listen to discussions on it when I travel and after a late night here, and I have come to the conclusion that the BBC World Service is now the only impartial part of the BBC. I do not say that from a party point of view but because of the behaviour of those on the other programmes.
  In the great days of the BBC, interviewers enabled interviewees to explain their views, but that is not their position today. They are there to prove that the other chap is always wrong, and they never hesitate to make him look ridiculous, a liar or just unsuitable for interview. That is a deplorable development by BBC programmes, on both radio and television—perhaps more on television, because people like to be seen being unpleasant. The World Service has not been affected by that, and I hope that it will not be.
  I repeat my request to the Secretary of State to safeguard the position. He should not be misled by privatisation and the thought of how well the World Service would do it. If it goes for privatisation, it will seek first to make money, and secondly, to influence the BBC if it so wishes. We want neither of those things. The Government can look after and control the BBC's expenditure perfectly well. They do so at present, and they can do so for the overseas programme.
  I am glad that this debate has been called. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak for a few minutes. The matter is vital, because the World Service contributes enormously to respect of this country
  568
  and gives the rest of the world an impartial view of what is happening world wide, which is invaluable for the rest of the world as well as for us. When the Secretary of State replies to such a debate again in 1997 or 1998, I hope that he will say that we have kept the World Service and expanded it still further, and that we were not led astray by all the temptations of 1996.
  5.13 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Whatever first task fell to me, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, none could give me more satisfaction, nor a more challenging task, than to focus on the BBC World Service. As other hon. Members have said, it has an outstanding past. As this debate emphasises, it is going through a difficult present, but what matters most is its future, which must be our concern today.
  How can 150 million people be wrong? That is how many people around the world tune in each day, by conservative estimates. The BBC's estimate is 133 million, excluding China, Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan, where many more millions of people must listen. The size of the BBC's international audience and influence is unrivalled.
  The most chilling comment that I have heard recently about the World Service was from an insider, who said:
  "The threatened cuts, with their effect on operating budgets and capital investment, could lead to a slow, lingering death. The BBC will not be a Broadcasting Organisation worthy of the name in the 21st century. It will wither and die".
  Good housekeeping, financial prudence and private finance initiatives all have their place in good government, but I fundamentally worry that the Government's difficulties in controlling expenditure in the vast spending Departments lead them to be thoughtless and arbitrary in small monetary cuts aimed at vital successful British endeavours such as the BBC World Service, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the Commonwealth Institute, where cuts endanger the whole endeavour and are not merely excisions at the edges.
  The latest comment that I have heard was from a business visitor who returned from Kuwait yesterday. He said that, at an embassy reception, a group of other European ambassadors declared that they would give their eye teeth to have a service such as the BBC World Service for their own countries. It is beyond their comprehension why we should for ever be cutting it back instead of expanding it.
  Demise may not be an exaggeration, given the huge investment needed for technological advance, such as putting the World Service on the Internet, digital broadcasting and replacing worn-out transmitters. Even the Foreign Office admits that audibility is vital.
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not still a procedure of this House that one does not read a speech? The fact that this speech was circulated beforehand so that everybody has it, and it is now being read, cannot be correct.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is accepted that only Ministers should read speeches. On the whole, however, the Chair takes a tolerant attitude on that. If it were strictly enforced, a good many hon. Members might feel very uncomfortable.
  Miss Nicholson: As I was saying, audibility is vital. If one cannot hear, it is no good—I should know.

  569
  If Britain had no independent voice in the world, this country would be a poorer place culturally, educationally and economically. British business says that the World Service boosts British trade in securing exports. In a recent survey, the top 50 United Kingdom companies said that the BBC World Service creates an aura of trust for Britain abroad and makes their job easier. The return in trade and export earnings must be vast.
  If the World Service did not exist, not only Britain would be deprived. The whole world would be a poorer place, as so many parts of it rely on the World Service for factual, impartial broadcasts and for that invaluable commodity, the truth, which is in short supply in times of conflict and danger. In times of crisis—wars, famines, revolutions and earthquakes—the BBC's audience overseas rockets. In the affected region and the country under scrutiny, many people rely specifically and only on the BBC for news. How can Ministers evaluate that in terms of pounds, ecus or roubles? The World Service is a brand leader without equal, envied around the globe in war and peace.
  I am sure that the new BBC chairman will be successful, and that his fund of knowledge and experience will be put to good effect, but I am sad that the procedure of the appointment and its announcement by the Government did not adhere to the constitutional position in the 1981 BBC charter. We must not drop full preservation of political impartiality, as the Government have done.
  As we have already heard, the BBC also exports the English language, not just on the air but in educational videos, audio tapes and written packages. Millions listen to it for that reason alone. What value can be put on that internationally? The extensive and growing use of English in the world not only involves transmitting our language but boosts the work of our publishers and authors.
  In political and strategic terms, many world leaders, having had their first contact, when young, with British values and activities through the BBC World Service, retain a special relationship with us, and a fondness for our attitudes, which influences their decisions beneficially in favour of our views.
  What about human rights activists and political prisoners, such as Solzhenitsyn and Aung San Suu Kyi, and hostages such as Terry Waite? How did they praise the BBC World Service? They saw it as their lifeline and morale booster, especially the emergency Gulf link programme, which was the forerunner of other lifeline crisis programmes for Bosnia, Rwanda—whose programme was partly non-governmental organisation funded—and Somalia when they were otherwise unreachable. How can that be measured in money?
  We must not forget the World Service's science, development, environment and health education programmes. Radio reaches where other media cannot—to the blind and the illiterate, for example. As I know, television reaches where the deaf cannot understand in any other way, through subtitling.
  How many hundreds of babies in India may have been saved from a lifetime of blindness through BBC World Service radio broadcasts on the importance of vitamin A? How many babies in Peru and Bolivia have been saved
  570
  from death at birth by the BBC's "Quecha" health programme? How many teenagers have learned to avoid the risks of HIV and AIDS, and how many civilians have learnt how to avoid the risks of land mines? This development may be cheap to the Government, but it is beyond price to those who receive it. How do we add up the lost eyes and limbs in the profit-and-loss accounts?
  Selfishly, I declare a keen interest in the BBC Arabic service, the value of which I have seen in refugee camps in the Persian Gulf.
  The value of the World Service is therefore incalculable, while the cuts and their effects are all too frighteningly calculable. We know the figures: a modest, in terms of the national Budget, £4.5 million cut in the financial year 1997–98. That will amount to a £10 million shortfall in the overall operating budget of £135 million. To put it in a national budgetary perspective, that is the cost of three or four modern aircraft, of which we lost three last week.
  I say most sincerely that we must also be careful that the Government, in forcing the BBC to pursue the private finance initiative, do not compromise political and commercial impartiality. The necessity for long-term planning makes the PFI a fragile answer.
  Perhaps the cuts are being made in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons. The BBC World Service has just dropped French for Europe, and the German service, already reduced, may be cut further. That is in despite of our membership of the European Union and the need to put over Britain's views in countries where many people still do not speak English.
  The entire European Union surely seeks to hear our values, and listens keenly to statements of our interests. Our thoughts are needed in the democratic development of the Union. Fifty per cent. of the BBC's transcription topical tapes service, which accounts for much of the work in the developing world, has been cut off. That is surely another implicit cut in overseas aid, this time in education.
  Of course, not everything is gloom and contraction. The BBC has played a valuable part in training and in revitalising broadcasting. Despite international competition and the end of the cold war, audiences are increasing. New services have been started in Macedonian, in Azeri for Azerbaijan, and in Uzbek for Uzbekistan. The Arabic service, which proved its worth again in the Gulf war, may expand alongside the newly created Arabic television service.
  Some countries re-broadcast the BBC 24 hours a day—Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. A new joint service, which began on 1 January in partnership with a United States station in Boston, is attracting many more listeners to hear our values, culture and output in north America.
  That success story can he disrupted by the cuts we are discussing. The BBC has to invest to survive. It plans to put its service on the Internet, not only in English but in, for example, Cantonese, to exploit high computer ownership in Hong Kong. Surely that will be a valuable back-up to our influence in Hong Kong after the transfer to China in 1997.
  We have already heard that the BBC has to replace its weak and aging transmitter in Masirah and relocate it on the mainland of Oman at a cost of £30 million, to be

  571
  funded under the PFI. That involves not only the difficulty that he who pays the piper calls the tune but the question of repayment, which will place a further burden on operating costs. Yet that transmitter and its impartiality are vital for reaching the Persian Gulf and the Indian subcontinent, where the BBC has such a large and vital audience, with vast trading potential; and, in the case of the Indian subcontinent, English is an inherited language.
  The cuts, combined with necessary investment, will also, in time, put more foreign language programmes at risk—perhaps 25 per cent. of them, or 10 out of the present 40. That means that threats will hang over transmissions in Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Hungarian and Romanian, and perhaps even in Serb and Croatian, to the cauldron of the Balkans. Hon. Members will recall what an important factor the BBC was in the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, the abortive Hungarian revolution, the overthrow of President Ceausescu, the collapse of the Warsaw pact as central Europe rediscovered democracy, and above all the ending of the communist stranglehold on the USSR.
  It is possible that the Spanish and Portuguese services to Latin America may be dropped.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way on the subject of Latin America?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The rule is quite clear. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not wish to give way, he or she is under no obligation to do so.
  Miss Nicholson: Latin America is a vast area of more than 300 million people, with enormous trade potential for the UK, as so many recent ministerial visits indicate.
  Not so long ago, during the Falklands war, the UK Government created their own Radio Atlantico del Sur, which proved so amateurish and ineffectual, whereas World Service correspondents were greeted in the Falklands by banners of gratitude proclaiming, "God Bless the BBC!"
  Foreign Office Ministers would be foolish to ignore, as they have in the past, the dangers of the Falklands sovereignty dilemma, which still exists, as does Argentina's deadline of the year 2000 for taking over the Falklands, just when there may be vast oil riches to be found off their shores.
  The Government continually fail to learn the certain lessons of the past in order to anticipate the uncertain lessons of the future. I fear that, where the dictators and oppressors have failed, our Treasury Minister bookkeepers, aided by a weak-willed, blinkered and ostrich-minded Cabinet, will succeed in weakening or eventually silencing altogether a powerful voice for Britain.
  In conclusion, I have a couple of old tributes that are well worth repeating. They may stick in the minds of Ministers more than anything else. Even a rival and critic such as Teheran Radio said:
  "England without the BBC is a lion without mane or tail, whose funeral will soon be due."
  The New York Times journalist Mr. Malcolm Brown famously declared:
  "The BBC is, for the free mind, what Oxfam is for the hungry."
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is always a pleasure—I hope that I am being duly chivalrous—to follow the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), even if I am tempted to be somewhat more caustic bearing in mind the fact that she made my new year considerably more active than it might otherwise have been.
  I hope in this speech at least to say something that my hon. Friends do not know that I am going to say before I say it. I will be succinct because many hon. Members want to speak. First, I shall briefly talk about my personal connections with the BBC World Service. I am sure that the memories of many hon. Members will be similar.
  My connection goes back to a Cambridge university expedition in 1961 across mountains and deserts which involved camping and all the rest of it. What happened to me then can be summed up by the only quotation that I want to use, because it says it all. It is from a letter that came to me from Sarah Reynolds in Suffolk as a result of the publicity surrounding the financial problems of the World Service. She wrote also to her own Member of Parliament.
  Sarah Reynolds was on the edge of the Sahara desert in temperatures of 45 deg C. She wrote:
  "I heard voices outside and the sound of static. Upon investigation I found a group of people crowded around a tiny transistor radio. They were listening to the BBC World Service (Africa service in French).
  When the News was over, I asked them why they did not tune in to Radio Niger-it would be so much easier to listen to. 'Because we would hear what the government wants us to hear,' I was told. 'We can trust the news we hear from the BBC to be the truth.' 'Would it not be easier to listen to Radio France International?' I asked. 'We prefer to listen to the BBC World Service.'"
  That is what she was told.
  I shall telescope my comments by adding that, many years ago, I married an Iranian woman. By means of stories and a history which are too long to relate, the 1979 Iranian revolution occurred—when Ayatollah Khomeini was sitting under a tree in Paris, as some hon. Members may remember—and there was a considerable outcry against the BBC World Service, which also affected the British Government, from the Shah of Iran's Government.
  I found myself on the other side of the fence, in the sense that I was asked by the then Iranian embassy to act in effect as an unofficial monitor of the BBC World Service. I spent some days over there scrutinising the scripts, including what had been left in and left out, according to the editor's pencil. I have no doubt that, although a Government who were a prominent ally of this country fell in that revolution—the final consequences of it have not yet been seen—the BBC World Service, much to the detriment of my wife's family, told the truth. Long may it continue to do so.
  Since 1985, I have had the pleasure of helping to lead various World Service campaigns in the House, but it has not been roses, roses all the way—it is not today. Bearing in mind the enormous service that the BBC has rendered to the country, it has always had difficulty in making its case. We have seen elements of that difficulty in this debate. As this has been mentioned, I remind the House that, although we are grateful for the Government's audibility programme, which began in 1982, there was a considerable campaign, lasting several years, during the

  573
  mid-1980s to get BBC World Service Television off the ground. The then Prime Minister resisted the launch of that project, during which time CNN took off. I firmly believe that, had World Service Television got off the ground when we wanted it to, CNN would not be in its present position of almost world paramountcy.
  We had to mount another campaign at the beginning of this Parliament, in the 1992–93 Session, in relation to the triennium that is still running in the current financial year. I am grateful for all the support that the all-party early-day motion received—400 signatures. I think that the House, by choosing to express its appreciation of the BBC World Service through so many signatures, and bearing in mind those who do not or cannot sign early-day motions, passed its verdict. That was the third largest number of signatures to an early-day motion, coming after something like maternity and the second world war. That was the sort of class that we were in.
  The objective of my speech and the debate is to underline the importance of the work of the World Service. I shall limit myself to mentioning specific points on that subject and discussing the need to protect the World Service's operating budget, our major concern, for the next triennium, 1997 to 2000.
  I should, however, first briefly mention the specific work of the service. Many of the words of praise for the World Service should also, in some measure, be addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is beginning to get a slight complex—I have sympathy with it—about the massive outcry on behalf of the World Service. We should also not forget the important representative work that is done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or our old friend, the British Council. I could expand on that, but this debate is on the BBC World Service, for which the House has already shown its support.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that we could maintain the World Service's budget if we really wanted to do so, and that the money involved is not very great. There must be a Treasury fault line somewhere. In government, one understands that, when one is engaged on a tough public expenditure round, cuts must be seen to be fair and distributed across the board. Any system that is not sufficiently flexible to protect something like the BBC World Service cannot, by definition, be a very good one.
  We have discussed the plans for the future of the World Service, and it has been praised. I want to discuss its budget. First of all—as has been merely mentioned, not underlined—the World Service is already making efficiency savings, and has been for some considerable time. It has recently been the beneficiary of a very favourable National Audit Office report, and I should like to think that such checking and cross-checking had an effect on a tight public expenditure round. Only last summer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service conducted a capital review, which was made public in August 1995.
  The review identified, perhaps before the Treasury came into the picture, a considerable need to increase capital expenditure during the next triennium. Perhaps it is intended that that expenditure will be derived through different means—the private finance initiative. I am very
  574
  close to the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on that. The PFI generally seems, in the almost frenzied atmosphere that surrounds Budgets these days, to be assuming an almost holy role: the PFI is brought in on this, and it is wheeled in on that. We are dealing with something that is not necessarily the easiest area for the PFI. The private sector is not always the best risk taker.
  The great reliance on Masirah island and the plan for a middle east relay station in Oman account for the vast proportion of £32 million. The relay station is a classic example of where the PFI could be used, because it is located in the middle of a turbulent region. It will be interesting to see whether the private sector will come forward as required to fund that development.
  Many of the sites and much of the plant with which we are concerned require improvement and modernisation. They are in need of infrastructural improvement, rather than being natural candidates for the PFI.
  Last, but not least, foreign Governments like to be dealing Government-to-Government, and they see the BBC as a part of the Government, although they all know that it is not. More important, however, those Governments have trust and confidence in the BBC's independence. That must not be undermined for any reason.
  Mr. Tam Daly-ell: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this issue. Is there anything to stop Mr. Murdoch or controversial Arab-based funds, for example, becoming part of the PH? What would that do to the reputation of the World Service?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that question, because the Government of the day will have to keep a careful eye on that during the unfolding events. BBC World Service Television in the far east has also had its life made much more difficult because of a certain satellite which was bought up by Mr. Murdoch. So the lesson is there to be learnt.
  I should like to end with my central anxiety. It was encompassed largely by an intervention I made earlier which was similar to one or two other interventions. The BBC World Service is already absorbing cuts during the current triennium. It has accepted the reduction in its capital budget—it is not arguing about that; it will absorb that. This is the: first time, in the current financial year, that the budget for a triennium has been disturbed during its passage. Although we all say how marvellous the BBC World Service is, we must realise that it must remain competitive and preserve its position. It is way ahead of the field and it must stay there. It is undoubtedly in the national interest to improve and expand the service.
  On the issue of money, there are some differences in the figures, but there is a planned cut in Her Majesty's Government's capital and current contributions to the World Service budget. If the private finance initiative, on which reliance is placed—good luck to it—is successful and becomes more successful, that will have an obvious effect on the operating budget of the BBC World Service. We cannot consider one without the other.
  As became clear during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a key question to be asked in relation to the motion and the amendment. That question is whether, in the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the PFI, there is likely to be a reduction in the range of foreign language

  575
  broadcasts. That is what the issues boil down to. It is difficult to vote against either the motion or the amendment. A further question for me is whether one can possibly support the Opposition motion or abstain from voting on it.
  We hope that the PFI will be successful. It might be less successful than we now hope—I mentioned Oman, the biggest PFI project. Sooner or later, the Government may have to face a BBC World Service that says that it is strapped for cash and one or other of its language services will have to go. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made certain undertakings on that issue; he went one stage beyond the PFI. I, for one, accept my right hon. and learned Friend's good faith for the moment.
  I offer a few words of caution: we are discussing the next triennium. The negotiations are starting now and, as we proceed through the year towards autumn, more of the factors will become clear. For the moment, we should minimise the cuts and be generous with the negotiations for the next triennium. I am sure that, once the negotiations are concluded, the subject will return to the House and every word uttered by the Government, whom I support, will then be reconsidered.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who is one of the few truly civilised Tories left in the House.
  I declare my interests in the subject: I am one of the parliamentary advisers to the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents many World Service staff members. Before I was elected to Parliament in 1983, I was the union's full-time official and was responsible for its membership in Bush house and at Caversham. Now, my contact with it is as a fairly regular contributor to the excellent programme "People in Politics" and to BBC World Service Television.
  One question that strikes me—I know that it strikes many other hon. Members—is how such a wonderful service can be provided under such primitive conditions at Bush house and elsewhere. The World Service is superb—we can agree on that across the House. It is one of the few British institutions, perhaps the only one, that are world leaders but, in relative terms, it is run on a shoestring. There is enormous cross-party support in the House for the World Service, but, despite all the plaudits that it receives in the House and around the world, it still keeps having to suffer cuts. Those cuts have come not just from this Government but from previous Labour Governments—that must be placed firmly on the record.
  Who in the Foreign Office has the knife out for the World Service? It is clear that someone has. No one in the Foreign Office is listening to what we are saying in the House and someone is feeding poison against the World Service into the Secretary of State's ear. Someone has been feeding that poison into the ears of previous Secretaries of State, including Labour ones. I do not understand how we could even contemplate cuts, however small, in one of this country's success stories—this country is short of success stories, despite the propaganda and noise from Conservative Members.
  576
  The Secretary of State mentioned the need to reduce expenditure. Which successful multinational company that was the world leader in its sector would contemplate cutting its capital expenditure? Such a company would increase its capital expenditure to enhance its position as the world leader. It is nonsense; we would not expect any multinational company to operate in that way, so why should we expect the BBC World Service to do so?
  If the Government want to find extra resources to fund the World Service, they should look elsewhere in the Foreign Office budget. They could look to the £7.6 million spent by the Department last year on official hospitality or to the almost £400 million spent by the Department every year on funding our embassies and high commissions around the world. I am not saying that they do not do a good job; I am not even saying that I have not raised the odd glass of champagne at a Foreign Office reception. But I would cheerfully give it up and I would certainly give up the second and third glasses to allow the money to be used to fund the World Service. There is plenty of opportunity in the Foreign Office budget for the Government to find the savings if they are so minded, but the World Service faces a cut of £5.4 million in its capital expenditure in the next financial year.
  The Secretary of State said that the private finance initiative could be used, but how will that be funded? The money has to be paid back; it is not free money. Someone will expect the interest payments and the leasebacks to be funded—they will have to be funded from operating expenditure. Where else is the money to come from? I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), would clarify that issue when he winds up the debate. As I understand it, future operating expenditure will be cut by £8.6 million in the first year of the next triennium. I should be grateful if the Minister would either confirm that or tell me that my facts are wrong.
  The Government announced the decision on capital cuts and the availability of the PFI after the business plans of the World Service had been drawn up, yet Ministers have the nerve to appear on the "Today" programme or stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about efficiency. They tell the World Service to throw into the melting pot all the capital funds and projects that it has already drawn up and to see whether it can raise money in the private sector. That is a crazy way to run any business, particularly the World Service. The Government talk about efficiency savings, but the way in which they have handled the funding of the World Service is the opposite of efficient. The World Service still has to deal with the last round of cuts—about £6 million.
  Part of the measure of the efficiency of any organisation, including the World Service, is staff morale. At present, morale is low because, despite receiving plaudits from politicians, both in and out of the studios, and from around the world, the World Service staff continually have to face further cuts. They face those cuts because some idiot in the Foreign Office feels that it is not sensible to invest taxpayers' money in the World Service.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that he was not happy to have privatisation in this sector. If the Government have their way, the BBC's transmission—both domestic and World

  577
  Service—will soon be privatised. That privatisation, in itself, poses a dramatic threat to BBC independence, especially that of the World Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned the censorship of the BBC's Arabic service over the subject of Dr. Al-Masari. The Secretary of State said that he wanted some hard evidence—it is there for anyone to see. The BBC's Arabic television service is transmitted via a Saudi-owned satellite relay station in Rome. The company that owns the satellite station is Orbit Communications, which in turn is owned by a cousin of King Fahd, and it blanked out the BBC's transmission. If we sell the BBC's transmission service—if the transmitters go and they are bought by foreign companies, perhaps companies that are fronts for foreign Governments—the independence and impartiality of the BBC World Service will be threatened.
  It is the independence, fairness and impartiality of the BBC World Service that commend it so strongly to peoples throughout the world. If we were to damage that reputation, it would be a crime—a crime perpetrated by the present Government.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I have a small interest to declare. I remember receiving a cheque from the overseas service of the BBC—I suppose that that is under the same rubric—in the 1980s. It was a cheque for a very small sum, paid to me for impersonating an English dustman to the then Soviet Union. It was a rotten script-I believe I wrote it myself. I subsequently impersonated a British politician for the World Service several times to several countries. Those are my interests.
  I need not express sympathy or admiration for the World Service, because every right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken has done so for me. All I shall say is that it is a pity that sometimes we do not hear programmes of the same analytical depth on, let us say, BBC Radio 4. Some of the malt whiskies that we make in this country are delicious, but one can find them only abroad; it is similar with some of the World Service broadcasts. Would that one might hear them on the domestic services more frequently.
  The establishment of BBC World Service Television was mentioned earlier. I have a bit of a "mea culpa" to make because, at the time when I joined the campaign to try to obtain some seedcorn—if my memory serves, only about £4 million—my pitch was that if we did not have that £4 million, nothing would happen.
  I turned out to be wrong, in the sense that something got off the ground. It is a matter for discussion whether it might have done so sooner, and perhaps would have put in a better competitive performance vis-à-vis CNN if that £4 million had been found, but I must be honest and say that the Government were right, to the extent that the service did materialise and is doing well at the moment.
  Listening to the debate, I have a sense of disproportion. It seems to me disproportionate that the Government should have allowed themselves to be put in the dock in the way that they have been during the debate and in the way that they have been by the media, for the sake of a
  578
  relatively small sum. I am occasionally accused of not understanding politics, but I understand that to make a big political issue out of a small number of millions is not a very political approach. I pride myself on understanding that, if nothing else. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) added to the sense of disproportion in the excessive forcefulness of some of his remarks. One cannot get away from the fact that the Government have enormously expanded the World Service, and should be congratulated on doing so.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave two assurances earlier, which have in effect punctured the debate. First, he said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that he would reconsider the matter if essential programmes were threatened. Secondly, he made what I understand to be an important concession, allowing capital to be transferred to revenue if that should prove necessary.
  It is odd that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not say that on "Today" this morning, because everyone knows that "Today" is the real Parliament in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Mr. John Humphrys is the Opposition spokesman, the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker to boot. What better place might there be for my right hon. and learned Friend to make his two concessions? For that is what they are. I assume that those concessions were arrived at after a great deal of scurrying and patter of fast footwork in the Treasury during the day. Never mind; we got there in the end.
  I hope that there is a lesson for everyone involved. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, an incessant, curiously aggressive attitude appears to stem from somewhere towards the World Service. I have experienced it personally, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, under the previous Labour Government. I happened to be involved as a principal private secretary at the time. The Government were literally counting up thousands of pounds for the Pushtu service, which was a strange way for the then Foreign Secretary, Dr. David Owen, to spend his time. Other things of greater magnitude were going on in the world.
  I make no apology for my involvement because it was compulsory, but that seemed a strange thing to do. It struck me as strange that today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should have been forced to come to the Chamber—because I am sorry to say that that is what happened—because of those rather small cuts.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the dangers that might face the overseas service of the BBC if capital came in through a front company that might represent an overseas country, especially the dangers for the transmission services, which might lead to the blocking of the overseas service in parts of the world that are vital to the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Walden: As my hon. Friend invites me to express an opinion on that subject, I shall. It has always been my opinion that, as a rule of thumb in matters of privatisation, one should be—and I am—in favour of privatising anything that moves, provided that it does not affect or enter into what I call the cultural sector. By that I mean education, broadcasting and similar spheres. That does not exclude the involvement of private capital.

  579
  I do not want to discuss the specific case that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned, because I do not know enough about it, but if that is true, it seems to me to mark the limit that one should keep an eye on, in involving private capital in what are essentially, as I say in shorthand, cultural fields, because it is possible to get oneself into some nasty political spots.
  Mention has been made of China, which I suspect will he very important in that regard in future. It will be extremely important for us to be able to broadcast freely to the Chinese because, as we all know, there is likely to be turbulence in that country.
  Other hon. Members want to speak. I believe that I have made my argument. I welcome the reassurances that the Secretary of State gave. I only lament that it was necessary for him to give them in that form.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: Throughout the House, the BBC World Service is regarded a precious asset to the United Kingdom, providing an international advantage that many other nations envy, including many of our industrial competitors. However, we are not here tonight simply to indulge in a paean of praise to the World Service.
  The people who work in the BBC World Service throughout the world, in Bush house or elsewhere, are not all saints. They try to do a job on behalf of broadcasting and on behalf of the country, but not significantly on behalf of the Government of the country. From time to time, the Government have been led into conflict with foreign Governments who do not share our traditions and ways, because those Governments cannot understand that the BBC World Service is not the Government's voice and that the Government cannot direct propaganda over the BBC World Service, although the BBC World Service is very much the voice of Britain.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on prevailing to ensure that we held the debate tonight because, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made plain, were it not for the fact that we are holding the debate now, we should not have obtained the concessions that we have obtained from the Foreign Secretary, although I shall return to them later to examine their worth.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke elegantly and eloquently on behalf of the BBC World Service. While he was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)—who has had to leave the Chamber for a short time—remarked to me that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all the things that he wanted to say. I replied that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all that I wished to say also.
  The hon. Gentleman gave a cogent declaration of the technical position. We are not here today simply to praise the BBC World Service; we must also examine the hard cash reality of its position and the Government's decision to abandon the three-year agreement unilaterally and to impose a separate settlement upon the BBC World Service.
  The National Audit Office report to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes it plain that there is scope for improvement and savings within the BBC World Service. That is the case with any large organisation. The
  580
  report also underlined the fact that the World Service provides excellent value for taxpayers' money and that it is continuing to make considerable progress in that direction.
  The Government's action in the second year of the triennial agreement must cast doubt upon their good intentions in the matter. How can a three-year agreement be broken unilaterally at any stage? What will be the status of the 1997–98 agreement? I believe that that agreement will be negotiated under different management, so to speak. None the less, if a Government give their word that an agreement shall last for three, five or however many years, they must honour that commitment. An agreement cannot be unilaterally re-examined, and the Government have destroyed their credibility in the matter.
  The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers have faced questioning about BBC World Service funding during Foreign Office questions on the past two occasions and I was fortunate to be called to speak both times. On the first occasion, the Foreign Secretary quoted personnel at the BBC World Service very selectively—as he did again earlier this evening—in order to justify his position. He quoted the managing director, Mr. Younger, as saying that the World Service was looking at the application of the private finance initiative. He continued:
  "Equally, we will be taking a fresh look at the scope for further efficiency".
  The Foreign Secretary did not go on to quote Mr. Younger's next comment:
  "However, I am greatly concerned at the possible implications for our programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
  The Foreign Secretary also quoted the chairman of the BBC up to the point when he said:
  "On the other hand, I am worried lest these proposed cuts will have a greater effect on our service than is immediately apparent".
  The chairman went on to say:
  "As we explore the Private Finance Initiative and other projects, we will keep the Foreign Office closely informed of our progress in minimising damage"—
  he did not say "avoiding damage"—
  "to the services we supply to over 133 million people".
  That brings me to the PFI and what has been said about it. No one, including the Foreign Secretary, has confirmed whether the Government are prepared to underwrite the on-going negative revenue effects of a successful PFI. In BBC World Service terms, the more successful it is, the greater effect it will have on the operating budget. Are the Government prepared to underwrite it and, therefore, insulate the World Service from the effects of increased revenue payments? If they are not, they are simply seeking to buy a short-term benefit from reducing capital today at the expense of long-term liabilities on the operating budget tomorrow.
  The perceived independence of the BBC is at the heart of its international reputation. The hon. Member for Leominster referred to the effects of the television transmitter and to the problems with the Star satellite in Asia. Hon. Members should consider that situation for a few moments. The satellite used to carry BBC World Service Television—it is not funded by the same agreement, but it provides an instrumental lesson—to the far east. It was bought by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch—if it was not News International, it was certainly one of its subsidiaries.

  581
  Mr. Murdoch wanted to beam programmes into China, but the Chinese Government objected most strongly to the line that they believed the BBC and Britain were taking with regard to Hong Kong. As a consequence, the Chinese Government blackmailed—I hesitate to use that word, but I believe that the House will understand the pressure that was applied—Murdoch television to replace BBC World Service Television on the satellite. They were ultimately successful, as I believe that it has now been replaced by CNN or something else.
  That means that a large part of south-east Asia cannot receive BBC World Service Television. It demonstrates clearly that once the infrastructure is in private hands, it is susceptible to political interference and corruption. I think that that serves as a lesson for the BBC in the future.
  I come now to the purpose and the effect of the BBC World Service. I do not think that we are being culturally myopic or adopting a little Englander or little Britain mentality if we say that the BBC World Service is the best in the world. One of my constituents, who is also a very good friend, is a Sri Lankan Tamil with relatives living in Sri Lanka. When Rajiv Gandhi decided to send the ill-fated Indian peacekeeping force to intervene in the civil war in Sri Lanka and it invaded the north of the island, my friend was obviously very concerned about his family's fate. He contacted his relatives in Colombo in order to ascertain whether everything was all right.
  My friend spoke to his father and asked him what was going on. His father replied, "We are not really sure. We are all fairly safe, but we are trying to find out what is going on." My friend then asked how he was doing that and his father replied, "We are listening to the BBC World Service." Members of that family were not listening to national radio in Colombo or to All India Radio; they were listening to the BBC—and they were listening particularly for Mark Tully. My friend's family was listening to the BBC, first, because the BBC was more likely to know what was going on and, secondly, because it was most likely to tell the truth.
  We must not jeopardise the BBC's status in that regard. The World Service is not simply an excellent and significant asset to this country, which represents good value for money: it is the greatest and most powerful international advocate of the values for which this nation stands.
  6.6 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I am speaking at this late stage of the debate because I believe that the matter should be considered in a perfectly calm and logical manner. We have achieved that aim for about half the debate, but it certainly was not evident in the approach adopted by that rather disappointed little lady, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who, as a Conservative, was entirely frustrated at not being promoted within the Government. Her suggestion that the BBC World Service would wither and die is the most nonsensical statement that has been made today and I believe that the remainder of her speech can be dismissed on the same basis.
  I suggest that there is something very wrong in the House when, for the first time in my 35 years' experience, a Back Bencher circulates a speech prior to its delivery
  582
  and then reads it verbatim to hon. Members. If we have reached that stage, we may as well adopt the American system of placing speeches in the record and therefore lose all opportunity for debate in this place.
  No hon. Member would argue that the BBC World Service does not fill an essential need that no one else in the world can supply. The BBC World Service does its job with efficiency and with a degree of informed opinion that is unknown in any other national broadcasting service. As has been mentioned time and again, most importantly the World Service is trusted—and it is trusted most where the news often takes the form of propaganda rather than the truth. It is in those places that the BBC World Service is most appreciated.
  The BBC World Service is particularly important to the emerging nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States. As treasurer of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I speak with some authority when I say that the emerging democracies listen to the BBC World Service. When no one else could fill that role, they received instruction from the World Service about politics and about running democratic institutions and local government. Broadcasts in Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Uzbek and now Kazakh are a major step in that direction.
  It is with considerable pride that we are able to claim that the number of potential listeners, or those who listen from time to time—the total is now 133 million—is likely to grow over the next three to five years.
  Let us consider the private finance initiative and the proposition of privatisation. The suggestions of the possible dangers reflect a misunderstanding. If private capital is used purely for building and capital assets—projects that would normally have to be financed by the taxpayer—and there is what would normally be a kind of sale and leaseback but in fact is a contract to build with a set leaseback over a period, many of the worries that have been expressed will disappear.
  What of the idea that we shall be eating into Supply expenditure? What is the return on any capital that is borrowed? Interest on that capital must be obtained in some way, and it is usually linked to come from Supply expenditure.
  I am not for privatisation for the sake of it. I support the process, however, where it can be seen to have a direct benefit in releasing the taxpayer from having to provide moneys. If that is the result, it is excellent. It has been suggested that private finance can produce about £32 million for capital compared with the Government's allocation of £20 million. Part of the Government's money, not private money, would come back into the Supply sector. That must he beneficial. There is much business sense in the way in which that approach could be carried forward.
  I have had discussions with the World Service. I have often broadcast on the service, way back from the 1960s. It was fearing a 10 or 15 per cent. cut in Supply expenditure, but that has not happened. It is important[Interruption.]—to understand that the minimum action has been taken. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it should not affect any aspect of the World Service's broadcasting. We must have that

  583
  assurance. Indeed, I thought that that assurance had been given a long time before the debate. The assurance was not dragged out as a result of the debate. The assurance—[Interruption.]—goes a long way to overcoming any objection that can—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows my views on repeated seated interjections.
  Sir Peter Emery: So that other Members can contribute to the debate—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: No. I want to give other Members the opportunity to make their views known. The hon. Gentleman might be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The financial factors that the Government have put before us make good sense. It has not been understood that within the Foreign Office budget the greatest increases over the past five years have been made available to the World Service. That fact has not emerged from the debate. There have been cuts everywhere else. The Government's amendment makes sense and the Government's case has been properly presented. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not complain that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to allow me to intervene during his speech, or that he could not do so. I put one question to him in the hope that the Minister of State will answer it when he replies. I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who was kind enough to give way to me, shares some of my worries. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has worries, which are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). What will happen when private finance is inserted into the system? It seems that neither the BBC nor the Government will have any control over that finance.
  Let us suppose that the private finance initiative is invaded by Rupert Murdoch or by controversial Arab funds. What then happens to the reputation of the World Service? It is no good saying that we can have an end-user certificate. There will be no control. There could be takeovers. After two or three transfers down the line, the World Service could fall into hands that would horrify those of us who sit on green Benches.
  I see that the Foreign Secretary has escaped—he has left the Chamber—doubtless for good reasons. I put my question bluntly to the Minister of State. Will he use 30 seconds, a minute or whatever it takes to set out the Government's contingency plans, if the PFI fell into hands that neither side of the House would deem to be satisfactory, in responding to a basic trust that is at the very core of the World Service?
  That is all that I have to say.
  6.16 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Not for the first time, I find myself in considerable sympathy with
  584
  the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for whom I have enormous regard. If anybody deserves the title "honourable", he does.
  I am grateful, of course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for his assurance, and for the personal care and attention that he has devoted to the BBC World Service. Not for half a second do I question his commitment, still less his integrity. I am troubled, however, about the injection of private finance, and potential reliance on it for the BBC. It is almost a contradiction in terms.
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that some things should rightly and properly be funded from the public purse. I can think of nothing higher in that category than the promotion and protection of Britain's interests abroad.
  It is a great pity that the Foreign Office had to suffer any cuts in the recent expenditure round. This may not be a fashionable view in all quarters of the House, but I believe that the Foreign Office serves the United Kingdom extremely well. Of all the diplomats whom I have met during my travels abroad, I can remember only about three or four who I felt did not measure up to the job. It is a pity that cuts are directed at the Foreign Office at any time. All our ambassadors should represent the best of our country, and be able to do so without looking over their shoulders every second for auditors.
  In the British Council and the World Service, we have two of the most cost-effective general ambassadors that any nation could possibly have. The World Service is renowned for its quality. We have heard anecdotes from Members on both sides of the House, and perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to contribute mine.
  Some years ago, I was asked, after a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Australia, whether I would go to the Solomon Islands, way out in the south Pacific. I thought that it sounded terribly romantic, and was most eager to go. It was a most moving experience. I found a country that, although very poor, was rich in the personalities of its people.
  What moved me most was going to a couple of schools there and speaking to fifth and sixth formers. They were remarkably well informed and knew the names of more British Cabinet' Ministers than most fifth and sixth formers in my constituency would know. When I asked why, the answer was interesting, as they did not get newspapers, which were generally a week or fortnight old when they arrived from Australia, and their own pidgin English papers concentrated almost entirely on local affairs. Nevertheless, they were well-informed young people. The answer was that they listened regularly to the BBC World Service. From that, they had derived a voracious appetite for knowledge and information, and good basic information about the world in which they lived, and particularly about this country. They had a great admiration and respect for this country. I could not help wondering as I listened to them whether we entirely deserved that, but that is another story.
  If I needed an illustration of the worth of the World Service, I found it in the Solomon Islands. I found it, too, from talking to people from eastern Europe, when involved in a committee on human rights, which was allowed, for the first time, into the Soviet Union in its dying days by Mr. Gorbachev. We talked to people

  585
  there—Jews and Christians—whom we sought to help. To them, the BBC World Service, often listened to in conditions of extreme danger, had been a lifeline. One found the same in Romania, the former East Germany and in other countries. It really would be quite wrong if anything were done to jeopardise that magnificent service.
  I was grateful for the assurance that none of the foreign language services will be threatened, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will, when he replies, be able to reinforce that assurance. I would be most grateful for my right hon. Friend's attention, which is difficult at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) seems to have engaged him in conversation.
  I should also be grateful for another assurance. Important though the foreign language services are, the English language service is of paramount importance, and I hope that nothing will be done to jeopardise the breadth or depth of its coverage. It is the way in which many people learn the English language. It is through the World Service that many become acquainted with our literature, our culture, our politics and our democratic system. It would be most unfortunate if there were any contraction in that service.
  This has been a useful debate. It has shown that every hon. Member who has spoken, on both sides of the House, is full of admiration for, and totally committed to, the World Service. I truly believe that that commitment is shared by the Government, and hope that it will be reinforced in the speech that my right hon. Friend will make shortly.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who encapsulated the mood of the House.
  I owe a double debt to the BBC World Service. I worked there briefly, and it is part of my journalistic formation. But, more importantly, I remember being arrested some 14 years ago by the Polish communist secret police and being taken away to an obscure gaol in Warsaw, a very frightened young man taking support—financial and other—to the underground trade union, Solidarity.
  After a couple of days, my fellow inmates brought me the news that I was on the BBC. I was immensely relieved that my name had been made known—it was not just the vanity of a would-be politician at having his name in the headlines—and that it had been uttered by the BBC. For some reason, I did not think that anything odd could befall me. That is the extraordinary power that that institution has had for many years.
  Although the giant totalitarianisms of communism and fascism are no longer with us, there are still many dictatorships around the world. There are still many brave men and women, people of all parties—this is not a party political debate—and persuasions who go momentarily to lend a hand and give some help, and the BBC World Service provides a lifeline, in English and, indeed, other languages.
  586
  Concern has been expressed at the decision, some 45 years after General De Gaulle made his famous appeal to the French from the studios of the BBC to rally against Nazism, that the BBC, acting in advance of the budgetary pressure and cuts that were about to be imposed, dropped its broadcasts to France. That, perhaps, is no great loss, but around the world the French language remains a powerful instrument of communication. I hope that the BBC will continue to broadcast in French to Africa, south-east Asia and elsewhere where French is spoken.
  Referring now to my time as a journalist, I wish to reinforce the point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the BBC is an extraordinarily mean and tight ship. One could mount a different debate complaining about the often harsh treatment of the many foreign language journalists who work at the BBC. They are placed on short-term contracts. Their futures are not secure. If they bring their families with them, they can make no long-term plans. That, perhaps, is a debate for another occasion.
  The fundamental point about that extraordinary institution in the Strand is that it is the most remarkable repository of knowledge about the world. It would be a shame if any cuts reduced—for the whole of the country and, indeed, the Government and all of us who are interested in foreign affairs—that extraordinary source of knowledge.
  Many hon. Members have raised concerns about privatisation. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) talked endlessly about business values, about running the BBC as a tight business. 1 found the description of the BBC as simply another profit centre regrettable.
  Although, in essence, jamming no longer exists—we can go through it or overcome it technologically—there is a more modern form, where one seeks not to prevent but to buy or financially control the means of news distribution. We have seen the example in Asia of Mr. Murdoch succumbing—kow-towing—to pressure from the dictators of Peking to remove the BBC World Television Service from his satellite, and that is extremely worrying.
  I hope that the Minister will give a very strong commitment. We have heard a concession, although I am not sure whether it is real or whether it is a phantom—one of those things hissing through the ether. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State really gave the pledge that has been called for by most hon. Members, which has been called for in much press comment, which much of the country demands, and which, in the interests of Britain, democracy and information, the world thoroughly needs.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: It is difficult at this stage of the debate to find something new to say. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been as fulsome in their praise of the BBC World Service as they have. But perhaps it is not remarkable, because the organisation is held in great esteem by all hon. Members. We have all benefited from its services when travelling abroad.

  587
  Therefore, it is with some disappointment that we have to have a debate on cuts in the World Service, rather than on a more positive basis. However, we can use this debate, as we have done, to laud its many fine services, which are widely appreciated throughout the world.
  In an intervention, I told the Secretary of State that I was concerned to have clarified the apparent increase in the PFI to £30 million, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has just referred. It is important that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), should clarify that when he replies. Many of us were concerned that there was a contradiction in terms in what was being done in respect of the BBC World Service over a very short period.
  As I said, as recently as August 1995, the joint World Service and Foreign Office capital review body suggested that a further £5 million of capital spending should be made available to the World Service specifically for the new transmitter in Oman. Within weeks, the Budget comes along, the whole thing changes, cuts are announced, and only by utilising the PFI, which, as has been said several times, is not a cost-free initiative, can such capital expenditure now be achieved.
  The Foreign Secretary was rather disingenuous when he referred to what the managing director, Mr. Sam Younger, had said about looking positively at the PFI, because, as far as I recall, he failed to say that Mr. Younger also said that he was
  "greatly concerned at the possible implications for our"
  the BBC World Service
  "programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
  That is a much more telling comment than the previous one.
  The Secretary of State also failed to give due emphasis when quoting the BBC's chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, as saying:
  "We will certainly bend all our energies to exploring the suggested approaches. But we are concerned that if we are not successful, there will inevitably be a reduction in our range of programme services."
  Most people who have contributed or listened to the debate will accept that programme reductions are inevitable as a result of the cuts that have been announced. It in no way serves the Government's argument to say that such cuts are a small proportion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's cuts as a whole, so the Government are being kinder to the World Service, which everyone loves because it is a cuddly organisation with which everyone is friendly and with which everyone likes to snuggle up in bed. That may well be the case, particularly for people in some of the more remote parts of the world to whom the World Service can be a lifeline in many ways. But as far as hon. Members are concerned, the World Service requires proper funding in order to enable it to continue the job that it has done so effectively.
  Just how effective the organisation is was clear to me as a member of the Public Accounts Committee receiving the National Audit Office's report at the end of last year. The report essentially commented on the progress made since the Public Accounts Committee hearing which representatives of the World Service had attended in 1992. The report was clear in its praise for the cost-saving measures that had been carried out, for the advances made in technology, and so on.
  588
  On the one hand, the Government praise the organisation, but on the other hand say that, unless it uses the private finance initiative, they will not allow it to expand. Therefore, we need clarification, as does the World Service, of what the £30 million involves. I am particularly concerned about that. It will involve leaseback for the World Service, but what sort of costs will that entail? It is not clear to me just how that would sit with the commitments that the World Service may already have in terms of capital spending. I hope that we can have some clarification on that.
  I hope that the Minister of State will also clarify some of the answers that he gave during Foreign Office questions six days ago. On that occasion, he said:
  "The effect of the PFI … will be clearer once the World Service completes its discussions with the private sector."—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 201.]
  In a sense, that is self-evident. It will be clearer, but that is not exactly helpful at this stage. There will clearly be substantial start-up costs and other operating consequences for any PFI project. The World Service needs a commitment that its operating budget will be protected. We have not had that today.
  The Minister also said that real terms funding had been increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. That was the result of the previous Prime Minister's commitment to invest in an audibility programme—which, incidentally, has been praised again in the NAO report—but that also impacts on the joint capital spending review which was carried out which seems to have been jettisoned within weeks of being published.
  We know that that is the result of the Government's short-term interests and their need to cut public expenditure so as to enable them to cut taxes. We had one cut in November, and doubtless we shall have a further cut next November if the Government can stagger on that long. The World Service and many other areas of public expenditure are suffering for short-term gain, as perceived by the Government. That in itself is reprehensible.
  Many people throughout the world benefit daily from the BBC World Service. It would be a tragedy if some of those people were denied its services, which may be their lifeline. They may mean the difference between health and sickness, survival and death. The World Service contributes to such essential projects as AIDS education, reproductive health, women's education, and even, as has been mentioned, the dangers of land mines and how to avoid their horrific effects if disturbed. Such issues are of daily importance to people in many far-flung parts of the world, and that is widely recognised.
  Equally, we need answers from the Government not just on which languages will be cut but on what people in far-flung parts of the world will do if the World Service is no longer available to them. Should they tune into Voice of America, Radio France International or Radio Moscow? I do not know what stations may or may not be available, but where there is an alternative, the BBC World Service is still everyone's first choice, and the Government must give a commitment to ensure that the funding is there to make it possible for such services to remain for people to whom they mean much more than many in Britain appreciate.
  Arguments in favour of the World Service have come from both sides of the House this evening. Let the Minister of State now give the sort of commitments for which all hon. Members have been looking in the debate.
  637 pm
  Ms Joyce Quin: It is clear that the Opposition have been fully justified in the choice of today's debate, not least because we have forced the Government into giving the House assurances about the future funding of the BBC World Service, and we have caused them to think again. I rejoice in the fact that we have had some measure of success in that respect and I assure the Government, in turn, that we shall continue to monitor the matter closely because we are anxious that the World Service should be able not just to continue to do its valuable work for the future but to expand its services.
  Many powerful speeches have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There has been a great deal of similarity in the contributions, all of which have shown clearly the great esteem in which the World Service is held. We have also been reminded that many well-known people outside the House and outside the country have had great reason to be thankful to the BBC World Service. Mention was made of President Mandela and the Burmese opposition leader, to whom I wish to pay special tribute. As The Economist put it just a week ago, if high-class endorsements were all that were needed to ensure the BBC World Service's survival, it would be in no difficulty whatever.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) talked about the Government being in the dock for what was really a small amount of money. That point was also made effectively by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) during Foreign Office questions, when he said that the BBC World Service should not be
  "jeopardised for the sake of the price of a mile of motorway".—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 202.]
  I think that we would all strongly endorse that sentiment.
  Grave reservations have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Labour Members about the way in which the Government have approached the issue. We have been concerned not only about the substance of the cuts, but about the procedure involved. We say strongly that the Government were wrong to interfere in the triennium settlement in the way that they did. That was a dangerous precedent that must have lost the Government a great deal of trust. The points that were made about that settlement by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), were well taken.
  Many concerns have been expressed about the effects on the BBC's operating budget, especially in 1997–98. Although the Government have tried to deal with that in their concession today concerning the private finance initiative, I recommend them to read Hansard and consider carefully the reservations expressed by all hon. Members about that initiative in relation to the BBC World Service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have powerfully expressed concerns about that initiative's use, especially if there is any suspicion that the BBC's independence will be compromised. We shall monitor that matter closely in future months. The Government must not forget that important point. It would be good if the Minister dealt with some of those concerns in his winding-up speech.
  Many hon. Members have pointed out that the cuts about which we are concerned today come on top of other cuts. The hon. Member for Leominster
  590
  (Mr. Temple-Morris) reminded us of his early-day motion two years ago, which attracted a great deal of cross-party support in the House. Concern was expressed then about the cuts that the World Service was facing and, since then, the Government have tried to impose further cuts. That renders many of the Government's statements about their support for the BBC World Service unconvincing.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, that there was welcome investment in the service in the early 1980s, but we are concerned that that investment has been undermined by the Budget announcement of cuts. This is the worst and most inappropriate time to undermine the BBC World Service because, more than ever, investment in new technology will be necessary.
  An interesting article in the Financial Times yesterday talked about
  "A renaissance of radio for emerging markets"
  and
  "the launch of…three digital satellites to broadcast hundreds of high quality radio channels"
  to parts of the world that had not previously received such high-quality broadcasts. Labour Members and, I believe, many Conservative Members, want the BBC World Service to be at the forefront of those developments, and not to be put in the position of having to catch up subsequently, which would be difficult.
  Hon. Members have said that the BBC World Service has a dual role: it brings great political prestige to Britain in the way in which it portrays our country, and, as our motion points out, it promotes tremendous "respect and goodwill" for Britain throughout the world. We also know, however, that it is valued by business interests, which feel that it is terribly important in promoting both the English language and an awareness of our country as one to do business with in future.
  We pay tribute to the way in which the World Service has proved itself responsive to international events and crises. It doubled its output to former Yugoslavia during the recent events there, including FM re-broadcasts to Sarajevo. That work was important.
  I was glad that mention was made of the importance of the BBC's English language service and of the English language teaching for which the BBC World Service is responsible. About 5.5 million people around the world sit down and study English as a result of BBC World Service broadcasts. Those people do not tune in casually; they are dedicated listeners who use the BBC World Service to learn English. The BBC World Service is an important part of the English language teaching industry. If one includes such things as that industry's publishing spin-offs, it constitutes one of the country's 10 largest invisible earners. That is a dramatic figure, which we should take into account in considering the World Service and its activities.
  English language teaching through the World Service has some important achievements to its credit, including a tremendous increase in English use in the countries of central and eastern Europe and in parts of the former Soviet Union. We should not forget the importance of those countries to us in future and their commercial importance—we should be keen to emphasise that.

  591
  Many hon. Members have referred to the importance, and the difficulties at times, of our relationship with the Republic of China. I welcome the fact that the BBC World Service has reached agreement with many provincial stations in China, which reach out to a huge population, on the English language teaching work that the BBC World Service undertakes, yet we know that the Government have not been as supportive of the service as they should have been. I understand that the previous Foreign Secretary said that there would be a push to English language teaching, but, in the end, the push that was envisaged a couple of years ago during the London conference on Britain in the world did not happen. Again, we would like to investigate that for the future.
  The BBC World Service's education programmes are vital—I refer to health education programmes to the third world in particular; the missing persons help line, which has been operating in Somalia; advice to people on how to dispose of land mines, which cause many tragic problems in the world; and how to feed children in conditions of poverty or near poverty. All that BBC education work is important and well respected, as, of course, is the impartiality and the independence of the BBC World Service's advice.
  I endorse the comment that the BBC World Service is a world leader—it is a world beater and it leaves its competitors far behind. It deserves better treatment than the shabby uncertainties that have been forced on it by the Government. I am glad that, as a result of the debate, the Government have at least had partially to change their mind. We shall not hesitate to draw that victory to the nation's attention. Having said that, our motion corresponds closely to all the points that have been made by virtually all hon. Members in the debate. I therefore urge the maximum amount of support for our motion in the Division Lobby tonight.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): As the House will agree, we have had a lively debate. Above all, it has confirmed yet again the esteem and affection in which the House holds the BBC World Service.
  It is worth repeating some of the good news. As we have all agreed, the BBC is a great national asset, and it has flourished as never before under the present Government. World Service output is at record levels: the service now broadcasts in 42 languages—that includes the core 24-hour English language service—and its programmes are re-broadcast by more than 900 radio stations world wide. As we have heard, it estimates that its world audience consists of some 133 million—although the figure could well be higher—which is more than twice the size of the audience of its nearest competitor.
  That is a great success story for the World Service and for Britain. The Government have continued to provide strong financial support, because we fully recognise the high value and quality of the service and the important role that it plays in overseas representation. It has built up a reputation that is the envy of other broadcasters. That contrasts with the position at the end of the 1970s, when there was a critical need for the new investment in the World Service that we provided.
  Funding had stagnated for some years when the Government made those investments—£166 million of capital up to 1991 to boost audibility, and £29 million for a
  592
  new relay station in Thailand that should come on stream later this year. Funding has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since we came to power, and those investments have enabled the BBC to achieve record audiences. BBC World Television News is available to 43 million homes and 111 countries, at the cost of not a penny to the taxpayer.
  I hope that the debate has laid to rest many concerns that have been expressed in recent weeks, as well as some ill-informed comments. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the BBC is operating in a fast-changing world; we must look to the future, and ensure a sustainable and forward-looking basis for its operations. We all agree that the World Service and its commercially funded companion services in the BBC world wide add up to a uniquely varied and effective overseas broadcasting operation, and we all agree that that should continue. If the debate has helped to clarify some of the complexities of the broadcasting scene and its funding and to set the Government's overall approach to the World Service in perspective, it has served a useful purpose. On 13 December, I chaired the annual ministerial meeting with the World Service: I found that a useful and positive occasion, and greatly enjoyed the discussion.
  Let me now deal with some of the detailed issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. Let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that there is no question of privatising the World Service. The private finance initiative provides a new way of funding capital expenditure by making greater use of private sector expertise and money, but under the PFI the World Service remains in control of both programme content and programme distribution.
  Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanley: No. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to speak, and I now have very little time.
  The World Service is the customer; the private sector assumes more of the risk that is inherent in capital projects. Under the PFI, there will be a contract for each item, the terms of that contract will have to be adhered to and actions will follow any breach.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) mentioned the Arabic television service. That service is funded commercially, not by licence fee or grant in aid. The BBC has made it clear that, when it signs such contracts, it must retain absolute editorial independence and control, even when partnerships with local broadcasters are involved. I understand that the BBC is currently investigating interruptions to the Arabic service; in the light of its findings, it must decide how best to take matters forward with its partners. There is no connection with the PFI or privatisation of transmission, and involvement of private finance and expertise in World Service capital programmes will not in any way affect the service's control over content or distribution.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that most forms of international broadcasting depend on a local partner. The only exception is short-wave radio. There can be no guarantee that particular partnerships will always work out; those partnerships are a matter for the BBC. I know that the BBC will always place its editorial integrity above all other considerations, which is entirely right.
  In one of his knockabout interventions, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that there was a knife out for the World Service in the Foreign Office. He

  593
  explained that any reductions that had been made under successive Governments had been made by some mandarin in the Foreign Office. That is a pretty funny argument. Next year—I can give the figures for all three years if the hon. Gentleman wishes—the World Service current-cost reduction is 0 per cent.; that for the diplomatic wing is 4.1 per cent. In 1997–98, the reduction in current expenditure for the World Service is 1.7 per cent.; that for the diplomatic wing is 3.3 per cent. In 1998–99, the reduction for the diplomatic wing is 4 per cent., against yet another 0 per cent. reduction in World Service expenditure. If someone in the Foreign Office is out to get the World Service, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would probably say that that person is not doing his job.
  We have preserved expenditure on the World Service as far as possible. We know how valuable it is: that is why we tried to preserve the triennium system, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin). I understand the concern that was expressed about that three-year agreement. One reason why the Government have gone to such lengths to minimise reductions in the World Service allocation for 1996–97 is that we recognise the existence of the triennium. Nevertheless, there could never be any absolute guarantee of funding, three years ahead, for the World Service alone, of all public bodies. As it is, the service has fared a good deal better than not just the diplomatic wing but every wing of the Foreign Office. That says a great deal not only for it, but for the way in which the Government have cared for it.
  I was sad that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) introduced an element of exaggeration to the debate. Opposition Members forecast possible cuts in one or other language service, which I suppose was reasonable within the bounds of debate. Those forecasts were not correct, but they were reasonable. From the hon. Lady, however, we heard phrases such as "the silencing of the World Service" and "the withering and dying of the World Service". That is way over the top. The hon. Lady must have taken lessons from those masters of political hyperbole among the Liberal Democrats.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady did not allow any interventions.
  The hon. Lady has had many friends among the Conservative party. I was saddened by her statement that she regarded certain Ministers as
  "weak-willed, blinkered and ostrich-minded".
  That is not true, and it was sad to hear it from the hon. Lady so soon after she had been given so much support by, in particular, Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and at the Foreign Office.
  In fact, the hon. Lady published her speech in advance. It was fascinating to note that she omitted two paragraphs. One read:
  "The BBC, of course, has its faults as well as its virtues. While the World Service is cut to the bone, there's fat elsewhere in an over-sized, bureaucratic, administratively top-heavy organisation, with too many advisory bodies."
  That is how the hon. Lady described the BBC in her printed speech. Perhaps her courage deserted her—or perhaps that was another example of a Liberal Democrat speech in
  594
  which an hon. Member says one thing in the House and leaves the real meat for distribution to the constituencies. She left out another paragraph, and I am sure that hon. Members would love to read it. I was saddened by what she had to say. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is becoming impossible to hear what the Minister has to say. I address my remarks to people beyond the Gangway.
  Mr. Hanley: The debate has shown a sustained record of Government support for the World Service. It has shown a World Service in flourishing condition. It has also shown the complexities and changing nature of the broadcasting scene and the need for fresh thinking, of which there has been absolutely no sign from the Opposition. Admittedly, the Opposition now accept that the private finance initiative may have something. The BBC must move with the times if it is to keep its place at the head of the field, and we are determined to give it every help in doing so.
  The Government have produced the necessary investment for the World Service, which has freed the BBC to compete in a far wider range of overseas activities and to increase its representation. Of course, we must continue the drive for greater efficiency and we want to involve private sector finance and expertise more closely, subject to the BBC retaining complete control over its programming and distribution. The Government remain absolutely committed to the World Service and we intend to see it into the next century in the same flourishing condition that it enjoys today.
  I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions and for the care that they have shown for the World Service in our discussions over the past few months. I also thank many Opposition Members for their care and concern for the World Service and for what they say privately to us outside the Chamber about their admiration for the way that the Government have funded the World Service.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 310.

  Division No. 24]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Berry, Roger

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Alton, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Church, Judith

  Benton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  595

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Janner, Greville

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Denham, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dixon, Don

  Keen, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

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

  Dowd, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eastham, Ken

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Litherland, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Eddie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Foulkes, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fraser, John

  McFall, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McKelvey, William

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Gapes, Mike

  McMaster, Gordon

  Garrett, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Gerrard, Neil

  McWilliam, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Madden, Max

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maddock, Diana

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Marek, Dr John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Milburn, Alan

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heppell, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  596

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Simpson, Alan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Paul

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Snape, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Olner, Bill

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stevenson, George

  Parry, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Trimble, David

  Purchase Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Randall, Stuart

  Wallace, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Watson, Mike

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Ms Ann Coffey.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  597

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hawksley, Warren

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wastage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

  Evennett, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Legg, Barry

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  598

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spring, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sproat, Iain

  Needham, Fit Hon Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddidk, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walden, George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Willetts, David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mr. Michael Bates.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the BBC World Service on its international reputation for objective news and comment and records its appreciation of the valuable contribution it makes to promoting respect and good will for Britain; expresses its welcome for the 50 per cent. growth in real terms of its resources since 1979 as well as the significant increase in foreign language broadcasts over the same period; and shares Her Majesty's Government's determination to ensure that the World Service will continue to enjoy unrivalled success.

  Training and Community Action
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Government has failed to offer all members of society the chance to participate in building future prosperity; further believes that the Government has failed to achieve the investment in skills the British people need; deplores the cuts that have been made to the budgets of training and enterprise councils and the abandonment of the community action programme; and calls on the Government to ensure the workforce is equipped with the skills and training necessary to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
  It gives me pleasure to move this motion at the beginning of the Year of Lifelong Learning. It is a great pity that the Government's major contribution to that year is to cut training and education budgets, thereby undermining the life chances of those for whom skilling and learning are crucial, because they provide them with the tools to be able to earn their living and to contribute to society. The Government's record of the past year has been shoddy: cuts and the closure of programmes. The budgets of training and enterprise councils were cut by £197 million, and the Government had the cheek to take part of that money, invest it elsewhere, and then claim that it represented an improvement in further education.
  The November 1995 Budget announced a proposed cut in the departmental budget of 4 per cent., with £75 million taken from the training budget alone in the coming year. There was an interesting sleight of hand in the form of the announcement that there would be an increase in spending on training of £50 million over three years, but a one-year cut of £75 million. Three down and two up is the Government's usual cack-handed way of taking with one hand while pretending to give with the other.
  In every single major area of Government training programmes there has been a reduction in funding, at a time when people who are unemployed and seeking work have been more desperate than ever for an improvement in the availability of the skills that they need. Seven hundred and thirty thousand young men and women between the ages of 16 and 25 have no job and no training and are not in any education place. Nearly 300,000 of them have been unemployed and without a place for more than six months.
  Special needs training and education have been drastically affected. A recent report by the training and enterprise councils in the voluntary sector showed a general 10 per cent. cut in the number of starts for those with special needs in the past 12 months; in some parts of the country there have been cuts of a staggering 40 or 50 per cent.
  The switch to outcome measures has provided an incentive not to get young people into work but to get them out of the dole queues and off the register, whatever the consequences in terms of failing to give them qualifications that would equip them with the portable knowledge and skills to be able to return, time and again, to the job market and take up paid places in work.
  Mr. John Sykes: Why should the Government or the Conservative party take any lectures
  600
  from the Labour party or from the Minister about the jobless and job opportunities when the hon. Gentleman's party wants to impose a social chapter on this country's employers?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why they should take lectures. The Government have tripled the number of people who are unemployed, even on existing figures and by taking into account the 20 or 30 adjustments to the unemployment statistics and the way in which the Government have treated the training budget.
  Mr. Sykes: What about the social chapter?
  Mr. Blunkett: All we get is a very silly heckle of "What about the social chapter?" Unfortunately, even if we had signed the social chapter, it would not have protected us from the cuts and closures that the Government are inflicting on those seeking training and wanting work. The Minister—I nearly said the shadow Minister, seeing as I have been described as the Minister. The Government are so used to putting themselves in the place of the Opposition and thinking of us as the Government that it is quite hard not to predict too soon the outcome of the next election.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will not give way again for the moment. I will make some progress.
  I remind the House that on 7 January, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was reported in a Sunday newspaper as having the cheek to say that getting a job made the unemployed happy. I thought that that showed the cheek of the devil for somebody who has been responsible in a Government who have accelerated unemployment over the years to the point where they can claim credit for a slight drop in the number registered as unemployed.
  I return to the key issue of those with special needs who have been denied training and therefore the chance of a job because of cuts and closures. I return to the way in which the training and enterprise councils have been cut, the way in which the budget for training for the coming year has been reduced, and of course the way in which training has been switched to short-term rather than long-term provision to provide qualifications for life.
  We need to debate a very serious issue. Are we a low-tech, low-wage, low added value economy that has short-term measures to get people off the dole queue, or are we a high-tech, high-wage and high-investment economy that skills people so that they are able to earn their living, add value at work to the amount that they are paid, contribute to society and, above all, have the knowledge-based skills to carry them through an ever insecure and uncertain jobs market?
  The security that we can provide by equipping people with the ability to move from job to job and from workplace to workplace and to re-adapt several times in their working life is crucial to the future of Britain. That is why we are condemning the Government not only for the cuts that they have made but for the short-termism that underpins them.
  If there is a reduction—the Government have reduced the budget for special needs training—in the long-term emphasis on gaining qualifications, people become equipped people only for further unemployment and

  601
  short-term relief. They end up being placed in a short-term, low-paid job only to find themselves back in the dole queue through a revolving door. That is obviously short-sighted and extremely unproductive for our needs as a nation.
  Our emphasis on providing a stakeholder economy in a nation that pulls together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hear some "Ahs" from Conservative Members. Our emphasis is on a stakeholder economy provided by the Labour party, rather than a Burger King economy provided by the Conservative party of fat cats and hot dogs instead of investment in long-term training and skills to enable people to do a job.
  Comments that have been made on Grand Metropolitan remind me of the way in which the Government have undermined the careers service, which, as we have seen in south London, is crucial to training and employment.
  Mr. Sykes: On the subject of burgers, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a large manufacturer in my constituency that supplies various food chains with a specific product. People in my constituency have been guaranteed jobs because that company could not afford to build a factory in France due to the costs of the social chapter and the minimum wage. What did the company do? It doubled the production line in Scarborough instead, thus guaranteeing the jobs of my constituents. How does he answer that?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not need to answer it because it is patently obvious that companies which locate in France—companies have moved from Scotland to France as well as from France to Britain—have seen the value in France, Germany and Italy, as they do in the Pacific rim, of investment in long-term skills. If the answer to the question of whether we should invest in a knowledge-based, long-term skills economy of the 21st century is a Conservative Member saying that the Government's solution is to make our wages as low as possible in order to attract people to re-locate in Scarborough, the division between the two parties is clear.
  The division lies between a vision of Britain at the cutting edge of the world economy being able to compete with the Pacific rim countries, and a country that is determined to be on the fringe of Europe—a kind of offshore, floating low-wage zone in which Ministers do not seem to have grasped the fact that the biggest change in the past decade has been a drop in the demand for unskilled labour and an increase in the demand for those who could add value through their skills in a high-tech, information and communications era.
  Information and communications technology, and not the ability to fill tubs with mince, has to he the way forward for this country. Low wages will not get Britain out of economic recession. Investment in skills will put us ahead of the Germans, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese and the Singaporeans.
  One need only ask the Deputy Prime Minister that. He flew to Singapore to find out how they do it, but the Leader of the Opposition had already been. One need only ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since last year, over the head of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he started to undertake a skills audit. One need only talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
  602
  made it absolutely clear on the Radio 4 programme "UKplc" at the end of 1995 that there had been years and years of under-investment in skills for the future of this country.
  I suggest that Conservative Members listen to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer before yah-booing such future needs and skilling. Why has the Deputy Prime Minister undertaken a skills audit? Why is there universal acceptance that there is a major problem in the skills available in this country? Why did the survey, "Skill Needs in Britain", published in December, acknowledge that there had been a jump of 75 per cent. since 1994 in the number of companies in this country that perceive a skills gap?
  That is not my perception or that of the Labour party. It is the perception of industry across the country. Furthermore, 43 per cent. perceived a shortfall in technology skills and 30 per cent. perceived a shortfall in basic manufacturing skills. We know that that is correct because the CBI has published a report, backed up by the Trades Union Congress, on the need to invest in a different sort of economy for a different millennium. The divide between the parties lies in the recognition of that need.
  The report sneaked out by the Government in December, called "Lifelong Learning"—we obtained a copy and published it a fortnight before the Government released it—had only one thing going for it: it at least acknowledged that the Government were falling short of their own targets. Let me spell out some of the targets that have not been met. A total of 55 per cent. of our 17-year-olds stay on in full-time education. In France the figure is 87 per cent. and in Germany it is 93 per cent.
  Mr. David Shaw: They have higher unemployment.
  Mr. Blunkett: So I presume that the higher the unemployment figure, the more people stay on in education. If that were true, at the height of the Conservative-engineered recession in the early 1990s, our nation would have had some of the best figures for those staying on. The number of those staying on at 16 fell last year. I assume that there is a corollary and that because the Government have made up work make schemes and are now prepared to cut them, we will see an increase next year in the number of young people staying on in full-time education.
  Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will because I would love to be enlightened on this intellectually robust point.
  Mr. Shaw: When one compares France with the United Kingdom, surely one of the key points is that a young person in France stays unemployed for 22 months whereas, on average, a young person in the United Kingdom is likely to get a job after nine months. Is not one reason why the French young are so desperate to stay on in any form of education possible the fact that the minimum wage has prevented them from having opportunities for employment?
  Mr. Blunkett: Intellectually, this would be a useful argument if it were not for the fact that in America, which

  603
  is used as the exemplar of right-wing market economics, there has been a minimum wage and it has not affected the number of young people obtaining jobs.
  Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, because the hon. Gentleman's greatest contribution in the debate about France and Britain was to suggest that the harbour in Dover should be given away to the French. I suppose if proximity to France had enlightened the hon. Gentleman, he would have made a better contribution today.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has tunnel vision.
  Mr. Blunkett: I like that joke about me having tunnel vision. That was very amusing and I will set my dog on the hon. Gentleman.
  What about the targets that the Government set themselves? What about the 80 per cent. of young people who are to gain intermediate skills such as the GNVQ intermediate or five GCSEs at grades A to C by 1997? When it became clear that the Government were nowhere near that, the goalposts were changed and the target was set for the year 2000. It was also slightly adjusted and was made 85 per cent. for 19-year-olds. How are we doing at reaching that target? So far, we have managed to get two thirds of the way.
  We have seen a similar shortfall in the number of adults receiving advanced qualifications below degree level such as the GNVQ advanced, BTEC national or A-levels. Britain has a figure of just over 40 per cent., whereas the Japanese attained the targets set by Britain 10 years ago. The Germans have exceeded the target and the French have a target of 80 per cent. by the year 2000, not 60 per cent., which is what we have set ourselves.
  It is a sorry picture. There are targets that cannot be met and the Government are cutting back at the very time when those targets need to be attained. We have seen cuts in not only the training budget but in further and higher education. Fancy cutting two thirds of the capital budget over the next three years for the further education sector at the very time when we should be encouraging more young people to go into full-time education. Are we doing that? A few moments ago Conservative Members committed themselves to encouraging young people not to go into full-time education but to get the cheapest job possible on the ground that the more people who go into full-time education, the more desperate they must be. What a pathetic state we have reached.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts. Will he join me in condemning the 25 per cent. cut-imposed on the action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is unmanageable and irresponsible to expect those cuts to be made by 31 March this year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would serve the community and the long-term unemployed better by increasing funding for those community projects and by properly supervising the 240 of them across Northern Ireland, to ensure that the skill level of the long-term unemployed is raised and that the necessary community services provided for the needy can be maintained?
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The link between providing real experience, community skills and training is critical. As I shall show, the Government
  604
  have disregarded the idea that placing people in work and on community experience is good for them because it is too expensive. Accelerating closure demoralises those at the sharp end—those on the schemes—and undermines the confidence of providers who believe that they can be let down by the Government abandoning them at any moment.
  The OECD recently put us at 18th out of 25 in the skills attained by our people as a whole. The World Competitive Forum put us 24th in terms of people skills and 35th in educational attainment. Again, Conservative Members are having a little chuckle. I do not think that there is much to laugh at.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: We are not talking about everybody's children.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, as my hon. Friend reminds me, some people's children are doing all right because they can be supported and encouraged. We are talking all the time about helping those who are least able to help themselves. That is what one-nation Britain is all about. It is not just about looking after an elite and patting on the back those who happen to have had private education or who can succeed because they are funded through higher education. It is about ensuring that we look after those with no prospects such as the 700,000 to whom I referred earlier, the 280,000 under-25s who have been out of work for over six months, the 443,000 adults who have been out of work for over two years and the 750,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year. Those are the issues that we should be debating. Tonight's debate is important not just because it is about the future of Britain's economy, crucial though that is, but because it is about the well-being of individuals. If we are to have social cohesion as well as economic prosperity, we need to provide opportunities for every young person so that they are not on the streets or lying in bed but in work, doing work.
  There are some important schemes. We agree with the modern apprenticeships and the accelerated apprenticeships. The programme to encourage firms to become investors in people is crucial, but instead of 8 per cent. we should aim for 80 per cent. of firms to become involved in that. We should encourage partnerships and develop the best of business partnerships from school through to work with local authorities. That has been done in Leeds by Leeds city council, the Benefits Agency and the training and enterprise council. We need positive moves to use the resources at our disposal to encourage and support people in their endeavour to find work. We are not talking about punishment or the jobseeker's allowance, which will be debated in the House tomorrow, or about threatening people or introducing a project work scheme that is deliberately and calculatedly designed to provide a shoddy and unacceptable alternative.
  On 10 March last year the community action programme was supposed to be the great programme for the future. On that day, the Secretary of State's predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Employment, said—this was one of his most positive moves—
  "Over the next three years we are planning to extend the successful community action programme, which provides work experience and a route back to jobs for long-term unemployed people. It was due to end next year but we shall now provide 40,000 opportunities a year for the next three years."

  605
  That lasted only eight months. The Budget then overtook it and the Government changed their mind and abandoned the scheme. We must examine why that happened. In putting forward the project work scheme, the Government claimed that it would represent value for money and be a new idea. They said that the pilot schemes would provide a better alternative than schemes previously in place, and that the project work scheme would be a boon for those who had been out of work. It does not look that way when we examine the briefings given to Ministers.
  One briefing note was entitled:
  "Briefing for Ministers on the Budget. Requiring activity pilots: lines to take."
  The advice given on the project work scheme was:
  "This approach is new and will not he cheap. We do not throw money away on programmes that do not work."
  I shall examine that advice in terms of the £98 million that was spent in 1994–95 on the community action programme, and compare it with the advice in the same briefing note to Ministers, which describes the programme as "community action closure". Under the heading,
  "Questions that Ministers might be asked",
  it says:
  "Why are you closing community action when it has been such a success?"
  and advises that the Minister answer:
  "You will be aware that all Government Departments' budgets have been under very close scrutiny this year. It was quite clear that money would not be available for community action to continue at current levels. It was generally accepted that community action could not remain viable as a national programme if places were cut further, and closure, leading to the provision of its cheaper alternative, was seen as the preferred option."
  That note reveals that finding a cheaper alternative was the most important priority and that the prime decision to cut community action was being taken not because the programme was not working—the Government proclaimed that it was and said last March that they would expand it—but as a straight budgetary cut.
  The next question in the briefing is even more revealing:
  "I know that the public position is that recruitment stops after 29 December but should we really continue with referrals up until then?"
  The crucial answer is:
  "Yes. Community action has been a popular and effective programme, and it is important that it is run down and closed in an orderly way. Money is available for this run down and it is important that we spend this on continuing to help as many people as possible in the interim."
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his flow. Is he directly quoting or paraphrasing? If he is directly quoting the advice of Government officials to help Ministers answer questions that may be asked, the line that they take is familiar to those of us who have been Ministers.
  Mr. Blunkett: They are direct quotations from a document that briefs Ministers, and they show clearly the thinking behind what was going on. The advice was not terribly wise, but nevertheless it was given to Ministers, which is why the Government are gradually grinding to a
  606
  standstill after 17 years. I shall not quote the rest of the document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I shall quote just one more question and answer. The question is whether work of value to the community would now be carried out, and the wonderful answer is:
  "Community action was always primarily about helping people to find jobs"
  wait for this
  "not creating useful work opportunities for the sake of it."
  No wonder I was intervened on.
  An article in a Sunday newspaper on 7 January gave the game away on how the Government regard those schemes. It quoted the Minister as dismissing placing people in community programmes as being some kind of alternative to the makeweight that those pilot schemes are all about.
  We are discussing a programme of cutbacks in training, the abandonment of community action programmes and a belief that a cheap alternative to programmes that have worked must be put in place. The Government have introduced change after change, which has disrupted not only the poor devils trying to get work or return to work but those desperate to provide that work. It has disrupted those in the community who set up and worked on those schemes. It undermines training and enterprise councils' programmes and programmes for young people as well as old.
  What sort of Government proclaim in the Budget that they care about the long-term unemployed and then cut the training for work programme by 15 per cent., after an 18 per cent. cut in the previous year's estimated budget—£574 million cut to £488 million? What sort of Government pare back youth training, reducing the unit cost from £32 last year to £28 this year, having reduced it from an average unit cost of £50 four years ago? It is mean, petty and short-sighted—short-termism of the worst order.
  No wonder Conservative Members defend Burger King. That is exactly what their Government are like. They seek the lowest possible pay with the least possible investment in the future. They will be swept aside because we talk of giving everyone a stake in society.
  7.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the fall in unemployment and rise in employment that have enabled more people to share in the benefits of economic growth; supports the Government's determination to give unemployed people the help they need to find work; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to raise standards of education and training and enhance the nation's competitiveness.".
  I am indebted to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for giving me so early in the new year a chance not only to set out for the House the Government's achievements in constructive and effective action to help unemployed people back to work but, more importantly, to explain to him and his hon. Friends a few facts of life. Disappointingly, all that we heard from him was the usual catalogue of woes, the usual implicit demands for more money, regardless of circumstances, and the usual refusal to face up to the consequences for

  607
  employment of his policies to embrace the social chapter and a national minimum wage. As usual, he refused to recognise the fact that, next year, investment in education will be £878 million and we shall provide an extra £30 million for the careers service. Our training strategy, as laid out in the White Papers on competitiveness, is backed with £300 million of new money for real investment and is getting results.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall give way in a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman also refuses to accept simple facts, such as the fact that this country has only 5.7 per cent. of its work force on short-term contracts, whereas France and Germany have double that number and Spain has more than 30 per cent. It is also sad that he spent half an hour talking Britain down. He spoke of world economic forums. The so-called findings of the World Competitive Forum, whoever that is, are at odds with recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports.
  The OECD puts Britain second only to Denmark among European Union countries; on graduation rates, in the top five; and on spending per student, the highest in the European Union. During 1995, the OECD praised the increased number of young people obtaining good qualifications, the upgrading of labour force skills levels, the rapid take-up of general national vocational qualifications, the introduction of modern apprenticeships, the success of training and enterprise councils and the substantial rise in participation rates in education and training post-16 over the past decade. Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mention any of that. No wonder he asked for enlightenment. He thought that he had found it in a stolen document.
  Mrs. Prentice: The Secretary of State mentioned both the careers service and the training and enterprise councils. The young people of south London first lost South Thames training and enterprise council because of the debacle there and are now waiting for a careers service to be established on 1 April. Grand Metropolitan has received a spurious title of preferred bidder status from the Secretary of State, despite a much better, well-thought-out bid by local authorities. Exactly what guidance will she give young people in south London about where they should go post-16?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am confident that the well-resourced education and further education sectors in south London will be able to provide for the needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). I am also confident that there will be a good, effective careers service in place.
  Governments cannot create jobs; businesses do. What Governments can do is to create the conditions for healthy economic growth and get rid of unnecessary legislative burdens that would deter employers from recruiting additional people as sales and output rise.
  Only Opposition Members would launch a debate on employment that ignores the economic facts of life. Only they could ignore the unmistakable successes of the past three years: steadily falling unemployment; growth in jobs; a healthy flow of inward investment; and the lowest level of industrial disputes since records began. That, of course, is because they do not like to hear about success.
  608
  When the economy began to recover from recession in 1992, what did we hear from the Opposition? We heard that Europe, and Britain with it, faced a period of growth in joblessness. For Europe as a whole, that prediction has proved uncomfortably close to the truth, but for Britain it has proved wrong. Of course, we heard from Opposition Members that Britain, like the rest of Europe, faced permanently high unemployment. What did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) warn us in his best sepulchral tones? He said:
  "both unemployment and inflation are likely to rise".—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 94.]
  He was wrong again on both counts.
  There are now nearly 750,000 fewer people out of work and unemployment has fallen for 27 months in a row—it was down another 20,000 last month alone.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Before the right hon. Lady seeks to take credit for the fall in unemployment, such as it has been, is she aware that the cause of that fall has nothing to do with the Government's employment or training programmes and everything to do with their failure to achieve the linchpin of their economic policy, which was to maintain our position in the exchange rate mechanism at a highly overvalued rate? If the Government had succeeded, none of what she now claims would have occurred. Does she accept that?
  Mrs. Shephard: I expect that the hon. Gentleman would like to say something about his party's policy ambiguities in respect of the single currency. No doubt he will come to that when he winds up.
  Mr. Meacher: Answer the question.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am about to do so. It is the Government's labour market reforms and sound economic policies that have caused unemployment to fall faster and further than in other European Union countries. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) does not want to take my word for that, as he patently does not, let him take that of the OECD.
  Of course the recession years hit Britain; they hit everyone. Unemployment, at around 8 per cent., is still too high, but unemployment in Britain is lower than in Germany, where it is 8.5 per cent.; well below that of France and Italy, where more than 11 per cent. are out of work; and spectacularly lower than in Spain, Europe's last socialist stronghold, where the social chapter and statutory national minimum wage of the kind proposed by the Labour party have created unemployment of 22 per cent. That is what I think is meant by a stakeholder society: regulation piled on regulation; industry held back by the trade unions; bureaucrats controlling every aspect of people's lives; and one in five people out of work, as in socialist Spain—a stake right through the heart of British enterprise and opportunity.
  The reforms of the past 16 years have transformed Britain's labour market. Job growth between 1979 and 1989 was among the fastest in Europe—higher than in France, Italy or Germany. Three times as many new jobs were created in those 10 years as in the previous 10 years. Already, since 1992, more than 500,000 more jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by nearly

  609
  750,000. Every region of Britain and section of society is benefiting. We have fewer men out of work, fewer women out of work, and fewer long-term unemployed.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: It is interesting to hear the Minister recount those figures about how good everything is. Why is it that in Bradford, one third of the population is on some form of income benefit? The Government are doing nothing to solve the problem of long-term unemployment.
  Mrs. Shephard: As I have just said, every region of Britain, including the north, has benefited from the fall in unemployment. The north of England and Northern Ireland have the highest unemployment, but it is still lower than average unemployment in the European Union as a whole.
  In the 1970s—the last time that the stakeholders ran Britain—the north-south divide was a reality. There is now a smaller gap between the regions with the best employment and those with the worst unemployment in Britain than in any other European Union country. The north-south divide was a reality in the 1970s. Unemployment in Scotland, Wales and northern England was well above that of more prosperous regions. Now unemployment in Wales is at the Great Britain average and in Scotland it is below average.
  It would be interesting for Opposition Members to compare our regions with those of our European partners: Calais, for example, has unemployment of 16 per cent.; in Mecklenburg, it is over 18 per cent.; in southern Spain, one person in three is unemployed.
  It is against that background, that change in the labour market, that good news—which I can see that Labour Members are delighted to hear—and that fall in unemployment, that we should set our changed priorities in help for unemployed people.
  Priorities have to change with changing times, but the fundamental aim remains the same: to offer individual people the help that they need to get back to work as quickly as possible. It is the task of a responsible Government to give unemployed people that help. As the economic background changes, so the programmes must change to give people the help that they need.
  Today's labour market is buoyant. In November alone, in just one month, nearly 250,000 new vacancies were notified to jobcentres—the highest figure in any single month since records began. More than 7 million jobs become vacant every year. A quarter of people who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month, half within three months and about two thirds within six months. The Employment Service placed a record 2 million people into jobs in the past year. As jobs are more available, it makes sense to tilt the balance of our programmes increasingly towards helping people with job search.
  The number of opportunities for unemployed people will remain the same—1.5 million—even though there are fewer people out of work. Community action is to end because help needs to be focused more precisely and its place is to be taken by around 240,000 places, double the current number, on 1-2-1 to provide intensive help and counselling to unemployed people. There will be more help with job search. Under the jobseeker's allowance,
  610
  every unemployed person will have a jobseeker's agreement that will set out the steps needed to help get them back to work.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have been following the right hon. Lady's speech closely. Will she confirm that the document from which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) quoted was not drafted by a Department, but offered the considered view of officials and Ministers about the community action programme?
  Mrs. Shephard: I make it a practice never to comment on stolen documents, which I have said before in the House.
  The hon. Member for Brightside rightly mentioned that people with special needs require special help. I shall outline that help in a moment. The Employment Service will spend more time with jobseekers, reviewing their progress and giving help and advice.
  In April 1996, we shall introduce new project work pilots for 6,000 people in two areas. In the pilot areas, people who have been unemployed for more than two years will be given 13 weeks of the most appropriate help that the Employment Service can offer, which will be followed by 13 weeks of work experience for those who remain unemployed. The aim is to concentrate work experience on those who most need it.
  Around 21,800 severely disabled people will be helped in supported employment in 1995–96, at a cost of around £153 million.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the pilots operate in travel-to-work areas or in constituencies?
  Mrs. Shephard: That has been announced; the two areas are Medway and Hull. I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the details if he wishes, but I believe that his colleagues have the information already.
  Placing, assessment and counselling teams, PACTS, will provide an integrated, flexible and local specialist service for more severely disabled people, and will include access to supported employment. PACTS will give advice and practical help to employers to assist, recruit, train and retain disabled people.
  Training and re-skilling are also a key part of the strategy for improved economic performance—I think that we are all agreed on that at least. To compete successfully in world markets, clearly the United Kingdom and its companies must have a highly skilled, flexible and adaptable work force. We are committed to creating the conditions that will help to achieve that goal, which lies at the heart of the agenda for the new merged Department for Education and Employment. The merger has been welcomed by almost everyone, including some of the stakeholders—though not by the Labour party—so that we can bring together the workplace and the classroom to make what is done in schools, colleges and universities relevant to the workplace.
  We have national targets for education and training, which I certainly accept are ambitious and challenging. They are aimed at fitting Britain's economy and people for the 21st century. The two competitiveness White Papers lay out the strategy for achieving those targets, and we have backed it with £300 million.

  611
  Britain, uniquely, has a national network of training and enterprise councils, which are committed to achieving the targets. The TECs are creating better local training provision, helping local people and helping to regenerate local economies.
  National vocational qualifications are increasingly being used, and more than 80 per cent. of the working population is covered by them. I had the pleasure of awarding the millionth just before Christmas. More young people are learning about the world of work through work experience, and we are supporting arrangements to make it available to pupils in their last year of compulsory schooling.
  People are increasingly taking up 'or continuing education and training, and 84 per cent. of the work force has a qualification. TEC expenditure, contrary to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brightside, is set to rise, up 5 per cent., to £1.4 billion, above the expected expenditure in this financial year. The budget for youth programmes will rise by more than £100 million against forecast expenditure next year.
  Modern apprenticeships are a serious and major reform of our training system. More than 50 sectors now have training frameworks, and recruitment has started in all English TEC areas. The training for work budget is being scaled down precisely because there has been the fall in unemployment that I have described, but the provision for people with special needs will be retained at existing levels.
  Training for work remains a major programme, and quality will be improved to increase the emphasis on improved job outcomes.
  Mr. Blunkett: Can the right hon. Lady tell me why the budget of the access to work project has been frozen? Why are the Government proposing to reduce drastically availability of that key bridge between training and equipping for work and the opportunity for disabled people to get work?
  Mrs. Shephard: The budget of the access to work programme has already been exceeded during this year by some £6 million, so we are having to put a ceiling on expenditure this year. Meanwhile, we are consulting on the way forward for next year.
  Unemployed people are not a single lump; they are individuals—people of all ages, all backgrounds and with very different hopes and aspirations. No single programme is right for them all—some need re-skilling; some need work experience; and others need help with job search. Individuals differ, and their needs differ, which is why we have a mix of programmes and the flexibility to adapt them to suit individual needs.
  We shall continue to pay particular attention to those with special needs. The Government are committed to maintain the current volume of trainees with special needs, which includes those with disabilities, on the training for work programme, despite a reduction in the size of that programme. Disabled people will remain eligible for that programme without having to satisfy the six-month unemployment criterion.
  We believe in giving opportunities and rights to individual people, to real people of flesh and blood—not stakeholders. We want a society in which people are in charge of their own destinies; a society where people have rights, opportunities and choices.
  612
  Since 1979, we have given the people a real stake in society. We have handed the trade unions to their members; we have given parents the right to choose schools for their children and given people ownership of industry in a share-owning democracy. That is a society of opportunity and choice, with real participation in the choices that all of us face in everyday life.
  The people welcome those opportunities, and will not accept a return to the bad old days when the stakeholders ran Britain, and ran it into the ground. They will not accept more regulation or more taxation. They will not accept more bureaucrats telling them how to run their businesses and how to run their lives.
  On Sunday. the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) let the cat out of the bag—a Labour Government, he said,
  "cannot govern without the support of the unions".
  I agree. No Labour Government have ever governed without the support of the trade unions because no Labour Government can afford to ignore their paymasters. Unlike the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the hon. Member for Brent, East at least had the honesty to admit that, and to admit it publicly.
  But I have news for Opposition Members: now that the truth is out, the people can make a real decision about what is on offer. In the 1970s—the days of the stakeholder society—Government, big business and the trade union barons took decisions on people's behalf. Of course, we are told that under new Labour there will he no return to beer and sandwiches in smoke-filled rooms. Of course not, because under new Labour it would be deals over smoked salmon and dry white wine in a smoke-free zone. It is a case of new packaging and old ideas.
  People will not accept a Britain where public services are provided on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with only the rich able to choose for themselves which school is right for their child. People want a society in which they as individuals have a stake. For most people, the biggest stake they have in society is their job. Jobs give people not just income, but self-confidence and self-respect. That is why the priority must be to create more jobs. That is why policies that destroy jobs—the social chapter and the national minimum wage—the policies to which the Opposition are signed up, are such a cruel fraud.
  That is why the Government will continue to give priority to creating an economy that continues to deliver the jobs that people want.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the phrase "line to take" that appeared in a document. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State has made a speech using the line to take on stakeholders issued by Conservative central office. I think that what we have heard will become a familiar refrain. I do not know in which society or world the right hon. Lady is living, but she has not described the world or community that I represent.
  I shall tell the right hon. Lady a fact of life over the past 15 years: the Government believe that the frontiers of the state should be pushed back, but the state has never been more intrusive in people's lives. More people than ever before in post-war Britain are dependent on the state

  613
  because of the cumulative effect of Government policy. The state intrudes into people's lives because they have had to become more dependent on it because of rising unemployment and growing dependency on benefits. The Secretary of State may talk about an enterprising society and choice, but as a result of Government policy an increasing number of my constituents have been forced into a new dependency culture that they do not like and did not want.
  I should have hoped that, if nothing else, there could be a basic consensus on the subject of training. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that training and skills will be vital to competitiveness. In a world of global trade and transfer of production, one factor that national Governments can still influence, alter and support is skills training. As that issue is crucial, we should analyse what the Government have or have not done about it.
  I have been a strong supporter for a considerable time of training programmes in my constituency produced by Ministers and a succession of Secretaries of State for Wales. I promoted and supported modern manufacturing schemes introduced by successive Secretaries of State including the right hon. Lady's immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The right hon. Gentleman came and supported the sort of schemes that we have been backing in Merthyr.
  Over the past 15 or 20 years, there has been a bewildering series of changes in the programmes, which have been set up and then closed. We do not believe in the pick-and-mix approach described by the Secretary of State. The changes have often been driven by Budget changes from one year to the next. Some years a lot of money has been thrown at training programmes, and in other years programmes have been cut, almost overnight. Those changes have created in many people, particularly young people, resentment towards training—they feel alienated. Many people, particularly young people, now take a cynical approach towards the schemes and no longer believe in training. That development, which has been caused partly by the chops and changes made to training programmes over the years, is worrying and must be overcome.
  One in five school leavers in Mid Glamorgan cannot be accounted for: they are not involved in training or further education; they do not collect the dole and they do not claim benefit. They have simply disappeared from the system. One in five school leavers in Mid Glamorgan no longer have any connection with the system: they are not scrounging or claiming benefits and they are not following training programmes. I suspect that that large and worrying core of school leavers will provide the basis for future problems and concerns in our society.
  That worrying core of school leavers has been created partly because they no longer believe that community and Government training programmes will meet their needs, and who can blame them? Surely the Secretary of State knows that community action provided one of the bridges between welfare and work. I should have thought that there would be a consensus on the need to build bridges and make the connection between welfare and work. But the community action programme, which was one of those bridges, was blown up overnight. Despite the references
  614
  in the leaked document to the quality, usefulness and popularity of some of the community action programmes, that bridge will now he blown up.
  The community action programme is to he blown up without any assessment of the consequences. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales—the Welsh Office has responsibility for training in Wales—to tell me about the community action programmes. I received a written answer to my question stating that he did not know. The Welsh Office does not know about the programmes that it has suddenly decided to close—it does not have a list or any idea of the programmes' character. In a written answer the Welsh Office said that the information was not available centrally. Presumably, the Secretary of State sat at the Cabinet table and nodded through the closure of the community action programmes without any knowledge or detailed understanding of them.
  Many of the people who have been involved in the community action programmes over the years have felt that they were not always good, did not offer much training and were, in some cases, half-baked, but they felt that the programmes provided a necessary link to work. The people involved in the community action programme are those least likely to obtain employment. The Government used falling unemployment as their basic excuse for closing the programme.
  I am worried that those involved in the programme will not obtain employment. They arc people with special needs and less ability and aptitude than others; such people require the community action programme as they will not automatically gain maximum benefit from the improvement in local employment prospects. They are the victims and are less likely than others to obtain jobs. The right hon. Lady and the Government have closed one of the programmes that provided a bridge between welfare and work.
  Has the Secretary of State followed what has happened to the training for work changes that have been implemented and the introduction of the outcome-related schemes? Have the right hon. Lady or Ministers tried to find out what is happening in relation to training for work? It has increasingly turned out to be nothing more than an employment subsidy. I am not necessarily against employment subsidies, but it seems strange for the Government to propose them. Training programmes have shrunk and almost disappeared, and most training providers are paid to move people into employment as quickly as possible, irrespective of the quality or character of the job and irrespective of the potential employee's training or vocation.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will quote from the Coopers and Lybrand report on the programmes, which spelt out the point that I just made. On the Government's changes to the training for work programme, the report states:
  "training providers cannot actually create job opportunities but they can create training opportunities which are likely to improve a trainee's future employment potential."
  That is the one goal that the training for work programme is not achieving—it is not training a trainee so that he or she has the potential for employment. In most cases, it moves people into work as quickly as possible, irrespective of their skills or training. The programme might sound like a good idea—no one is against it—but it is not a training programme. It is an employment

  615
  subsidy. There may he a case for employment subsidies, but the programme is not a training scheme.
  How can we square that approach with the desire to lift skills and achieve targets for NVQ3 and NVQ4? The Secretary of State might not know about it and there is no Welsh Office Minister present, but only this week a new report on the 1994 Welsh training and education survey was published. It sets up targets for NVQ3 and NVQ4 to be achieved by the year 2000. The aim is that 60 per cent. of people in Wales should achieve NVQ3 by the end of the century. The figures show that at present only 39 per cent. are achieving that goal. How does the right hon. Lady think that the targets will be achieved when the training for work programme and many other skills and training programmes are diminishing?
  In the county of Mid Glamorgan, a part of which I represent, only 42 per cent. of men and 29 per cent. of women have the equivalent of NVQ3 qualifications. We are supposed to reach 60 per cent. by the year 2000. How will that target be achieved in four years? What method and approach will achieve such levels of skills in four years, enabling us to make a leap of the magnitude that the targets require?
  We are supposed to achieve a target of 30 per cent. at NVQ4 by the year 2000. At the moment, Mid Glamorgan achieves only 18 per cent. How is that skills gap to be crossed? How will the leap to those standards be achieved?
  My worry is that that lot, the Conservative Government, are like Soviet commissar planners. They announce targets and believe that somehow they will he achieved. If one announced Soviet production, it was reality. Similarly, it appears that if one announces training targets for the year 2000, they will happen irrespective of anything else.
  I must tell the Secretary of State and her Ministers that the skills and training element of many training, training for work and other programmes is shrinking. I understand that the only target is to get people into jobs irrespective of how dead-end those jobs are and irrespective of what qualifications those people obtain in the process, what needs are met and what training is associated with that.
  How will those targets be reached by the year 2000? They are firm, strong, powerful commitments made by the Government. I do not believe that in many cases the programmes that they offer and deliver in the communities that I represent will achieve that type of target. We have a common aim, a common purpose, a consensus in those terms, but I do not believe that the methods that have been adopted, especially the fundamental changes that have occurred in training for work programmes, are likely to achieve such targets.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside spoke about the skills audit. We have one as a result of the Welsh training and education survey. The other thing that the survey shows is that, whereas NVQ3s and similar levels of training are achieved by 50 per cent. of employees in the public sector, only 30 per cent. of employees in the private sector achieve them. The old-fashioned public sector has somehow maintained, and tried to pay for and support, training standards.
  For all the Secretary of State's passionate support for enterprise and the private sector, which we all support, according to the survey only 30 per cent. of private sector employees are achieving NVQ3s, as opposed to 50 per
  616
  cent. in the public sector. A gender gap has opened up and now a gap has opened up in relation to whether one works in the public or the private sector.
  I am not being condemnatory. I am not being censorious about private companies and private enterprise. However, the right hon. Lady should know that, in the past 15 to 20 years, in the private sector, people have regarded training as a cost that must he cut, not an investment that must he made. That is the fundamental, simple, basic thing that has occurred.
  The Secretary of State may not like to hear talk about stakeholders, and so on, but somehow those attitudes must change, not among employees hut among those who employ. Why is it that figures of the type revealed in the survey demonstrate the low skills in much of the private sector in Welsh economic, industrial and employment life?
  I do not know which companies Conservative Members represent, but in the 1980s, with the requirement for labour flexibility, under the pressure to achieve the lower costs that were essential for economic growth, which the Secretary of State mentioned, the first thing that went was training. Training was abandoned furthest and fastest by many employers. I understand the reasons, given the struggles and the background against which they worked. They cut training almost as though it were a cost, and did not regard it as an investment.
  Somehow, a combination of Government and companies must restore the fundamental principle that training is an investment, not a cost. Whether one likes it or not, companies in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Germany—western European companies and Asian companies—believe that training is an investment, not a cost. Until, between Government and companies, we turn the United Kingdom attitude around and decide that training is an investment, not a cost, we shall not achieve the targets and the levels of training and skills that I hope that we have a common cause to achieve. I must tell the Secretary of State that, given the figures, those surveys that have been produced—at least in Welsh terms, in the communities that I represent—demonstrate that we must do something more and different from that which has been offered to us by the Secretary of State's speech.
  We have transferred the burden of costs from companies to the state. It is curious that the cost of state financing of training has continually increased. Responsibilities and costs that were borne by companies in the early days have been transferred through unemployment, and through state and training and enterprise council training schemes, and so on, to the state.
  It is time to give companies a major incentive and place on them a simple responsible duty to train. That is the first and fundamental change that we want, so that the Government, companies and individuals have one simple belief—that training is an investment in the present and the future, not a cost that may be cut and altered under the impact of change.
  Sadly, the most recent Budget demonstrated that not just companies believe that training is a cost that must be cut and a burden; so do the Government.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is right that I should begin by asking why it is that, if the subject of the debate

  617
  is so important to the Labour party that it gives up a precious half of one its Supply days to debate it, so few Labour Back Benchers seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Five.
  Mr. Luff: Two Labour Back-Bench Members.
  Perhaps it is because Labour Members know that the economic position in their constituencies is so good now that their heart is not in it. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has witnessed a 19 per cent. reduction in unemployment in his constituency since the most recent general election. The other Opposition Member who I believe is trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), has witnessed a reduction of 21 per cent. in his constituency.
  The Labour Front-Bench spokesman who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), has witnessed a reduction of 20 per cent. in unemployment in his constituency. I am also happy to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who will close the debate, has witnessed a reduction of 30 per cent. in his constituency. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who represents the Liberal Democrats, has witnessed a reduction of only 17 per cent., which probably says something about the wisdom of the Liberal Democrat vote. In East Antrim, I believe that the reduction in unemployment since the general election has been 27 per cent. I am glad to say that in Worcester, there has been a larger reduction than in any of those constituencies—about 32 per cent.—since the general election.
  Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman should recalculate his figures. One hundred and twenty of my constituents were made unemployed last week.
  Mr. Luff: I am very sorry to hear that; none the less, there has been a substantial reduction in unemployment since the general election. Perhaps that is why few Opposition Members are showing their faces in the Chamber tonight.
  None of us disputes the fact that training is important. It is important at two levels—for the individual and for the country. We live in a world of rapid change. I know that evidence is a little unclear on how much faster that rate of change is occurring in jobs. I am currently on my sixth job—I hope my last. I shall be only 41 next month. There is no training for the job of a Member of Parliament except rather inadequate on the job training.
  I believe that the rate of change in employment is increasing for individuals. Major career changes during one's life are much more likely. If one is to remain economically active during one's life, retraining is increasingly important. If an individual is to contribute to the society of which he or she is a part, retraining is increasingly important. I strongly agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when she said that the most important stake that an individual had in society was his or her job.
  I believe that there is a moral dimension to this subject—a "one nation" dimension. I very much resent the Labour party's attempts to appropriate that phrase, given what it did to create two, three or who knows how many nations during the winter of discontent.
  618
  Training is also important for the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. We all suffer if competitiveness declines. If talent is wasted, output is forgone and if output is forgone, wealth will be reduced in the public and private sectors—whether it is private consumption or public investment in hospitals and schools.
  It is no wonder that training has become Labour's mantra: a substitute for any alternative economic policy. The Labour party has adopted a motherhood and apple pie approach which cannot be opposed but which, when examined carefully, is completely vacuous. Who invented training in the modern British economy? I believe that it was the Conservative party. I believe also that Labour's attitude to training is hypocritical on at least three counts: Labour's record while in office, its failure to acknowledge what we have achieved during our period in office, and its plans to increase unemployment.
  Let us examine those points in turn. The first hypocrisy is Labour's record. I know that 1979 is a long time ago, but since then expenditure under this Government has increased two and a half times in real terms. There has been a huge increase in expenditure on training. Labour Members lecture us about modest cuts—which, as my right hon. Friend said, are a response to falling unemployment—but Labour's expenditure on training was scandalously low. That was one product of Labour's economic failure and incompetence.
  The second hypocrisy is Labour's failure to acknowledge that we have done any good. Labour Members highlight only the problems that they allege exist. I wonder whether shadow Cabinet meetings to discuss the training budget are rather like the marvellous scene from "Monty Python's Life of Brian". Hon. Members will remember that scene when the conspirators are plotting to overthrow Roman rule. One of them asks, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" and another replies, "Well, there are the aqueducts." The first conspirator then says, "Yes, but apart from the aqueducts, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Someone else then says, "Well, there are the roads," and the reply is, "Yes, but apart from the roads and the aqueducts, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Law is then mentioned. along with the roads and the aqueducts—I am sure that hon. Members know how the litany continues.
  Perhaps Labour Members sit around the shadow Cabinet table and say, "What have the Conservatives ever done for training?" Some brave soul may say, "Well, they have increased expenditure sharply," and the reply may be, "Yes, they have increased expenditure." Someone else may say, "Well, they have created 1.5 million training places," and the reply may be, "Yes, they have created 1.5 million training places and increased expenditure sharply." Someone may then suggest, "Well, they have set up the training and enterprise councils; they are quite successful." The reply may be, "Yes, they have set up the TECs, they have created 1.5 million training places and they have increased expenditure sharply. Okay, apart from that, what have the Conservatives ever done for training'!" Someone else may then say, "Well, they have introduced national vocational qualifications."
  So the Conservatives have introduced NVQs, they have set up the TECs, they have created 1.5 million training places and sharply increased expenditure. Apart from that, we have also increased participation rates in higher and further education and training. So we have increased

  619
  participation rates and established NVQs, and TECs, produced 1.5 million training places and increased expenditure—Labour Members may well ask what the Conservatives have done for training.
  Of course, there is a third element to Labour's hypocrisy. The Government are now able to look more critically at the training budget because we have reduced unemployment sharply. However, the Opposition's policies would increase unemployment. There are more people in work as a proportion of the population of working age than in any other major European Union country. Some 68 per cent. of those of working age are in employment compared with 66 per cent. in Germany, 60 per cent. in France and 53 per cent. in Italy. Only 8.2 per cent. of our population are unemployed, compared with 8.4 per cent. in Germany, 11.4 per cent. in France and 11.3 per cent. in Italy. Youth unemployment in this country is 17.2 per cent. Although I agree that that is too high, it compares favourably with the European average of 20.6 per cent., the French figure of 26.5 per cent. and the Spanish figure of 40.3 per cent.
  Mr. Rowlands: As the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons with 1979, will he tell us the unemployment figures in 1979 and compare them with today's figures?
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this Government's record is a damn sight better than that of any other major European Union country. That is the point: we have done extremely well compared with our competitors.
  The Opposition plan to increase unemployment. I shall not labour the point, but we all know what the effects of the social chapter and the minimum wage will be. If Labour Members wished to use training to cope with the unemployment that they would create, they would have to spend massive amounts of money simply to maintain the level of training for the unemployed that we have achieved.
  The trouble with the Labour party is that it cannot tell good expenditure from bad. Labour Members believe that making £1 of taxpayers' money work harder is always worse than the simpler option of taking another 10p from the taxpayer. They do not understand that we must look critically at every expenditure programme, including training, and ask whether it is delivering value for money to the taxpayer.
  If unemployment is falling as a result of the Government's successful economic policies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must take a decision: should she cut expenditure proportionately in order to protect the taxpayer fully, should she maintain expenditure and increase the per capita sum, the total real value of the budget, or should she strike some kind of compromise between the two? I generally favour the latter course, and that seems to be what the Government have done. They have compromised between protecting the taxpayer's interests and increasing the real, effective training budget.
  Unemployment has been falling sharply for 27 months. The number of long-term unemployed has decreased by 12 per cent. in the past year and it is 28 per cent. lower than when the community action programme was established. Youth unemployment has decreased by 24 per cent. in three years. That is why I have no hesitation in suggesting that the motion is rank hypocrisy.
  620
  It highlights only one scheme that has been abolished and the Opposition forget entirely the new initiatives that we are taking to adjust our training programme to changing circumstances.
  I refer to the 1-2-1 scheme, the new project work pilots, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted in her speech, and other very important changes which I believe will assist the unemployed, including the jobseeker's allowance. Then there are the reforms to the social security system, family credit, national insurance, housing benefit, the hack-to-work bonus and child care changes. They will help to reduce unemployment still further.
  I shall conclude on a local note. The community action programme has proved valuable in my constituency; it has done a good job. However, I am prepared to support its abolition, for the reasons that I set out earlier in my speech and because of the dramatic improvement locally in the situation facing the long-term jobless. Since October 1993, total unemployment has fallen from 13,735 to 10,909 in the area covered by my training and enterprise council. It is encouraging to note that the percentage of long-term unemployed in those figures has fallen also, from 37 per cent. in October 1993 to 29.6 per cent. in October 1995. It is a smaller proportion of a smaller figure. That is why I can accept the abolition of the community action programme.
  The debate gives me an opportunity to praise the work of my local training and enterprise council, Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council. It is one of the best-performing TECs in the country and it is run excellently by Alan Curless, the chief executive. Its performance with regard to youth training has improved significantly—especially among young people with special needs at NVQ1. However, I am pleased to say that there have been similar improvements at levels 3 and 4. Hawtec expects the modern apprenticeship scheme to improve the results even further. I highlight to Labour Members the fact that the cost of delivering that success is decreasing. I add one caveat: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to the concerns of some TECs about the cash flow effect of the method of financing modern apprenticeships. I do not know whether those concerns are well founded, but this is a considerable worry to my local training and enterprise council.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I am not suggesting that Conservative Back Benchers or those on the Government Front Bench are creating unemployment deliberately; I accept that it is a sin of omission rather than commission which is due simply to their incompetence. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the devices and the programmes and schemes that the Government have introduced to mitigate unemployment have absolutely no effect in constituencies such as mine, where youth unemployment is more like 70 or 80 per cent. than 17 or 18 per cent.?
  Mr. Luff: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am sorry that I gave way to him. I did not realise that he was not in the Chamber to listen to the earlier part of the debate and I did not know from which direction the voice on the other side was coming.
  I am pleased to say that the emphasis on training for work has altered locally to provide more focus on the long-term unemployed, particularly those aged between

  621
  18 and 24 years who have been unemployed for more than two years. Contrary to the pessimism expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, job outcomes locally have improved significantly as a result of training for work. We expect something like 45 per cent. of programme leavers to find work in the Hawtec area in 1995–96. It is perfectly possible for the TEC in my area to manage the reduction in the training for work budget that is already on the table, but I hope that there will be no significant reductions beyond that.
  My TEC is an excellent one and it gives me great confidence in the Government's management of training issues. I am delighted that it is merging with the local chamber of commerce. The Three Counties chamber of commerce also has an honourable and fine record in providing training programmes. I understand that an extraordinary general meeting is to be held on 7 February with a view to getting a new board in place by 25 March. It will be a merged chamber. I am sure that merged TECs and chambers will do a great deal for unemployment throughout the country and that they have a great deal to offer.
  I urge the House to reject the foolish motion that is before it.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: During the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), I was depressed by many of the interventions of Conservative Members, which suggested that many of them do not believe in the importance of qualifications for members of our work force.
  In one respect, I was delighted by the speech of the Secretary of State, just as, in one respect, I was delighted by the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Both of them stated clearly that they believe, along with Opposition Members, that training is crucial. The right hon. Lady drew attention to national targets for education and training. She rightly said that they are ambitious and challenging targets, but pledged herself to doing what she could to help the nation achieve them. There is unanimity among some of us in recognising that improving the skills and qualifications of our people is crucial. As the hon. Member for Worcester said, that is vital for the future competitiveness of the United Kingdom.
  Unfortunately, Conservative Members started to giggle when reference was made to various league tables. In some instances the Government like league tables, but when the United Kingdom is not doing well in them, they do not favour them so much. The Secretary of State, like the hon. Member for Brightside and me, recently attended the North of England education conference, which was addressed by Sir Geoffrey Holland. Sir Geoffrey drew attention to league tables that have not been mentioned so far this evening. For example, he observed that 64 per cent. of our work force has no vocational qualifications, whereas in Germany the figure is 26 per cent. In Switzerland, it is only 23 per cent.
  Sir Geoffrey referred to other league tables that set out the proportion of the work force that holds intermediate-level qualifications. In France, it is 40 per cent.; in Germany, 63 per cent.; in the Netherlands,
  622
  57 per cent.; and in Switzerland, 66 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is only 25 per cent. That is real cause for concern.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise that skilled employees lead to increased productivity. That in turn shows through in increased competitiveness. In improving skills, we shall he creating jobs, reducing the level of unemployment, increasing the country's economic prosperity and increasing the well-being of all our citizens.
  The evidence of a connection between skills and competitiveness is well established. Sir Geoffrey Holland gave the example of employees engaged in woodworking in Germany. On the shop floor, 90 per cent. of those people have a craft-related qualification. In Britain, only 10 per cent. are so qualified. Output per employee in Germany is about two and a half times higher than that in Britain. There is the connection. The sadness is that we are significantly falling behind our European competitors in ensuring that members of work forces have job-related qualifications.
  Another sadness is that it is not a new problem. Indeed, 101 years ago, a report was produced by the Royal Commission on secondary education. I shall quote one of its passages. I apologise for the language, which is not entirely politically correct. The passage reads:
  "The educational opportunities offered to boys and girls who do not proceed to the universities, but leave school at 16, are still far behind the requirements of our time. The disadvantages from which young Englishmen suffer in industry and commerce owing to the superior preparation of their competitors in several countries of Continental Europe are real."
  Sadly, that is still true.
  The United Kingdom is failing to deal effectively with a skills deficit when we compare ourselves with our competitors. At the same time, we know that the number of low-skill manual jobs is sharply to decline. We shall not succeed as a low-wage, low-skill economy. It is sad that, in this European Year of Lifelong Learning, we arc debating the way in which the Government have made cuts in employment and training programmes that are crucial to increase the skills of our work force and to ensure that we meet the targets that the Secretary of State rightly says are vital.
  It is ludicrous that about £25 billion a year is being wasted in benefits paid and taxes forgone because of the high level of unemployment. About £9 billion is still attributable to long-term unemployment. Something desperately needs to be done. We must not make cuts in the mechanisms that could reverse the situation.
  The hon. Member for Worcester was right to say that, over a number of months, there has been a considerable fall in unemployment levels, including long-term unemployment. Although I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is able to comment on tomorrow's figures, I had better not do so. The reduction in unemployment levels is clearly welcome, but the number of long-term unemployed as a percentage of all those unemployed is still rising. There are still about 800,000 who have been out of work for more than 12 months. About 1.3 million have been out of work for more than six months. Short-term unemployment is the source of long-term joblessness. It is important that we provide the short-term, as well as the long-term, unemployed with opportunities to gain the skills that will be crucial if we are to create the competitive climate and economy that we need to see.

  623
  My party has made it clear that it believes that training and education are critical. Increased investment in training and education is also critical if the United Kingdom is to succeed in an increasingly global market. We need to unlock the potential of all our people, including the nearly 2.25 million who are unemployed.
  It is sad that the Government's response to the challenge, as the motion and the debate have highlighted, has been to close the community action programme and to reduce expenditure on employment and training programmes by 4 per cent. We are seeing also a cut of about £200 million in the support offered to the training and enterprise councils.
  Those Government decisions show a number of key points, first, that the Government are simply interested in short-term measures for tackling long-term unemployment. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out earlier, there have been constant changes in the programmes—short-term measures brought on stream and then scrapped and another gimmick introduced to give the pretence that the Government are taking real action. Secondly, they show that, after 17 years in office, the Government have found it impossible to design and implement a high-quality, high-investment skills programme for the unemployed that can contribute to the achievement of the national targets for education and training.
  Reference has been made to the cuts in the training for work programme—a cut of 16 per cent. of planned expenditure. That shows that the Government expect training and enterprise councils to do more and more with less and less. The hon. Member for Worcester said that the cut in the training for work programme was in response to a reduction in the number of the long-term unemployed; but that is not the only thing that is happening. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney pointed out, the funding mechanism for training for work is altering to the output-related funding method, with the various problems that that will introduce, and that he so adequately described. There will also be a change in the basis of the planned cost per start under training for work, which is to reduce from £2,549 in 1995–96 to £2,477 in 1996–97. That, of course, is in cash terms. The real terms cut is greater than that implies
  We all know that there have been problems with training for work. We recognise that only some 30 per cent. of participants have achieved a national vocational qualification, and that slightly more have gained a work placement subsequently. Improvements need to be made to the programme. One cannot bring about improvements if one is reducing not only the funding for the programme overall but the amount of money that will be available per person on the programme itself. That suggests that we will not, through the programme, he able to add the contribution that is necessary to achieve the targets. It is worth reflecting on what the director of strategy and policy at the TEC National Council said:
  "The News about TfW is not good…It will be particularly difficult to support higher level skills training."
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made the point eloquently. Training for work, underfunded as it will now he, will gradually move away from being a training programme that helps people acquire the skills and qualifications to one that gives people somewhere to go and spend their time, supported by the Government.
  624
  Another thing that is worrying is the way in which the Government have cut, prematurely, the community action programme. The hon. Member for Brightsidc referred to that. That is a particular blow to the long-term unemployed and to the voluntary sector, which has been involved in administering many of the schemes. Those schemes have been able to help some of our most disadvantaged citizens. Many of the voluntary organisations that have supplied places, particularly for disadvantaged adults, through the community action programme, may well, I fear, withdraw from involvement in any subsequent training programme activities. That would be a significant loss to our training endeavour. Many of the long-term unemployed, many of whom have benefited from community action, will now he largely excluded from training and enterprise council training programmes.
  The Government have argued that the community action programme is no longer needed, hut, if that is true. they must explain how they will support the 40,500 people benefiting under that scheme. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister, as we heard from the Secretary of State earlier, that a number of new projects have been put in place, but together they do not provide the support for that number of people.
  Too much of Britain's talent has been wasted and too many opportunities have been lost. The Government's decisions on training and employment programmes mean that that situation will continue. We should be boosting training for work. We must stop the constant stop-go policy of a new gimmick here and a new gimmick there. We need some security that, once introduced, training programmes will be given an opportunity to develop and improve, so that we can get better outputs from those programmes. We must also look at a number of other issues that have not been touched on tonight.
  One of the things that the Government have done—I give them credit for this—and also the TECs, which have been promoting it, is to introduce the investors in people programme. That was a welcome initiative. When it was introduced, I was sceptical about whether it would work and whether companies would be interested in it. I was proved wrong. Companies are increasingly aware of the value of training their existing work force. Investors in people has provided the boost for many of them to do that.
  As other hon. Members have said, we need to encourage more people to train. One of the ways in which we could do that would be to consider introducing a 2 per cent. remissible training tax. If a company did not spend up to 2 per cent. of its payroll, it would be taxed on the difference. If it were spending up to 2 per cent. of its payroll on training, it would avoid the tax. That would provide the stick to go alongside the carrot that is provided by investors in people, and ensure that companies that have not yet recognised the benefit of providing increased training for their existing employees might well do so. We need to find other imaginative ways of providing support to the long-term as well as the short-term unemployed. We would not, however, cut back on the programmes that already exist.
  It is clear that there is a degree of unanimity in the Chamber about the importance of training and about increasing the skill levels of our work force and providing support to the unemployed. By making cuts in the training programme, the Government will undermine the possibility of increasing the support that we offer, and

  625
  will undermine the ability of the unemployed to gain the high-skill jobs that they need for their own benefit and which the country needs them to have for the economic prosperity of the nation.
  8.57 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate instigated by the Opposition, but I am a little surprised that only three of their Back-Bench Members are present for it.
  Mr. Meacher: Only three Conservative Members are present.
  Mrs. Peacock: It is the Opposition's debate.
  I have always supported training and education from whomever and wherever it came. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were the job opportunities and community programmes. They were mostly then, as perhaps now, organised by the voluntary sector, usually councils for voluntary service. What a difference that made to setting young people, in particular, on the path to a job. Many more opportunities are now available to help people back into work.
  I was intrigued by the Leader of the Opposition's reference to stakeholders. I wonder whether he travelled through Romania on his way back from Singapore, visiting Dracula's castle at Bran. I believe that he is the stakeholder whom most people know best. I am not sure that it has much relevance to our modern-day society.
  Special help is available for the unemployed, in particular for those unemployed for longer than six months. There are job clubs, training for work, job interview guarantee schemes and work trials. They are all designed to help unemployed people with different needs. It is well recognised that there cannot be a universal programme for everyone seeking work.
  Work trials enable unemployed people to try out a job for up to three weeks, giving them the opportunity to show employers what they can do and giving employers the opportunity to see whether people's skills are appropriate for the job that they are offering. That will ensure that many more round pegs go into round holes, rather than the mismatching that we have had in the past.
  Restart courses help those who have been unemployed for two years. The jobfinder's grant covers additional expenses. That is most important because many unemployed people need such help, particularly after a long period of unemployment. There is also help for the short-term unemployed. We have already heard how important it is to help the short-term unemployed, to prevent them becoming the long-term unemployed. Job search seminars give practical advice to people unemployed for more than 13 weeks. The travel-to-interview scheme pays the cost of travel to interviews away from an applicant's immediate home area.
  We have already heard of the many investors in people schemes. That must he good. Many of my manufacturers realise the importance of their work force and the training that they give them and they wish to retain that trained skilled work force. They put huge amounts of time, effort and money into those schemes.
  626
  We also have training and enterprise councils, although I am sometimes a little concerned about them. They have rather palatial offices with many jobs and I am not entirely convinced that they arc creating as many jobs outside as I would wish them to do. My hon. Friend the Minister might like to say a word or two on that. Any unemployment is unacceptable and I am delighted to see the reductions in the number of people unemployed since 1992. We now have 733,000 fewer people unemployed since that date.
  When I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, there were 1,900 long-term unemployed in my constituency. That figure has now been halved. It is still too many, but it is always moving as some people become unemployed and others return to work, and it is moving in the right direction. Unemployment in my constituency now stands at 6.7 per cent., much less than in 1983.
  Unemployment has fallen in the past 27 consecutive months, and we must all welcome that. It is also interesting to note that youth unemployment in July 1995 was 24 per cent. lower than that in January 1993. European Commission figures show that the United Kingdom has more people in employment and fewer people out of work than any other major European country. It is right that that should be well documented.
  The community action programme was established in 1993 when the number of long-term unemployed was 28 per cent. higher than it is now. I understood that it was introduced for one year only and then extended. As I have already said, the public sector provides a considerable number and range of opportunities to help young and unemployed people.
  Our own industries also provide training for their work forces. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles has a first-class successful training scheme, not just for young people but for people of all ages within its work force. That has produced many more NVQ and other qualifications in recent years. That is most welcome.
  As the House will he aware, from April 1996, incentives for employers to take on someone who has been out of work for two years or more will be extended. Employers will be able to claim a full rebate of such people's national insurance contributions for up to 12 months. That will help many people back into work. It is suggested that the figure could be as much as 120,000—I would certainly welcome that.
  Another measure that I have long wanted to see is that, from April 1996, full housing benefit will be extended for four weeks to people going back to work. All hon. Members have had cases where someone has been out of work, has had help with housing benefit, has got a job on Monday the first and has not been paid until Monday the 31st. How do such people manage during that period? We have a responsibility to help them take that job, but not he penalised by having one month's arrears of rent or mortgage at the end of that period. I welcome that measure whole-heartedly.
  It is interesting that we are told that there are not very many jobs, yet the Yorkshire Evening Post, Yorkshire's daily newspaper, regularly has a billboard saying, "500 jobs today" or "600 jobs advertised today", so some jobs are available. I know someone who recently came back from Australia, having been there for 20 years, with no income—practically nothing. Within a week, however,

  627
  he had found himself a job, which was interesting. He did not know the system, but he went out, spent a week looking, and got a job.
  Since coming to the House in 1983, I have taken a great interest in employment, investment, education and training, because they are closely linked. They are essential to UK plc's future and especially to our manufacturing industry, of which we have much in West Yorkshire.
  As I have said, during the 1980s, manufacturing investment enabled us to achieve huge reductions in unemployment in my constituency of Batley and Spen. Between November 1986 and November 1987, unemployment dropped by 19 per cent. Between 1987 and 1988, it dropped by 27 per cent. and between 1988 and 1989, it dropped by 22 per cent. In the early 1990s, unemployment dropped by 13 and 5 per cent.
  For the people involved, however, unemployment is individual. It is a traumatic time in their lives. They are not just a statistic. For them and their families, it means much heartache and grief about how they are going to manage, and the whole family suffers. Sometimes we become carried away with statistics and forget that we are speaking about individuals and their families, and we forget what a traumatic time it is for them.
  In Yorkshire, there has been massive investment in industries. In my constituency, since 1984, well over £200 million has been invested in jobs, new processes, new technology, new factories—which are there for everyone to see—and of course training because what manufacturing company wants to invest a huge amount of money in a new factory, new technology and new equipment and then not bother with the work force? Many manufacturers say to me that the most important part of their business is their work force, because, without it, many of the machines, however clever, would not operate—of course, they realise that. If we had not invested in training, we would not be able to manufacture and export our high-quality goods around the world.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) insulted all people who have invested money in businesses. Suggesting that the only investment in the United Kingdom is in burger bars is outrageous. He should think carefully before making such a sweeping statement, especially as, if he went a little further around Yorkshire with some of his colleagues, he would see evidence of continuing massive investment.
  We need to continue with training and education, but they must start in our schools, and continue with programmes and in our industries. We do not need to lecture industries about that. They know that and are already doing that work. The money that they have put into the investors in people schemes is a prime example. However, we also need to have retraining for people who become unemployed. Although everyone would mourn the loss of any scheme that comes for a short time and goes, the whole jigsaw of training, work and people is continually moving and, unless our response by way of programmes to that movement is continual, we shall become static and not gain the benefit.
  In his winding-up speech, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word or two about how he sees the future of the TECs and encourage them to consider their budgets a little and to push a little more of that money into people's training.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: We all agree that this is an important debate; but we are discussing real, damaging cuts—not imaginary cuts—and I am staggered by the complacency of Conservative Members. Hearing the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wax lyrical about the enterprise culture, describing Britain as the enterprise capital of Europe, we can understand why the Tories are so far behind in the opinion polls: the simple reason is that they do not live in the real world inhabited by my constituents and by the majority of British people and their families.
  The millions who are in work fear redundancy because companies have not invested in new technology, research and design and re-skilling programmes. Many parents would have been angered by the debate; they do not know what future their children have and whether they will make their way in the world. If there are no jobs, those children will have no prospects. As for the people who are unfortunate enough to he unemployed, they are confined to seeking temporary or part-time work involving low pay and long hours because of their lack of skills. That is a disgrace.
  I do not believe there is such a thing as a one-nation Tory. Tories do not believe in society; they believe only in the development of the individual, and in a system based on greed, in which the big pussies can have fat pay cheques while the unemployed suffer cuts in benefit. The Tories have ceased to develop training programmes, and are attempting to create the illusion that everything is all right.
  What is the Government's real motive for cutting training budgets? Could it be part of their economic strategy to keep a permanent pool of unemployed people to act as a stimulus to a low-wage economy? That is the Government's vision of Britain: they want to retain a divided society, so that they can claim some imagined success. Belatedly, some remorse has been shown by, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, who has called for a job skills audit. He has finally realised that Britain is slipping in the world prosperity league.
  An alternative title for today's debate might be "The Waste of a Nation". The £20 billion that has been spent to keep people out of work could have been used to create real, permanent jobs. Every successful economy knows that, if success is to be maintained, there must be a structured and dynamic training and employment programme rather than stop-start schemes that merely massage the unemployment figures. There have been 32 changes in those figures. Even I could make unemployment apparently fall if I changed the calculation involved.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend find in his constituency, as I do in mine, that the very intonation with which young people utter the word "scheme" indicates the contempt that they feel for those devices for massaging the unemployment statistics'?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Those of us who come from manufacturing constituencies knew the routes to employment: we knew that there was a prospect of work. Nowadays, young people see not the prospect of work but meaningless schemes that do not develop their skills.
  More than 3 million people in Britain are unemployed. and 750,000 have been out of work for 12 months or more. My city must create 700 jobs just to stand still—a

  629
  city with a proud manufacturing base that was decimated by the loss of 22,000 jobs in four years. Why have the Government something against manufacturing industry? As a consequence, they have destroyed many of our communities. The Secretary of State recognised that the north has been hit particularly badly.
  In 1979, manufacturing represented 30 per cent. of gross domestic product; it now represents less than 20 per cent. We need only look at any industrial sector to see that the machinery for manufacturing is imported from our competitors in Europe or elsewhere in the world.
  To cut the training budget as the Government have is to destroy the country's future. According to the survey, "Skill Needs in Britain", conducted at the Department's request, employers were concerned about the skills gap, and 21 per cent. of employers and companies with more than 25 employees thought that there was a significant gap between the skills possessed by their current work forces and those that they needed to meet their business objectives. Another study, conducted by the Business and Technology Education Council in August 1995, showed that 50 per cent. of firms employing more than 100 people thought that their profitability would be affected by skill shortages among very young workers. Out of the 21 countries in the OECD, the United Kingdom lags behind all but Turkey in the proportion of 17 and 18-year-olds in education. Currently, 180,000 17 and 18-year-olds are not receiving education, work or training. That is a national disgrace.
  When the training and enterprise councils were set up, they took the money that would normally have gone to further education colleges and other provision through local authorities. The objective was to bring together public and private sector players, with the emphasis being placed on the high fliers in private sector chairing the TEC boards to provide business acumen to remove the shortfalls in the skills gap.
  Bradford TEC has been very successful. It has a committed board that is determined to meet Bradford's needs, but in recent times the board has become frustrated as its resources have been reduced year by year. Its budget has been reduced by £1.8 million this year—a cut of 9.5 per cent. Incidentally, the training for work budget has been cut by 24 per cent., in a city with a rising population and above-average youth unemployment, especially among ethnic minority communities.
  The Government have claimed radical change in the education and training sectors in the past 16 years, but the reality is different. They have created confusion on standards and they have depressed and sapped the morale of teachers, lecturers and training providers. Worst of all, they have thrown away all the golden opportunities given to them—for example, by North sea oil—to equip our country with a highly motivated, highly skilled work force capable of creating wealth, which would lead to investment and growth to revitalise Britain's economy.
  The abolition of the community action programme will attack again the most vulnerable in our society. One in five households with a member of working age has nobody in work, compared with one in 12 in 1979. Those people have the right to work without the opportunity to work and that means that they have no stake in society. The community action programme had its critics, but it
  630
  was set up by the Chancellor in 1993 to offer work to 40,000 unemployed people, and it has been seen to he working. The Government have shown that they lack the will and the ambition to support and build up education and skills for life.
  I suppose that at the end of this month we shall see another relaunch for the Prime Minister. Like the rest of the relaunches, it will not work because he is out of touch and the Government are out of touch. A society in which as many as one third of the people are marginalised and cut off from the opportunity to secure worthwhile employment is a society that squanders the potential of people and the resources of its economy.
  What have the Government got against trade unions'? Why do they try to create conflict where it does not exist'? Forty-seven of the top 50 companies in this country have union agreements and organised trade unions. We see the benefits of work forces working with their managements to re-skill, to introduce new technologies and to develop the ability to work together; yet the Government are caught up in political dogma. The cuts in the training budgets are damaging and will affect people. The Government do not care about unemployed people: they care only about maintaining their aspiration to look after the top 10 per cent. of the country. I believe that we shall see the return of a Labour Government who will make a commitment to training for people and ensuring that we have a structured training environment.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am delighted to participate in this important debate, but I do not want to follow the depressing example of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her excellent speech and on putting on the record the facts and figures on jobs, vacancies and the number of people participating in post- 16 training and education. It is a pity only that more hon. Members, especially from the Opposition, were not in the Chamber to hear those figures.
  In today's fast-changing world, the speed of technological change has meant that training and education are even more important. Skills have to be updated in nearly all areas. For individuals to be able to meet today's challenges, there must be a change in the approach to education and training. The old idea of a job for life is, regrettably, no more. In addition, once qualified, people may have to be retrained. However, I welcome the many opportunities that our society offers today.
  There are more opportunities for our people in training and education than ever before. I am appalled by Opposition Members and their depression. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was all doom and gloom. Opposition Members never acknowledge the vast opportunities for education, training and retraining that are available now to the vast majority of people. The tremendous opportunities of today were just never available in the past.
  As the world of work changes, so too must education and training change. Of course the young and the unemployed must he our top priority, but so must those who want to upgrade their skills and advance their opportunities. It is not only the Government and the taxpayer who should provide training, however. The Government have an important role, but so do industry,

  631
  business and commerce—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I should like the private sector to do even more training and retraining.
  The Government are to be congratulated on endeavouring to offer more opportunities and help to the young and the unemployed. The investment has been considerable: 1.5 million places in employment and training programmes in the public sector for the coming year. With the improving economic climate and falling unemployment, the future looks much brighter for people who are seeking work.
  In my constituency and across the whole borough of Bexley local businesses feel increasingly optimistic about the economy. We are fortunate in having an excellent further education college. Bexley college, as it is now called, is primarily located in Erith; but under the successful leadership of Dr. Jim Healey and his team it has become a centre of excellence for education and training. The college's initiatives have helped to train and retrain many local people and given them the skills to assist them in their search for work.
  It is vital that our education system equips our young people with the necessary foundations on which to build their careers and their lives. The education reforms of the past decade have tried to do just that. Apart from the introduction of the national curriculum, the publication of school results, testing and the increased amount of inspection of schools, much has also been achieved in vocational and technical education. There is no mention of these successes in the Opposition motion. Further training for specific jobs would be useless if the basic education had not been provided in the first place. At long last vocational qualifications of a high quality are being provided, and are increasingly accepted by employers, pupils and parents. GNVQs have at last won acceptance, which is very good news.
  The greater independence of further education colleges such as Bexley college has allowed them to develop and to provide a wider variety of courses, thereby ensuring that the young, the not so young, the unemployed, and those who want to return to work after bringing up children can enrol in training courses, improve their qualifications and update their skills. That is vital to society and individuals alike. The work done by such colleges is to be commended. It is certainly valued by many people throughout the country.
  I confess myself disappointed that the private sector does not do more training. Elsewhere, in America and Germany, private industry, commerce and business are much more geared to providing training and retraining for their work forces, and are prepared to sponsor more young people through college and university. I should like to see much more of the same here. Private organisations, as well as the Government. should do more training—a fact not mentioned by the Opposition because they believe the Government should do everything: the taxpayer should provide everything. I believe that there is a balance to be struck between the Government and the private sector, because it is essential for this country that we have a skilled, qualified work force.
  632
  There is much more to be done in the field of training, but we should also commend the good work that has already been achieved. I totally reject the Opposition's pretence that cuts in certain programmes will be the end of civilisation.
  Mr. O'Hara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way'?
  Mr. Evennett: I am afraid not, because I must leave time for the Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Education and training are and must be at the forefront of an opportunity society. Economic success, low inflation, growth and an entrepreneurial approach are the keys to lasting jobs. We are after lasting, long-term jobs and not short-term, temporary ones. It can be terribly depressing for people who have been on a training scheme to get short-term work, only to find themselves back on the unemployed list. It is unfair; in fact, it is cruel. Our training should be aimed at long-term, worthwhile and vital jobs.
  To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the Government have abandoned all their training facilities, and advice and assistance to young people and those seeking work—whether young or not so young. That is ridiculous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described in great detail the training provisions and facilities that are being developed and are available for those who are unemployed or leaving school and college.
  As well as training, the importance of assistance and practical help in finding work must be paramount. Jobseekers need help and advice, which they can often find at jobcentres. We have very good ones in Bexley where people regularly go and are given tremendous help. Job clubs, too, are vital in encouraging and helping people, especially with curriculum vitae, in gaining confidence and completing applications. As well as training in particular skills, people need help and advice. I welcome the opportunities available to help and advise people who are looking for work. Many of my hon. Friends have already cited the long list of available schemes for training and retraining and I shall not repeat them in view of the pressure on time.
  The Government have achieved a great deal in education and training. An improving economy, education reforms and relevant training are the foundations for getting unemployed people back into work—whether young or not so young. In looking to the private sector to do more, we should encourage private sector companies to ensure that their workers are trained and retrained in the necessary skills.
  As I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say, the most important part of the debate has been the fact that it has made it abundantly clear that the Opposition are totally bankrupt of any ideas about training or retraining. Of course they want to spend more taxpayers' money. They want to spend more on just about everything in their portfolios, although they do not like to admit it in public.
  We want a good training and retraining programme—which I believe that we have—that will allow people to amend and update their skills and get long-term, worthwhile jobs.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I could scarcely believe my ears when the Secretary of State opted to

  633
  promote her case in the debate by taking a stand on the unemployment record of the past 15 years. One would never guess if one listened to the right hon. Lady that under Labour, unemployment scarcely ever rose above 1 million, whereas under the Tories unemployment has scarcely ever been below 2 million in the past 15 years.
  One would never guess if one listened to the Secretary of State that there have been 25 or more changes in the unemployment figures, which according to the independent Library estimates, have added about 900,000 to the employment count. The real rate of unemployment is not 8 per cent. but probably nearer 11 per cent., and certainly one of the highest in Europe.
  We were treated to a selective list of the worst black spots of unemployment abroad—while of course ignoring our own—amnesia, a re-writing of recent economic history in Britain and a cavalier dismissal of the central fact that, despite tiny falls in unemployment in recent months, unemployment remains. [Interruption.] This is the key point. Unemployment remains at an historical high, which is totally unacceptable.
  The Secretary of State also said that the Government have given people rights and opportunities. I would say that the Government have done more to take away rights, stability and security than any Government since the 1930s. There has been a doubling in the number of those on low wages, a tripling in homelessness, 1 million people have been trapped in negative equity, and millions have been exposed to job insecurity caused by the Government's deregulation of the labour markets. Perhaps worst of all, 14 million people—a quarter of our entire population—are living on income support, which for an adult is just £46 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) rightly said, social and economic policies have generated welfare dependency. It is incredible that the Secretary of State should say that the biggest stake that people have in society is a job, when the Government's record on unemployment is worse than that of any other Government since the 1930s.
  At the centre of the debate has been the serious and damaging overall cut in departmental expenditure and its impact particularly on training for the adult unemployed. Overall, the departmental budget will be cut by £150 million in the next financial year. If one compares next year's budget with what was previously planned, the cut is £430 million. At a time when education, training and employment are widely seen as the key to national recovery, those figures speak volumes about the Government's priorities.
  The main burden of the cuts will fall on employment and training, which will lose up to £120 million as a result of reductions in the allocated budget, as the Government have admitted, of 4 per cent. The adult unemployed will bear the brunt of that cut. The original figure planned for expenditure on training for work in 1994–95 was £724 million. The planned figure for training for work next year—1996–97—was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech two months ago to be down to £488 million. Compared with the actual expenditure just two years ago, the planned expenditure on training for work in the coming year—and the outturn may well he lower—is being cut by no less than 30 per cent.
  634
  That provides a rather different impression from the bland and complacent excuse trotted out by the Secretary of State, that a 4 per cent. cut in employment and training programmes must he seen in the context of what Ministers rather coyly describe as a welcome 12 per cent. fall in long-term unemployment in the past year. Of course, as I made clear earlier, Ministers have a great deal to he coy about. The Secretary of State did not answer the point that I made earlier and she is not paying attention now, although I am not surprised because it is an extremely embarrassing point. The only reason for any fall in unemployment in the past three years is that the Government were forced, kicking and screaming, to abandon the exchange rate mechanism in September 1992. To quote the fall in long-term unemployment as justifying abandoning the community action programme or cutting other training programmes is irrelevant, because the fall in unemployment was wholly due to the lower interest rates and exchange rates that that permitted. It had nothing to do with the Government's employment and training programme.
  Another reason why the Government's rationale for cuts in training and employment budgets is transparent and shabby is that it suggests that unemployment and skills shortages are problems that are well on the way to being satisfactorily resolved, so expenditure can be safely reduced. The truth is rather more sobering. The fall in unemployment is flattening out at the still extremely high level of 2.25 million—that is on the Government's account—which is 500,000 above the low point of the previous cycle, and there are still about 800,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year. With the exception of the short-lived blip in 1989, unemployment in this country has not been below 2 million in the past 15 years. That is an appalling record and certainly does not warrant any let-up in programmes designed to reduce unemployment.
  The idea that our training programmes are now so satisfactory that we can afford to reduce them is preposterous. The United Kingdom currently invests about 0.6 per cent. of GDP on labour market measures. Germany and France invest twice as much and many other European states invest even more. The UK would need to raise spending by £4 billion to £5 billion to come into line with the European average.
  In many ways, the picture is even more stark. More than one in two workers in Germany hold vocational qualifications at craft level, whereas in Britain only one in five do. Two thirds of foremen in German manufacturing industry hold higher intermediary qualifications, whereas in the UK the figure is just 3 per cent.—one twentieth of the level in Germany. [Interruption.] Had the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). been present at the start of my speech, he would have heard me say that the House of Commons Library estimates that the real unemployment rate is well above the Government's 8 per cent. figure and probably nearer 11 per cent.
  I could continue with such comparisons. Compared with that of our international competitors, our training record is still badly deficient and trailing. There is no justification for cutting our training budget against the background of such a large and prolonged shortfall in skills training. Evidence shows that the skills shortage is growing. In 1992, 5 per cent. of companies reported some hard-to-fill vacancies. In 1993, the figure was 6 per cent.

  635
  and in 1994, it was 11 per cent. In 1994, the "Skill Needs in Britain" survey showed that one person in five had no in-work training whatever. Moreover, an Industrial Society survey showed that, in the same year, employers spent only £380 a year on training per employee compared with £490 only 18 months before. Far from breaking through the skills training gap, the Government are compounding the slide in this country's skills training in the workplace by cutting the employment and training programme.
  It is not just about money; it is also about the fundamental question of what existing training programmes really achieve. Training for work has largely become a job placement programme for people who are already job prepared, while few opportunities exist for those who are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made that point eloquently in his speech. The Government's current focus on job outputs within a short time scale inevitably discourages the recruitment of anyone who is not ready to go straight into a job. The result is that the extent of value added and of skills produced by that system is often negligible. As the Government say, improved job outcomes are being recorded, but less training activity is being delivered.
  Provision for special training needs is in a bad way. Contracting for the special needs of adults is now undertaken largely to meet a numbers quota. Even specialist providers say that they can no longer afford to meet the requirements of people with special training needs. In addition, the voluntary sector providers who make available the majority of places for special training needs are being squeezed out of the training market, with substantial cuts in both income and places on adult and youth training programmes. As a result, programmes steer clear of the long-term unemployed and the special training needs population, who should be the most important customers of all. That, probably even more than money, is the central flaw in the Government's current training strategy.
  The other key issue is that of money.
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Ah.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the Minister says, "Ah." Perhaps he is paying attention for once.
  The money to deliver the output is simply not available. As a result, basic and higher skills training has been severely reduced, to the extent that in many areas it does not exist, even where there is labour market demand and skill shortages. A national survey of TECs carried out recently in my constituency of Oldham found that the number of places last year decreased by 21 per cent. compared with the previous year. I could go through the whole list—33 per cent. in Manchester and up to 34 per cent. in Barnsley and Doncaster. That has happened not just over the past year; funding has continuously declined for the past five years.
  In that time, the budget for adult training has been halved, while the level of unemployment has marginally increased. In 1991, the budget for employment training, which was the forerunner of training for work, was just over £1 billion. Unemployment in that year was just under 2.3 million; last year it was, on average, slightly over 2.3 million. Yet the average payment per trainee has fallen, year on year. from £50 in 1992–93 to £28 last year.
  636
  I am even told that one provider who has had a contract since 1991 for the same provision shows that the contract price per trainee per week has been reduced from £84 to £30. It is impossible to provide a quality skills training programme with cuts on that scale.
  The debate has exposed fundamental weaknesses and failings in Britain's current training system that Government policy, especially the continued funding cuts, has clearly exacerbated. Several radical changes are urgently needed. First, output-related funding dominates all other measures of performance. It is distorting the system away from providing longer-term skills and quality in favour of short-term jobs. Moreover, a successful outcome is assumed even if the job lasts only a week and irrespective of what sort of job is involved, how much is to be paid, and whether the person is to work full time, part time or whatever. The system needs to he dropped or at least radically changed.
  It is also unacceptable that almost two thirds of youth trainees leave schemes before they end; half find no job at all; and another half have no qualifications to show for it when they leave training. We need a new criterion of performance that takes much more account of the qualifications gained.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I am reluctant to give way because I have so little time. I do not intend to take more than a few minutes. There is an urgent need for stable funding—a point about which my hon. Friend waxed most eloquent, when he said that there is constant chopping and changing and great uncertainty in TEC budgets for that reason.
  The Government's continually changing funding criteria for TECs make it difficult for them to plan ahead. Knowing the Government as we do, nobody was surprised when it emerged a few weeks ago that their latest wheeze for compensating for fresh cuts in the TECs budget was to start to fund special training needs courses from the national lottery.
  I shall quote from a letter to the chief executive of the National Lottery Charities Board from the director of policy at the TEC National Council. It states:
  "The Earl of Stockton has provided my office with a copy of the correspondence between David Sieff"—
  the Marks and Spencer chief who chairs the National Lottery Charities Board—
  "and himself concerning the possibilities of TECs working in partnership with local eligible organisations to develop programmes for re-skilling the disadvantaged that might be considered for grants from the National Lottery Charities Board."
  One would have thought that even this Government would regard that as more of an eccentricity, or even a joke, than a serious policy.
  Special training needs must be better safeguarded. Several options should be urgently considered, such as a separate programme for the most needy, ring-fencing of money for their training and greater concentration on basic skills training. One or other of those should be adopted.
  Lastly—
  Mr. Evennett: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Meacher: I am taking less time than did some Conservative Members.

  637
  Lastly, we strongly deplore the premature closure of the community action programme, which offers 40,000 to 50,000 people a year work experience, individually tailored help with finding a job, work projects of benefit to the community that would not otherwise he done and priority access for people with disabilities. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said at the start of the debate, only a year ago the then Secretary of State for Employment announced that it would be extended for a further three years at a cost of £70 million a year. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are now much more motivated to make savings for tax cuts than to preserve employment programmes, when even the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) of all people, regarded the programme as valuable enough to extend for another three years.
  Improvement in the quality and coverage of training should be at centre stage for our national economic recovery. The Government have manifestly failed the nation in both the scale and quality of training provision, which still falls far short of that of our international competitors. If the Government's record and the wheedling excuses made for it by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are the best that they can do, the sooner the election throws them out, the better.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Today's debate, albeit brief, has provided the House with a wonderful opportunity to highlight the contrast between the Government's successful and real policies to help the unemployed and promote training with the dearth of policy suggestions from the Labour party.
  I shall start by examining the central issue of cuts in training in the Labour motion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, in real terms there will he more money in the budgets for TEC programmes next year than there is this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have been cut."] There has been no cut in the overall amount of money for TEC programmes.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is not true.
  Mr. Paice: There has been no cut in real terms; rather, there has been a 5 per cent. increase in the overall amount of money for TEC programmes.
  We are proposing to shift money between programmes because of the shifting priorities in the needs of the unemployed, because of the fall in unemployment and the increasing value and importance that are attached to modern apprenticeships, to which we are adding another £115 million. The Government have always recognised that we must catch up with the skill levels of our competitors, which was why we have concentrated on reforming the education and training system to deliver better results. We have merged the Department for Education and the Department of Employment, because we recognise that they go hand in hand in meeting the competitive challenge from the rest of the world.
  We have achieved great things. More than 90 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in education and training. Almost one in three of our young people go on to higher education, compared to one in eight in 1979, and twice as many of them get A-levels as in 1979.
  638
  Of all the accusations and challenges that have been thrown at the Government by the Opposition this evening, the accusation that an approach has been made to use the lottery to fund training for special needs must he resolved immediately. The TEC National Council has already made it absolutely clear, publicly and for all to hear, that that accusation is totally without foundation. That fallacious story has arisen because the National Lottery Charities Board approached one TEC for the names of organisations that are involved in helping the disadvantaged.
  I must confess that I was somewhat surprised when I heard that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would sum up for the Opposition. He has never made any secret of his disagreement with what, we are led to believe, is Labour party policy. In his remarks this evening, he referred critically to the deregulation of the labour market. One can assume from that that he opposes it, but I have heard absolutely no pledge from the Labour party in recent months that it intends to reverse the deregulation that we have carried out. The hon. Member for Oldharn, West has said:
  "Mrs. Thatcher's abiding achievement has been to turn the Opposition into a variation of the Government's theme."
  He went on to say:
  "People want real change, not a paler shade of the same."
  Only last month, the hon. Member for Oldham, West appeared on "Kilroy" and was challenged about Labour's proposal to give employers £60 a week to take on the long-term unemployed, while the long-term unemployed would receive only £45 in benefit. According to the Oldham Evening Chronicle, which I am led to believe is a learned journal, the hon. Gentleman's reply was:
  "Let me make it clear to you. I am embarrassed by that point."
  Why is he on the Front Bench?
  The intervention that the hon. Gentleman made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about our exit from the exchange rate mechanism begs another question: why is it that Italy, which came out of the ERM at the same time, has seen unemployment continue to rise while ours has been falling dramatically? Could it have more to do with the state of the labour market than the ERM?
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to unemployment figures and suggested that the real ones were much higher than those which we announce. If that is so, why do the labour force survey figures, which we also announce regularly and which have gone along closely with the claimant count figures, meet the requirements of the International Labour Organisation, to which the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress have signed up?
  A number of hon. Members have rightly emphasised the need for this country to improve and increase our training and to meet the national training targets. The Government have never made any secret of their intention to achieve that. I wish to deal with a misunderstanding—a fallacy—promoted by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) that programmes for the unemployed can, on their own, address the need to meet our training targets.
  We should remember that only 3 per cent. of the work force are long-term unemployed—the figure is still too high, but it is 3 per cent. Some 92 per cent. of the work

  639
  force are in work. If we are to meet the targets for the year 2000, we shall do so by providing encouragement, exhortation and help to all the work force.
  Business spends about £20 billion a year on training and education. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that the figure is £28 billion, but I shall settle for our figure of £20 billion. We must develop a culture that is based on better schooling and achievement in compulsory education through our education reforms. That process will lead to the understanding that training is, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, an investment, not a cost.
  I must take issue with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for suggesting that the private sector had been cutting training. That is a historical fact, but it has not been the experience of the recent recession, when training expenditure by the private sector held up far higher than in any previous recession. That demonstrates that the message is getting through to the employers that they must invest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) made what must be considered as one of the best speeches in the House for a long time when he emphasised the fall in unemployment and described in graphic detail the tremendous successes and developments of the Government's training policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) emphasised the varied needs of the unemployed. She also expressed concerns over TECs, particularly the cost of their administration and bureaucracy. All TECs must publish annual reports to highlight those figures and they must all hold annual public meetings where their staff are open to cross-examination by the people in the community. I am anxious that as many resources as possible are spent on training, not wasted on administration. TECs have a vital role to play in developing our training infrastructure and needs—as they have for the past few years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) rightly referred to the importance of sound, basic education and highlighted the independence of our further education colleges. One of the most exciting aspects of my job is when I travel around the country and college after college tells me of the wonderful success that it has made of independence.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Paice: Understandably, my hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear." I was privileged to visit the college in her constituency just before Christmas, and there people were very proud of the independence that the Government had given them.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that he wanted a serious debate on training. I do not know what happened to his intentions, because it did not materialise. He suggested that the country needs a high-skill economy, and we would entirely agree. It is absurd to suggest that we can compete, with a low-wage economy, with the countries of the far east. No one has pretended that we can do so.
  What matters are unit labour costs. Those include non-wage costs. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the United Kingdom, non-wage labour costs in manufacturing are about 15 per cent. of unit labour costs.
  640
  In France they are 29 per cent., in Germany they are 24 per cent., in Spain they are 25 per cent. and, yes, even in Singapore they are 16.6 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned changes in our programmes and spoke about overnight cuts. Talk about overnight cuts sits ill in the mouth of the man who was Minister when the International Monetary Fund came in to administer cuts in this country.
  We have not heard of any policies from the Labour party. We have heard nothing about the much-vaunted welfare to work programme. That, of course, is a programme about subsidies to employers. I am puzzled that the Opposition can propose a policy advocating subsidies to employers that seems to me to recognise that employment costs are a deterrent to employment, at the same time as they advocate policies that would lead to dramatic increases in the costs of employment. Those policies are the minimum wage, which the whole House knows will increase the costs of employment; the social chapter—
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister does not know what the level will be.
  Mr. Paice: If the level is not high enough to increase the cost of employment, it will not be much of a minimum wage, will it? Any minimum wage that increases wages, which I presume is the intention behind it, will increase costs and therefore reduce employment.
  The social chapter would impose more potential costs on employers. Is it not odd that we have received no explanation of the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made to the Confederation of British Industry that he would not agree to any extra burden on employers, even though he would join the social chapter—as though he could pick and choose? Does not he realise, does not the hon. Member for Oldham, West understand, that the social chapter involves qualified majority voting? What wonderful system has the Labour party now invented that would prevent Britain being outvoted and saddled with job-destroying burdens?
  We have heard nothing of the windfall tax, Labour's latest milch cow—a tax which, at the last count, was going to fund 11 different spending pledges, a £75 a week incentive for long-term unemployed people, child care provision, VAT relief to small business, an environmental task force and many other things, including, apparently, the removal of lead piping. The Leader of the Opposition advocates a programme of home insulation.
  What a tax. What a con trick. Do not the Opposition understand that a principle of a windfall tax is that it is a once and for all tax? How will they fund those programmes in the following years?
  What about the other Labour flagship, the training levy—another impost on employers because Labour knows best? Yet again, we find confusion. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said last year, when she was in charge:
  "We have concluded that the old levy/grant system is no longer appropriate".
  We have heard no policy of substance tonight—no explanation of what stakeholder training might be. The Government have trebled the proportion of graduates. We have developed modern apprenticeships and we have

  641
  focused employers' responsibility for training through the investors in people initiative. We have abolished all the statutory levies and training boards and we have seen a rise in training volume and quality.
  Yet we have been opposed at every turn—as least we were opposed until the Labour party realised that we were right. After 16 years, Labour now accepts that the levy will not work. How much longer will the minimum wage or the social chapter last before they, too, are consigned to the dustbin of Labour policies?
  The Government remain committed to an effective training policy which we shall continue to deliver through TECs and the extra money that they shall receive next year. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 306.

  Division No. 25]

  [10.00

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbett, Robin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Ashton, Joe

  Dafis, Cynog

  Austin-Walker, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Paul

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Church, Judith

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  642

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meale, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harvey, Nick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morley, Elliot

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

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

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Radice, Giles

  Jowell, Tessa

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin (Belfast S)

  McMaster, Gordon

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Alice

  Stevenson, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Timms, Stephen

  Meacher, Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  643

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walley, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ms Ann Coffey.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, Sir John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  644

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Hesettine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dord)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lett, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Wafter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marlin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  645

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fall in unemployment and rise in employment that have enabled more people to share in the benefits of economic growth; supports the Government's determination to give unemployed people the help they need to find work; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to raise standards of education and training and enhance the nation's competitiveness.

  Algrade Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an extremely disturbing case involving the abuse and exploitation of handicapped people at a private care institution in my constituency by people who profess to be fundamentalist Christians.
  This affair exposes serious shortcomings in the supervision of charities in Scotland; it shows that it can he far too easy for unscrupulous operators to misappropriate Department of Social Security funds; and it demonstrates that it is far too difficult for local authorities to ensure that handicapped people get proper care in such institutions.
  The Algrade story is a major scandal, and the Minister must institute an urgent inquiry so that proper safeguards can be put into effect as soon as possible.
  The Algrade home is near the village of Humble at the foot of the Lammermuir hills. The site was originally developed as a holiday village for children from Edinburgh, and from a distance it looks idyllic.
  The Algrade trust was established in 1968 with the stated objective of providing for the
  "spiritual, physical and material welfare and education of the mentally handicapped".
  The top priority given to spiritual welfare later turned out to be significant, and, I fear, sinister.
  The home was registered under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for residential and day care, and in recent years there have been around 33 residents and 10 day attenders. Many of the residents went to Humble as children 30 years ago, and they have lived virtually all their lives at the home.
  Families trusted the Algrade trust, and particularly the resident trustees, Miss Betty Waugh and Mrs. Rosa Frisby, to provide for the welfare of these handicapped young people. But I fear that things went badly wrong.
  Over a period of years, the local social work authority, Lothian regional council, became more and more dissatisfied with the management at Algrade. The council tried to persuade the trust to improve its care arrangements, but the social work department ran into fierce resistance from the trustees, particularly Miss Waugh and Mrs. Frisby, who claimed that they had guidance from a superior, divine authority.
  In 1984, the council became so concerned about poor standards of care and management, and inadequate and inappropriate staffing, that drastic action had to be taken. The council's ultimate power was to withdraw the Algrade home's registration under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, but there was a risk that the trust could carry on regardless by claiming housing benefit for its residents instead of DSS funding.
  That course of action was actually threatened by Mr. John White, who had joined the Algrade team as an adviser in 1987. I understand that Mr. White has recently folded his Care Management Advisory Service company, and that his record elsewhere includes an incident in which an old lady was scalded to death in a bath in a

  647
  home that he owned. He subsequently claimed that the fact that she had a private bath was proof of the quality of her care. The man seems to be a complete chancer, and a callous one at that. He is still operating the Grey Tree trust in Ross-on-Wye, with substantial funding from the Home Office. The authorities should check on all his affairs thoroughly.
  Returning to Algrade, Lothian regional council was in a difficult position. Even if it could have closed the Algrade operation, it would not have had the resources to provide alternative care and accommodation for the residents. Nevertheless, further pressure on the trust, including reports to the police and to the Scottish Charities Office, led to the resignation of the old trustees, the appointment of new trustees, the transfer of the management of the home to the Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of Scotland, and, finally, the transfer of the residents to better accommodation made available by the council at Inveresk.
  Lothian regional council and the Church of Scotland have fulfilled their responsibilities fully and in difficult circumstances, with precious little help from the Scottish Charities Office. I tabled parliamentary questions in July and November last year, and the replies from the Lord Advocate and the Minister were hopelessly unsatisfactory. We are still waiting for action to deal with serious financial irregularities in the Algrade trust—and remember: the DSS has been paying more than £400,000 a year to that thoroughly dodgy organisation.
  It is important that the House and the Minister should understand just how awful the position at Algrade had become. We are not discussing minor lapses or mistakes. This has been a story of serious exploitation, abuse and fraud.
  For a start, the accommodation was dreadful. When I visited Humbie just after the management was taken over by Church of Scotland social workers last year, I saw primitive conditions, inadequate and probably dangerous electric wiring, and pitiful heating. In February 1994, Lothian regional council found that the temperature in the living accommodation was just 6 deg C, well below the statutory minimum for places of work. It is a mercy that the residents were moved into better housing before the big freeze at the end of December 1995.
  The catering was basic, to put it mildly. I understand that the trust took advantage of the free European Community surplus food scheme to put £50,000-worth of horsemeat on residents' plates over five years—at least, we presume it was horsemeat; the residents described it as pony.
  The trust's outlandish religious culture was probably the main priority, and the handicapped residents were manipulated shamelessly. Those who did not comply could be subjected to cruel punishments, and there are even more serious allegations of sexual abuse by a senior carer who worked at Humbie for 10 years. Amazingly, he was protected by the original trustees.
  Staffing at the home was, at best, inadequate. One of the oddest features of this operation was its ability to spend such a low proportion of its income on the care of its residents. Although Mr. John White was maximising the trust's claim for DSS and other funding to more than £420,000 a year, the trust's expenditure on staffing was just £36,000 a year. Spending on staff usually accounts for about 70 per cent. of care home budgets, but at Algrade the figure was 10 per cent., so staff costs were extraordinarily cheap.
  648
  Expenditure on food must have been pretty low, too, with all that free EC horsemeat or whatever. We know that heating costs must have been minimal, that the residents had little pocket money, and that there is no evidence of investment in the buildings at Humble, so where did all the money go?
  I believe that large sums of money that should have been spent on the care of handicapped people have been diverted into the former trustees' religious organisation, and into property that now belongs to individual former trustees. I understand that about 17 properties, worth about £2 million, in and around the village of Pathhead may have been acquired in that way. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who represents Pathhead, is present. That property in Pathhead includes the high street café, which is exotically named, "The Video and Satellite Ministry".
  That "Ministry" seems to be a combination of the former trustees' brand of fundamentalism and material beamed from kindred spirits in the United States of America. When I visited the café last year, my main concern was for a group of handicapped young people from the Humbie home who were working in the cafe clad in absurd tartan uniforms. The ex-trustee who met me there, Mrs. Frisby, had obviously prompted them carefully and effectively to tell me that they wanted to return to the care of the former regime at Algrade. She went further. She cited divine guidance for her mission. Those "helpers"—I understand that they were paid £5 for a seven-day week—seem to be vulnerable people, who are being exploited and manipulated.
  Apart from milking their handicapped residents' DSS funding, the former trustees used other tactics. I have now seen evidence that a blind elderly relative of a day attender was bamboozled into signing a will leaving his house to Miss Waugh, and there are more stories about wills and unconventional property conveyancing that deserve attention.
  All that has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity and "spiritual welfare", which is shameful; it has also been done by a registered Scottish charity with substantial funding from the DSS, which is intolerable. I pay tribute to Lothian regional council for its vigilance and persistence, which has led to the removal of the previous trustees and the provision of better care and accommodation for those 33 handicapped people.
  That must not be the end of the story, however. About £2 million of public money intended for the care of handicapped people has apparently been pocketed by the trust or embezzled by former trustees. That money must be recovered and made available for its original purpose. I want to know why the Scottish Charities Office, which has had plenty of information about the affair for 14 months, has still taken no action.
  I submit that either the DSS or local authorities should be able to audit and, if necessary, directly control money paid to private care agencies, of which there are now a good many. Moreover, this outrageous story includes a number of allegations of criminal offences: such offences should lead to prosecutions.
  The people who have suffered neglect, exploitation and worse at the hands of the Algrade trust are entitled to expect appropriate action and fair compensation. It is imperative for lessons to be learned from this affair, to ensure that nothing like it can happen again anywhere in

  649
  Britain. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter carefully, and also to study further evidence that will appear in the BBC's "Frontline Scotland" programme on Thursday. I am grateful for the BBC's help in researching the affair, and to the Edinburgh Evening News, which has also taken an interest in it over the past year.
  I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to announce specific action tonight, but I trust that he will accept that the Government have a duty to deal with a scandal of such proportions.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, but I wish to identify myself with this affair, because Pathhead is in my constituency.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on raising this terrible matter. Constituents in Pathhead drew my attention to it, fearing a gradual takeover of the village following the organisation's purchase of houses: they were afraid that it would be institutionalised under the auspices of the Algrade trust. The exploitation of the youngsters in the café was also drawn to our attention; what we did not know about was the abuse and cruelty meted out to handicapped children. That must be the greatest fear of the parents and grandparents of such children.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian that an in-depth inquiry is the only way in which to satisfy the public and those representing them here. If criminal charges result from accusations of sexual assault, the cases concerned should go to trial. The misappropriation of funds must also be investigated, and the activities of the misguided religious zealots must cease immediately.
  10.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his success in securing this debate. I welcome this opportunity provided by him to set out the position on the Algrade trust and the action which has been taken. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke).
  The Algrade home at Humbie in East Lothian opened in 1968 as a residential school for children with learning difficulties. It developed into providing accommodation also for adults, many of whom had been educated at Algrade. When it was established, it was well regarded by many residents, parents and independent parties. As a consequence, it was popular, and places in the home were sought after.
  The home had charitable status, and was run by a group of trustees. Until mid-1995, it was run by its founding trustees. In 1982, the home was approved to provide 44 residential places and 70 day care places, but there has been a gradual reduction in the numbers, so that latterly Algrade provided accommodation for 33 adults.
  As a social work establishment, Algrade was registered with the relevant social work authority—Lothian regional council—for most of its history. Thorough and regular inspections were carried out from the late 1980s, and
  650
  shortcomings were identified. These shortcomings related to management arrangements, staffing, the form of care, and general standards within the home. Meetings were held between the social work department and the trustees to discuss and agree on improvements. On each occasion, the trustees undertook to make the necessary improvements, but this did not always happen. Some improvements were made, hut other points had to he returned to regularly.
  In the 1990s, the concern of the registering authority increased, and serious concerns were reported by the social work department to Lothian social work committee.
  In August 1993, Lothian social work authority decided that no further admissions should be made to Algrade. In September, the social work authority informed the chairman that one of the founding trustees should cease to have any involvement in the management of Algrade. She did not step down as asked. In 1994 the social work authority made a number of inspections, some unannounced, and held meetings with the trustees in order to keep a close eye on the implementation of recommendations for the improvement of the running of the home.
  In October 1994, following further inspection, the social work authority gave notice to the board of trustees that the property could not continue to be used as a residential home. The reason was that the premises did not meet the necessary requirements. The building was not wind and watertight, and there were signs of damp in all the buildings. The heating was inadequate, and, in the winter months, temperatures were unacceptably low. Food storage and eating arrangements were unsatisfactory. There was also concern about the management, which had failed to comply with requirements.
  In view of the importance of improving the management arrangements for the home, the social work authority approached the Church of Scotland, which very nobly agreed to take on the management of the home. This it did in October 1994.
  I express my thanks to the Church of Scotland for stepping into this most difficult situation, for which it was in no way responsible. It placed its experience at the disposal of the trustees in order to bring about very necessary improvements. The new trustees are now responsible for the management of Algrade, and I have full confidence in their commitment and competence.
  The Church of Scotland set as its main priority finding alternative accommodation for the residents. Many were attached to the community in Humbie, and had built up local friendships. However, it was important that their living conditions should be of a good standard.
  The social work authority identified Wedderburn house in Musselburgh as a suitable temporary alternative. It was formerly a residential home for adults with learning difficulties, and was owned by the council. The regional council proposed to lease Wedderburn house to the trustees of the Algrade trust at a peppercorn rent of £1 a year. The Secretary of State's consent to this was received within a week of the proposal from the regional council.
  The region's property committee gave its approval three weeks later. Some refurbishment was required, and the residents moved into their new home on 19 December 1995. Wedderburn house will now provide a home for the former residents of Algrade, for up to two years. In this

  651
  time, discussions will take place between the social work department and the trustees about more permanent accommodation arrangements.
  The social work authority was also concerned about the arrangements for administering and looking after the money of residents at Algrade. The director of social work submitted a report to the Scottish Charities Office in October 1994. This was its first involvement. The Scottish Charities Office is a division of the Crown Office, established in 1992 and responsible for the supervision of charities and charities legislation. This legislation allows the Lord Advocate to make inquiries into concerns about misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities.
  The report from the director of social work was not sufficient on its own to found a case. The Scottish Charities Office therefore initiated its own investigation. The allegations are complex, and are being investigated in detail by the Scottish Charities Office. Following the initiation of the investigation, the original trustees resigned, and, as I said, have been replaced by new trustees.
  I pay tribute again to the new trustees, who have backgrounds in teaching, accountancy and medicine. They have taken on a difficult situation, and are already in discussion with the social work department, parents and guardians of residents. The new trustees have also been working with the Scottish Charities Office in its investigation of the previous administration.
  The intervention of the Scottish Charities Office demonstrates our new charities legislation in action. It has allowed the charity to continue to function in the interests of those it looks after. It has saved the charity, in the best interests of its beneficiaries. It is investigating the allegations fully and fairly, in the interests of justice for the trustees. It would be wrong for me to comment further on the possible outcome of an investigation that is still in hand. If the hon. Member for East Lothian has evidence of fraud or embezzlement, he should send it to the proper authorities—in this case, the Lord Advocate—as a matter of duty.
  On account of the complexities, the matters have been taking some time, but the resources of the Scottish Charities Office are sufficient for the work load. I am satisfied that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the supervision of charities legislation.
  I turn to the allegations of sexual and other abuse.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I answer some of the other points made by the hon. Gentleman? He can intervene later.
  We regard the allegations of sexual and other abuse as very serious. I understand that, in October 1994, a resident made an allegation of sexual abuse against a male member of staff. The police investigated it and interviewed the member of staff concerned. The resident, however, withdrew the allegation, and the police had no basis on which to take forward the case.
  More recently, as the residents have got used to the new arrangements and their confidence in the new Church of Scotland staff has grown. they have started to talk about their experiences, and eight complaints have been made about the same member of the former staff who was
  652
  concerned in the earlier allegation. The police arc now investigating those complaints through their women and children unit, and are treating the complaints seriously. The member of staff ceased working there in October 1994.
  The residents have also made other allegations of a serious nature. Those include physical abuse, being made to stand out of doors at night in underwear as a form of punishment, and the expression of concern about aspects of their diets. There has also been a complaint that the father of a man attending on a day basis at Algrade was pressurised to alter his will, linking it to the arrangements for the future long-term care of his son.
  All those complaints are being investigated by Lothian and Borders police, who are working closely with the Scottish Charities Office, Lothian region social work department and, of course, the Church of Scotland. As all the allegations are under investigation, it would be wrong for me to comment on them.
  The present position is that there are new trustees, new management in the form of the Church of Scotland, and new premises at Wedderburn house. Investigations are being pursued into allegations of sexual abuse and fraud. We are anxious to see what lessons need to be learned. In particular, I am asking the chief inspector of social work to visit the Church of Scotland so that we may learn what lessons its members think could usefully be learned in the light of their current responsibility for the residents,
  I turn to the general issues raised by the case. As I have already said, we do not yet know fully what lessons may be learned. We are, however, clear about the importance of the inspection and registration function of local authorities in detecting and dealing with any problems which may arise in residential care homes. The Secretary of State is about to issue guidance to all authorities, particularly aimed at the new authorities, on their statutory responsibilities for inspection. It describes the key tasks to be carried out, giving particular attention to the issues that may be raised following reorganisation.
  In addition, a Scottish Office internal working party, which includes full representation of outside interests, including the Church of Scotland, is discussing possible changes in registration arrangements for residential care homes. That working party reflects the issues raised with certain residential care homes and nursing homes for elderly people, but its remit extends more widely. It will certainly take account of any lessons which may be learned from Algrade. The group will be making recommendations to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very shortly. It might be helpful if I set out the current arrangements.
  Local authorities are required to register private and voluntary residential homes. Registration is required where the whole or a substantial part of an establishment's function is to provide personal care or support as part of a planned programme.
  As part of the overall responsibility for maintaining standards, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 identifies three main aspects to which an authority should give particular consideration. Those who own and control an establishment should be "fit" persons to carry on the establishment; the premises should be "fit" for the purpose for which they are registered and the level and experience of the staffing should be appropriate; and registration should have regard to the way in which care is provided.

  653
  Authorities may refuse, or cancel, registration where these, or similar, conditions of registration imposed by authorities under the 1968 Act are not satisfied. An authority may thus close a home if it is unsatisfactory. This is a power which has to be used with care.
  In order to ensure that standards of care are maintained on an on-going basis at a sufficiently high level following initial registration, local authorities have powers to inspect establishments with regard to the condition and management of the establishment as well as the care provided. Guidance issued by the Scottish Office indicates that it is for authorities to determine the frequency of inspections. It recommends that two per year should be seen as the minimum for normal circumstances, and suggests that at least one inspection should be undertaken without notice.
  Mr. Home Robertson: If the Minister had been in a position to follow the case as I have over the past year, he would understand that the local authority has been doing its level best to deal with the situation for a long time, but has not had proper powers. The Minister is saying that it is open to the local authority to withdraw registration. I invite him to address my point about the fact that the former trustees threatened to do without registration, and simply to put the residents on to housing benefit instead, which is a way of driving a coach and horses through the controls.
  How long will it take the Scottish Charities Office? It has had information about the odd accounting practices of the former trustees for 14 months. How much longer?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer those points. A number of inquiries are currently in progress. The first is being conducted by the Scottish Charities Office into the conduct of the previous trustees and administration. A full report has been prepared by an accountant on the financial issues relating to the administration, which go back a long way. That is expected to be in the hands of the Scottish Charities Office very shortly, and will leave the way open for a conclusion to the matter before very long.
  The second investigation is being conducted by the police into allegations of sexual abuse. In addition, a Scottish Office working party is looking at registration procedures. That should provide a stronger registration and inspection process in due course. We are thus taking all these problems seriously, but I do not think that any additional inquiry is needed.
  Mr. Home Robertson: What about housing benefit?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The accountant will cover thoroughly all the matters relating to the accounts
  654
  of the administration. We would he extremely dissatisfied if he did anything less, and I have every confidence that he will do that.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, I must tell him that we consider the problem that he has raised as very serious. I share his concern. Action has been taken. The Scottish Charities Office has intervened effectively, and will continue to do so. There are new trustees and new management. The residents have been moved to new premises. Investigations are in progress. We must learn the necessary lessons, and I will keep the hon. Gentleman in touch with what is going on.
  I warmly congratulate the Church of Scotland on its action in this matter, which has been of great benefit to those directly concerned.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I invite the Minister to address the second question that I put to him. It was wide open to these people to sidestep the whole registration procedure by simply opting out of the social work part of the process and claiming housing benefit. That was a threat. Will he do anything to block that loophole?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point and write to him.
  On a slightly different point, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that a Scottish Office working party is looking thoroughly at the registration procedures. It will reach an outcome and make recommendations to the Secretary of State before long.
  The point raised by the hon. Gentleman may well he covered in the accountant's report, which is expected this week along with—
  Mr. Home Robertson indicated dissent.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he does not know what is in the accountant's report. It has not been presented to me. It is about to be presented to the Scottish Charities Office. His point may well he covered. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  This is a serious matter, and I am extremely grateful to the Church of Scotland, which has acted in a selfless and dedicated manner in the best interests of those who were looked after—perhaps that is the wrong expression—those who were in the home. That is wholly to its credit. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr.Alex Carlile
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department What is the daily cost charged by each police authority for the use of police cells to house overspill prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [8758]

  Mr Maclean
  No prison Service prisoners have been held in police cells since June 1995 At that time, the national average cost per prisoner was £300 Per night.

  Police authorities do not have a standard cost for holding prisoners. Each authority submits an invoice to the prison service based on the actual cost of the service provided There are many variables which may affect that cost.

  Home Office circular 36/1993 gives guidance to police authorities on calculating their costs. The Home Office also monitors the charges made by police forces.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted criminals were being held in police station cells at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [8759]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of convicted criminals being held in police station cells at the latest available date.
  There have been no Prison Service prisoners held in police cells since 15 June 1995.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of port applicants for asylum arriving in the United Kingdom having travelling through one or more other countries in each of the last three years; and what proportion of all port applicants they were. [9621]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers reside in the parliamentary constituency of Tottenham; and how many of them have been granted(a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to remain in the last five years. [9811]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the places of residence of people currently seeking asylum is not held centrally.

  Terrorism Legislation (Inquiry)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the methods by which the right hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick will gather evidence for his inquiry into the future requirement for legislation against terrorism. [10179]

  Mr. Howard
  Advertisements are being placed in the press inviting people to submit views to Lord Lloyd by 15 March. Lord Lloyd is writing, with the same invitation, to a wide range of interested parties throughout the United Kingdom. He will, in the course of his review, seek to elicit the widest possible range of fact and opinion.

  Any person wishing to offer his views on the law against terrorism should write to Lord Lloyd at the following address:

  PO Box 9998

  London SW1H 9ZB.

  Police (Complaints)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public complaints against each police force in England and Wales were made in 1994; and what percentage change this represents over the figure for 1993. [9204]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 January 1995]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Total complaints recorded 1994 Police forces in England and Wales

  Total complaints recorded 1994

  Percentage change 1993–1994

  Avon and Somerset

  992

  5

  Bedfordshire

  249

  -2

  Cambridgeshire

  422

  38

  Cheshire

  454

  -10

  Cleveland

  460

  -14

  Cumbria

  319

  -4

  Derbyshire

  481

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  935

  22

  Dorset

  147

  -18

  Durham

  214

  5

  Essex

  500

  22

  Gloucestershire

  300

  -19

  Greater Manchester

  2,701

  5

  Hampshire

  685

  -20

  Hertfordshire

  407

  -3

  Humberside

  472

  -28

  Kent

  766

  -7

  Lancashire

  695

  9

  Leicestershire

  305

  -19

  Lincolnshire

  93

  12

  City of London

  89

  65

  Merseyside

  2,146

  18

  Metropolitan Police1

  10,094

  na

  Norfolk

  393

  2

  Northamptonshire

  178

  -11

  Northumbria

  612

  -6

  North Yorkshire

  330

  -5

  Nottinghamshire

  788

  17

  South Yorkshire

  583

  -11

  Staffordshire

  548

  1

  Suffolk

  353

  1

  Surrey

  506

  25

  Sussex

  905

  28

  Thames Valley

  979

  11

  Warwickshire

  136

  -17

  483

  Total complaints recorded 1994 Police forces in England and Wales

  Total complaints recorded 1994

  Percentage Change 1993–1994

  West Mercia

  506

  11

  West Midlands

  1,739

  5

  West Yorkshire

  1,304

  3

  Wiltshire

  260

  -6

  Dyfed-Powys

  169

  19

  Gwent

  467

  16

  North Wales

  608

  32

  South Wales

  981

  16

  Total

  36,201

  25

  1Comparable figures for 1993 not available.

  2Excludes Metropolitan Police.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the level of recorded crime in the Merseyside police force area(a) in June 1994 and (b) in June 1995; and what are the figures for England and Wales over the same period. [7925]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 11,122 offences recorded by the Merseyside police in June 1994 and 12,207 in June 1995. The corresponding figures for England and Wales were 440,245 and 405,035 respectively.

  Ms Gordon
  TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in figures for reported robbery in London in the 12 months to June 1995. [8100]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences of robbery recorded in the Metropolitan police district. There were 27,712 offences recorded in the 12 months to June 1995, an increase of 10 per cent. over the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the level of recorded crime in the Humberside police force region since 1987. [8156]

  Mr. Maclean
  Between 1987 and 1994, recorded crime in Humberside rose by 53 per cent. from 88,570 offences to 135,826 offences.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7830]

  Mr. Howard
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. It is the usual practice in the Home Office for Ministers to see the proposed replies to such parliamentary questions before they appear in the Official Report, but they would not normally intervene in
  484
  operational matters. No central record is kept of replies amended at the request of Ministers and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure adequate legal control over private security forces operating in local communities; and if he will make a statement. [9134]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently reviewing the case for statutory regulation of the private security industry

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in each of the last five years an application for renewal of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom has been refused; and how many of these refusals were after(a) one year's exceptional leave and (b) four years' exceptional leave. [8977]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Prisoners (Police Interviews)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the guidelines for the conduct of police interviews with convicted prisoners in the furtherance of their investigations into other crimes; what is the legal status of such guidelines; how long they have been in force; and what changes have occurred to previous practices since 1966. [8720]

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary issued guidance to the police in January 1987 on the interviewing of convicted prisoners about outstanding crime. The guidance, copies of which are available in the Library, is non-statutory but Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary monitors forces' compliance as part of its inspection procedure.

  Child Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders convicted of child sexual abuse in each of the last five years had previous convictions for the same offence. [8717]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Police (Driver Training)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent on driver training in each police force area in England and Wales for each year since 1990. [7541]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Information collected centrally relates to all aspects of driver and traffic training. Details of the number of days spent on such training are set out in the table, together with information about training costs, which is not complete.
  485

  Total training days—driver and traffic training

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  6,710

  6,736

  6,829

  Bedfordshire

  2,562

  2,414

  2,555

  Cambridgeshire

  587

  1,074

  2,053

  Cheshire

  3,547

  1,843

  1,429

  City of London

  952

  697

  706

  Cleveland

  2,259

  743

  618

  Cumbria

  1,496

  1,383

  1,416

  Derbyshire

  4,511

  2,287

  2,795

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,652

  4,254

  3,648

  Dorset

  1,524

  1,804

  1,603

  Durham

  2,135

  2,643

  2,136

  Dyfed Powys

  1,614

  1,397

  1,746

  Essex

  6,535

  7,813

  7,840

  Gloucestershire

  1,762

  1,465

  1,282

  Greater Manchester

  12,431

  10,345

  9,062

  Gwent

  1,513

  1,291

  —

  Hampshire

  3,944

  3,407

  —

  Hertfordshire

  3,698

  2,160

  3,260

  Humberside

  2,490

  3,158

  —

  Kent

  4,620

  2,643

  3,008

  Lancashire

  2,675

  3,321

  3,003

  Leicestershire

  2,270

  3,011

  2,521

  Lincolnshire

  1,617

  1,675

  1,562

  Merseyside

  5,504

  6,608

  3,601

  Norfolk

  2,652

  2,406

  1,887

  Northamptonshire

  2,466

  2,389

  2,130

  Northumbria

  5,178

  4,410

  4,535

  North Wales

  1,351

  1,325

  1,101

  North Yorkshire

  2,345

  2,944

  2,754

  Nottinghamshire

  4,030

  3,151

  2,477

  South Wales

  2,490

  4,341

  4,982

  South Yorkshire

  3,756

  3,570

  4,396

  Staffordshire

  4,677

  4,982

  3,936

  Suffolk

  1,715

  2,115

  1,916

  Surrey

  2,889

  3,674

  —

  Sussex

  4,465

  6,843

  —

  Thames Valley

  7,948

  7,427

  5,585

  Warwickshire

  1,153

  1,678

  969

  West Mercia

  2,236

  3,375

  4,014

  West Midlands

  13,016

  9,980

  10,777

  West Yorkshire

  4,532

  4,304

  4,920

  Wiltshire

  2,771

  3,332

  2,638

  Metropolitan

  28,149

  31,783

  33,886

  Training costs—driver and traffic training (£s)

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  1,494,009

  1,321,638

  1,453,522

  Bedfordshire

  —

  590,523

  677,496

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  361,942

  524,857

  Cheshire

  509,266

  376,253

  330,990

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  467,000

  273,000

  —

  Cumbria

  305,436

  135,649

  259,091

  Derbyshire

  929,463

  —

  577,794

  Devon and Cornwall

  655,897

  855,765

  877,513

  Dorset

  —

  419,892

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  263,400

  231,600

  277,251

  Essex

  1,964,589

  2,300,000

  2,007,391

  Gloucestershire

  350,784

  293,538

  276,670

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1,251,773

  1,207,188

  Gwent

  287,498

  209,866

  98,258

  Hampshire

  —

  858,621

  1,114,196

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  520,000

  258,000

  —

  Kent

  1,048,039

  875,336

  1,185,687

  Lancashire

  —

  914,666

  —

  Leicestershire

  253,713

  —

  405,623

  Lincolnshire

  —

  474,400

  —

  486

  Training costs—driver and traffic training (£s)

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Merseyside

  1,594,039

  1,827,821

  1,413,639

  Norfolk

  571,500

  519,700

  453,800

  Northamptonshire

  —

  441,661

  431,128

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  968,752

  North Wales

  —

  —

  121,569

  North Yorkshire

  433,570

  533,890

  550,200

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  710,292

  —

  South Wales

  644,808

  840,145

  961,465

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  441,759

  1,137,897

  535,668

  Suffolk

  553,462

  448

  456,012

  Surrey

  864,700

  969,000

  1,002,000

  Sussex

  503,000

  805,912

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1,761,828

  1,380,992

  Warwickshire

  166,314

  788,718

  249,693

  West Mercia

  596,616

  725,905

  897,038

  West Midlands

  3,020,332

  3,226,004

  2,989,280

  West Yorkshire

  1,674,900

  1,493,900

  1,561,300

  Wiltshire

  47,620

  303,448

  392,890

  Metropolitan

  —

  4,546,817

  —

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those members of the Nigerian Government who are prohibited from entry to the United Kingdom. [8537]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with the common position adopted by the European Union on 4 December, all members of the Federal Executive Council, the provisional Ruling Council, serving members of the military and security forces, and their families shall be refused entry to the United Kingdom.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Lord Chancellor under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9587]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Law of Domicile (Reform)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the Government intend to bring forward legislation to give effect to the reforms of the law of domicile recommended by the Law Commission in its recent report on this subject (Law Com. No. 168, Scot Law Com. No. 107). [10169]
  487
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government have decided not to take forward these reforms on the basis that, although they are desirable in themselves, they do not contain sufficient practical benefits to outweigh the risks of proceeding with them and to justify disturbing the present long-established body of case law on this subject.

  Mental Incapacity (Law Commission Report)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what response the Government intend to make to the Law Commission report on mental incapacity (Law Com. No. 231). [10170]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government have considered the Law Commission report on mental incapacity very carefully and are grateful to the many individuals and organisations that have sent in their views on this subject. The Government appreciate that this is an important and sensitive subject raising moral and ethical issues on which many people will have strong personal views.

  The Government have decided not to legislate on the basis of the Law Commission's proposals in their current form and have also concluded that it would be inappropriate to make any proposals to Parliament in the absence of full public consultation. The Government propose to issue a consultation paper on mental incapacity in due course.

  The Government wish to emphasise that they fully support the views of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics that euthanasia is unacceptable and

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Agency

  Budget

  Actual

  Budget

  Actual

  Budget

  Actual

  Budget

  Actual

  PINS

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.5

  0.0

  2.4

  0.0

  2.2

  OS

  64.0

  63.0

  72.0

  99.0

  75.0

  68.0

  60.0

  64.0

  QEII

  61.2

  45.7

  59.0

  81.8

  50.0

  45.1

  33.7

  32.7

  1. PINS does not have a specific budget for overseas travel.

  2. 1995–96 figures are up to December 1995.

  BRE does not set a budget for overseas travel. The agency is funded through commissions undertaken for its various customers. When these include overseas travel, the cost is recharged directly to customers. The agency does not distinguish in its financial systems between travel within the UK and overseas travel; to provide the information requested could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9147]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has responsibility for four executive agencies—Building Research Establishment, Ordnance Survey, Planning Inspectorate and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. The agencies, which have delegated responsibility for these matters, arrange pre-retirement courses as 488
  have no plans to change this policy. The Government's consultation will thus not include any proposals on this subject.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ruddy Duck
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current situation in respect of the ruddy duck; and if he will make a statement. [8457]

  Mr. Clappison
  We are currently considering the views of the United Kingdom ruddy duck working group and our statutory scientific advisers, English Nature, in developing an appropriate strategy for controlling population levels of this introduced species.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of his executive agencies for each financial year for the last four years(a) their budget for overseas travel and (b) the actual amount spent. [8710]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has responsibility for four executive agencies—Building Research Establishment, Ordnance Survey, Planning Inspectorate and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.

  The information requested for OS, PINS and QEII is set out in the table.

  required. No special action has been taken, or is needed, to safeguard their provision; there is no intention to cease providing such courses.

  Fifth Terminal, Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the possible fifth air terminal at Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement. [8552]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport is currently scheduled to finish in spring 1997, after which the inspector will prepare his report on the applications before the inquiry. It is too early to say when the report will be received.

  Homelessness and Rough Sleeping, (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been commissioned by his Department on the number of(a) men and (b) women,

  489
  over the age of 60 years, who are homeless and sleeping rough within the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [8553]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information about the extent of rough sleeping is mostly anecdotal or estimated, except for central London, where voluntary sector agencies carry out a twice-yearly count of rough sleepers. The methodology for this arose from an independent evaluation of the rough sleepers initiative, commissioned by my Department. The most recent count, in November 1995, found 272 people sleeping rough in central London, of whom 25 men and seven women were aged 60 years or more.

  The Government are considering assisting the development of the successful rough sleepers initiative model in areas outside central London where rough sleeping can be demonstrated to be a major problem. A Government consultation paper about the future of the initiative, issued on 3 October, invited local authorities to quantify the extent of rough sleeping in their areas. The responses are now being analysed.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct all water companies to stop further implementation of metering water supplies to individual residences, unless specifically asked to by the occupier; and if he will make a statement. [9116]

  Mr. Clappison
  Neither the Director General of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt, nor Ministers have powers to prescribe charging methods or types of tariff. Within the terms of the legislation, it is up to each company to decide which method of charging is most appropriate and cost-effective in its area, subject to the Director General of Water Services being satisfied that the chosen method and the associated tariffs do not give undue preference to, or unduly discriminate against, any group or class of customers.

  Pollution Information (Internet)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish pollution information on the Internet. [8635]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has pages on the CCTA's world wide web site known as hhtp://www.open.go.uk. Currently, the DOE pages include information on the Department's responsibilities for air quality and drinking water, plus the departmental press notices. The Department's air quality information and press notices are updated on a daily basis.

  The Department will also be putting a selection of information from its digest of environmental statistics publication on the CCTA's world wide web site later this year.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the average time taken by his Department to decide planning applications which it has called in;. [9507]
  490
  (2) what targets he has set on the length of time taken to determine planning applications which have been called in by his Department;. [9508]

  (3) how many planning applications have been called in by his Department in each of the last five years. [9506]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of planning applications which have been called in from English local planning authorities over the past five years have been:

  1990–91: 132

  1991–92: 140

  1992–93: 101

  1993–94: 99

  1994–95: 167

  These called-in cases should be seen in the context of nearly half a million planning applications made each year.

  The Secretary of State does not set overall targets for the determination of called-in applications. These cases are normally discussed at a public inquiry, whose length will depend upon the complexity of the issues and the amount of public interest generated; but the Department does aim to determine 80 per cent. of called-in planning applications within 13 weeks of receipt of the inspector's report and to have determined all cases within 20 weeks of receipt of the report.

  There is no centrally available information on the average length of time taken to determine all called-in planning applications.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9223]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on Monday 15 January 1996 Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that my Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when his Department will complete its analysis of the responses to consultations over the extension of part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings;. [9261]

  (2) if he will be seeking advice from the Building Regulations Advisory Committee regarding the extension of part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings; and when he intends to do so; [9262]
  491
  (3) when he intends to make a statement regarding the extension of part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings. [9263]

  Mr. Clappison
  The analysis of the responses to the Government's consultation on extending part M of the Building Regulations to cover new dwellings is expected to be completed this spring. This will then be considered by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee with the aim of advising me of the best way forward. After considering that advice, I shall make a statement.

  Rural Challenge (Easington Colliery)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Easington dated 28 November 1995 concerning the failed bid for rural challenge for Easington colliery. [9671]

  Mr. Clappison
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter yesterday—Monday 15 January 1996.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the debt level of each local authority in England indicating in each case the debt per head of population. [9807]

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

  Standard Spending Assessment (Gosport)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take any necessary steps to ensure that the payments made to the borough of Gosport are correctly calculated on the basis of the appropriate standard spending assessment with particular reference to taking account of an accurate assessment of the number of armed forces residents. [9806]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are currently considering all the representations made by authorities on our proposals for the 1996–97 settlement, including those made by the borough council of Gosport on the resident population figures which it is proposed to use to calculate standard spending assessments. We are proposing to use figures of resident population at 30 June 1994, as estimated by the Registrar General. They will take account of representations made to us during the consultation period.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas in the United Kingdom which he has designated special areas of conservation; and if he will place maps of these areas in the Library. [9616]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 20 June 1995.Official Report, columns 140–43, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 9 January 1996, Official Report, columns 6–8, for lists
  492
  of the 211 sites in the United Kingdom which have been forwarded to the European Commission as candidate special areas of conservation. Maps of these areas were placed on deposit in the Library last March at the commencement of the public consultation on these areas.

  Radon
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take on radon in homes; and if he will make a statement. [10247]

  Mr. Clappison
  Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can accumulate in homes and increase the risk of lung cancer.

  My Department has had a long-established programme to identify those most at risk, and to advise them on what action to take in order to protect their health. In England, 250,000 homes have had their radon levels measured under the Government-funded measurement scheme; cost-effective methods of preventing radon from entering, new and existing homes have been developed by the Building Research Establishment; changes have been made to the building regulations to prevent radon becoming a problem in new homes; and financial assistance is available to enable the most needy householders to take remedial action.

  The next phase of the radon programme will take place in early February, when 200,000 invitations to have a free radon measurement will be sent to those householders in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire most likely to have high radon levels in their homes. All householders in these counties have, over the past eight years, been offered free measurements. The results obtained so far have enabled the National Radiological Protection Board to identify with far greater precision the areas within those counties where homes are most likely to have high radon levels. This allows measurement invitations to be targeted more accurately and efficiently. The offer of free measurements will therefore now be based on invitations to individual householders, and the current arrangements for free measurement will be discontinued from 29 February.

  The NRPB is currently completing a mapping exercise of the whole of England. This will be published later in the year and will indicate more precisely than before those areas with high radon levels.

  Radon is a serious problem, but one that is amenable to simple, relatively inexpensive solutions, developed primarily by the Department's Building Research Establishment. We shall continue to advise householders in high radon areas what action they should take. Local authorities have discretion to give grants to low-income private owners for radon remedial works.

  Fire Protection
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of sprinklers and other fire protection measures in (i) hospitals and (ii) homes for the elderly. [9478]
  493
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: My Department has commissioned a number of studies from the Building Research Establishment on sprinklers and other fire protection measures in connection with hospitals and residential care establishments, including old people's homes. Reports are evaluated by my officials, who make recommendations to Ministers on the work's significance and any practical implications, for example for building regulations, flowing from it.

  I am sending the hon. Gentleman a list of these studies, some of which have been published.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours List
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979; and if he will list them by name. [9666]

  The Prime Minister
  A total of 127 Conservative Members have received knighthoods since 1979. The names of the recipients have been published in the London Gazette.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define "political services" and "public and political services" in the context of the honours list. [9607]

  The Prime Minister
  Political services relate to those who give service to a political party. Political and public service is an appropriate description for those who have some other form of public service to their credit in addition to their political work.

  Government Economic Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the goal of the Government's economic policy. [9794]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's overall economic objective is to promote sustained economic growth and rising prosperity. We will continue with the policies which have given this country the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years and the longest period of low inflation for 50 years.

  Refugees
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will initiate joint action by the relevant Departments of Her Majesty's Government to determine the domicile of those persons, and their dependants, who(a) have refugee status, (b) have been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom or (c) have outstanding applications for refugee status; and if he will (i) publish and (ii) place in the Library the numbers of (1) such persons and (2) their dependants (x) by local authority area and (y) by parliamentary constituency. [8251]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry have been incurred by the Government in relation to(a) himself,
  494
  (b) his predecessor and (c) his or her officials and advisers. [8743]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The Treasury Solicitor provides legal advice to the Prime Minister and his officials on a range of issues as part of his normal duties. The cost of his advice in relation to the Scott inquiry is not quantifiable. No other legal costs have been incurred in connection with the Scott inquiry on behalf of myself, my predecessor or my officials or advisers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science Budget
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget. [10078]

  Mr. Lang
  I have discussed the allocations with the Director General of Research Councils and have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the Supply estimates in due course, the science budget of £1,312.390 million should be allocated as follows:

  Science Budget Allocations and Planning Assumptions

  £ million

  Allocation

  Planning figures

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  BBSRC

  176.31

  176.89

  179.98

  ESRC

  63.08

  63.62

  65.64

  EPSRC

  375.95

  373.46

  376.78

  MRC

  281.89

  282.96

  286.86

  NERC

  164.65

  162.32

  167.90

  PPARC

  191.68

  191.73

  194.90

  International subscriptions reserve

  15.04

  18.00

  18.00

  CCLRC

  1.45

  1.45

  1.45

  Research Council Pensions Supplement

  9.87

  11.53

  12.97

  Royal Society

  21.82

  22.27

  22.62

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  3.12

  3.37

  3.44

  OST Initiatives

  2.53

  2.78

  2.85

  Foresight Challenge

  5.00

  10.00

  13.00

  High-performance computing

  —

  10.00

  —

  Total

  1,312.39

  1,330.39

  1,346.39

  These allocations will enable the research councils and other funded bodies to consolidate and develop the new initiatives announced in February 1994 to take forward the policies set out in the 1993 White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". Further details are set out in the paper "Allocation of the Science Budget 1996–97", which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the forthcoming prior options study of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [10079]
  495
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government announced on 29 September 1995 that all public sector research establishments would be subject to prior options reviews.

  A review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory has begun. Bearing in mind the extensive studies carried out leading to the decision in 1994 that NWML should remain an executive agency of the DTI, and my right hon. Friend's recently announced decision that it should move to a net expenditure control basis from 1 April 1996, the forthcoming review is likely to draw extensively on this material; the review will also consider NWML's relationship with public sector research establishments.

  I should welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 16 February 1996 to Charles Cruickshank, Department of Trade and Industry, 151 Buckingham Palace road, London SW1W 9SS.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Government have paid to trade unions towards the costs of conducting postal ballots under legislation in each year since their introduction. [9812]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The costs of the trade union ballot refunds for the scheme, by calendar year since its inception, are as follows:

  1980: No applications

  1981: £12,935

  1982: £26,149

  1983: £85,072

  1984: £72,498

  1985: £1,392,982

  1986: £738,301

  1987: £1,158,801

  1988: £869,448

  1989: £1,339,582

  1990: £2,636,766

  1991: £4,082,383

  1992: £4,259,860

  1993: £3,382,803

  1994: £1,899,955

  1995: £1,095,236.

  Carbon Monoxide Detectors
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had, and when, with the Building Standards Institute on immediately establishing a British standard for carbon monoxide detectors. [9617]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An official from my Department sits in the relevant British Standards Institution group which has been writing a new standard for carbon monoxide detectors and has been actively involved in this work. I am pleased to say the standard has now been completed and is expected to be published in the spring.

  Non-fossil Fuel Renewable Order 4
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how NFFO 4—fourth non-fossil fuel renewable order—was modified by the results of any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department;. [8664]
  496
  (2) if NFFO 4 has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"; and if he will publish the appraisal;. [8662]

  (3) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of NFFO 4;. [8665]

  (4) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in NFFO 4 were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [8663]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answers 15 January 1996]: One of the objectives underlying the Government's renewables policy, including the non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewables, is a reduction in the emission of pollutants. The environmental aspects of the policy were fully discussed in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200, 1990), and in DTI energy papers such as "New and Renewable Energy: Future Prospects in the UK" (DTI: Energy Paper Number 62, 1994). The environmental aspects of particular proposed power stations are handled through the planning process.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to delegate further work from the Marine Safety Agency to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [8229]

  Mr. Norris
  The only delegation to the private sector of the work of the Marine Safety Agency currently planned, and which is in addition to the delegation package announced in August 1993, is the eyesight testing of seafarers.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons leaseholding operators of motorway service areas are not required to pay annual rent to his Department. [9397]

  Mr. Watts
  Originally, operators of motorway service areas paid an annual rent based on turnover. In 1978 the Prior committee report on MSAs concluded that this arrangement was discouraging new investment and the improvement of standards. A new policy was announced in October 1979 under which operators would pay a lump sum at the beginning of their lease term and a peppercorn annual rent thereafter. That arrangement had been adopted for all MSAs, new and existing, by 1982. It continues to apply to the 19 existing MSAs for which the Department currently owns the freehold, pending their sale to the private sector. The provision of MSAs was deregulated in 1992 and the issue of payment of rent to my Department no longer arises with new MSAs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the costs to his Department of acting as a freeholder for motorway service areas in England. [9398]
  497
  Mr. Watts
  The costs are minimal and will reduce to nothing as the Department's remaining freehold interests in motorway service areas in England are sold to the private sector.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he intends to issue to(a)Departments,(b)executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9226]

  Mr. Norris
  We will shortly be publishing the first in a series of information bulletins which will report the progress we are making in implementing part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. These bulletins will be widely circulated. As the bulletins are published, I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  When regulations are made under part V of the Act, we will issue separate detailed guidance to all those affected.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent reports he has received in respect of safety failings on the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement. [9291]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has received no general reports indicating safety failings on the west coast main line. The Health and Safety Executive has received specific reports on derailments at Camden on 14 December and Euston station on 20 December 1995. These incidents are being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. The inspectorate is also following up a number of claims about the condition of the west coast main line made by individuals.

  HM railway inspectorate will continue its independent monitoring and investigation of railway safety to ensure that safety standards are maintained on the west coast main line.

  Franchising Director
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to revise the objectives, instructions and guidance issued to the franchising director under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993. [10257]

  Sir George Young
  I have now written to the franchising director clarifying and amplifying the sections of his objectives, instructions and guidance which relate to the setting of passenger service requirements and the evaluation of bids. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment has been made of the impact of the Newbury bypass on habitats of protected species;. [8410]
  498
  (2) what are the comparative costs of construction in respect of (a) the Newbury bypass and (b) upgrading the existing route of the A34 in accordance with route option CA4; and what assessment has been made of the relative environmental impact of each option. [8409]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Smith, dated 16 January 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the A34 Newbury Bypass.
  We have surveyed carefully the route of the Bypass and we have relocated (in close liaison with English Nature) protected species where necessary. For example, all major trees were surveyed for the presence of bats; those found were caught, their roots removed and the bats then released into woodland away from the route, where bat boxes had been erected. Badgers have been relocated to new artificial setts and dormice have been moved to new sites. Our ecological consultants will keep watch during the works to ensure the safety of protected species in liaison, as necessary, with English Nature.
  Route option CA4 was an objectors alternative route put forward at the 1988 Public Inquiry; the comparative costs of the two schemes are those given to that Inquiry. These are £38.8M for route option CA4 and £46.6M for the western bypass. I should add that the Inspector at that Inquiry concluded that route CA4 would be ineffective in traffic terms and that the proposed western route would be very much better value for money that any of the alternatives put forward to the Inquiry.
  The comparative environmental impacts of the proposed route and alternative CA4 were discussed at the Public Inquiry in 1988. The Inspector concluded that central route options would not relieve Newbury of significant amounts of through traffic; there would be upheaval and disruption during construction and serious problems would remain at junctions. He found that CA4 in particular would have severe and insurmountable operational difficulties. And, at the end, central routes would leave Newbury with structures out of keeping with a country market town and there would be higher levels of pollution. The Inspector found all central routes unacceptable and the Secretaries of State accepted that.
  Our Study Report last year looked again among other issues at central route options, but concluded that nothing had changed since 1988 which had made the Inspector's criticism less valid or which had altered the balance he had found in favour of the western bypass.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the compulsory purchase order was made to acquire land on which the Newbury bypass is to be built; and when compensation will start being paid to those affected by the order. [9522]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 16 January 1996:
  As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Newbury Bypass.
  The Compulsory Purchase Order for the scheme was made on 4 October 1993. Some compensation has already been paid, further payments will follow when negotiations with landowners are finalised.

  Channel Tunnel Security Seal
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety of the security bolt seal chosen by Railfreight for channel tunnel operations relative to that of its competitors. [8486]
  499
  Mr. Watts
  The bolt seal meets the requirement laid down by the Department that any seal used must be on the Custom and Excise group 1 or 2 list. Railfreight Distribution has asked the Loss Prevention Council to undertake independent tests on the seal in the light of allegations made about it.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Railfreight is required to operate in an open-market, competitive manner in its allocation of contracts. [8487]

  Mr. Watts
  As with other public bodies, Railfreight Distribution must operate openly in a competitive market. EC rules require large contracts to be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU and to be available to bidders throughout the EC. I am advised that Railfreight Distribution selected the bolt seal in 1994 following the evaluation of a number of seals. In EC and Railfreight Distribution procurement terms this was a small contract. However, Railfreight Distribution has agreed that the next contract will be put out for full competitive tender.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led Railfreight to require all users of the channel tunnel to use the same security bolt seal; and what are his powers in this respect. [8488]

  Mr. Watts
  This is entirely a management matter for the British Railways Board and Railfreight Distribution. I understand from the BR Board that for managerial and control purposes Railfreight Distribution needed a single, easily recognisable set of seals to permit rapid verification of the integrity of cargoes at depots in all weathers. It concluded that acceptance of more than one manufacturer's product could result in a multiplicity of seals which in Railfreight Distribution's view would have impeded the safe and efficient discharge of its responsibilities. The BR Board has reviewed this decision and agreed that this was correct in the circumstances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his safety inspectorate has given to the security seal policy of Railfreight; and what is its judgment thereon. [8489]

  Mr. Watts
  Security matters are the responsibility of my Department's transport security division. Its inspectors routinely consider all aspects of channel tunnel security. They do not consider that there are any security problems with the seal system in use by Railfreight Distribution.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met representatives of the British security seal industry about Railfreight's policy on security seals for the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [8490]

  Mr. Watts
  I have had one meeting with Mr. Bill Tait, the former chairman of the Security Seal Industry Association, and I have been in correspondence with the current chairman, Mr. Ken Lloyd. The policy on the use and control of seals is for Railfreight Distribution to determine. The Department's role is to lay down the standard of seal required.

  London Airports (Access)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to allow formal local government membership of his London airports surface access study steering group. [8532]

  Mr. Norris
  To keep it at a manageable size, the membership of the steering group for the London airports surface access study is restricted to representatives from several Government Departments and from transport and airport operators.

  During the study, advice and information is being sought from other interested parties, including local authorities and local authority groups, such as the South and West London Transport Conference—Sweltrac—of which Spelthorne borough council is a member.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what development opportunities and possible new routes have been discussed by his London airports surface access study steering group. [8533]

  Mr. Norris
  The London airports surface access study is examining the opportunities for improving surface access to and between London's main airports—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City airports. As well as considering new links and development opportunities, the study will assess the extent to which such improvements would relieve future congestion on road links to the airports. The LASAS consultants are reviewing a wide range of proposals and schemes and are due to report by the end of June.

  Cars (Environmental Pollution)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to introduce to(a) discourage the use of the car and (b) encourage the use of alternative forms of transport. [8600]

  Mr. Norris
  Measures to discourage the use of the car and encourage alternatives are being promoted by local authorities within the context of the package approach. The need for further measures has been discussed widely as part of the national debate on transport policy, on which the Government intend to produce a further report.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is currently taking to increase the amount of public information available in respect of the environmental effects of car pollution. [8603]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department regularly issues advice in official publications to motorists and operators on environmentally conscious driving and, in conjunction with the Department of Environment, is undertaking a number of initiatives to increase the amount of public information available.

  One recent initiative, under the aegis of the Greener Motoring Forum, was the launch of a pilot information campaign, with garages and dealerships in five cities. This offered motorists a free exhaust emissions test and a booklet, "Running a greener car," explaining what they can do to improve their car's environmental performance.
  501
  More generally, the first national air quality strategy, which the Government intend to publish for consultation within the next few months, will include a detailed breakdown of the source of many common air pollutants, including road transport where appropriate, and the steps which we will take or expect others to take to reach air quality standards and objectives. The Government also publish the "Digest of Environmental Statistics" and sponsor publications such as the independent reports of the expert panel on air quality standards, which spell out clearly the environmental effects of different sources of pollution, including cars.

  Rural Transport Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus routes have been(a) withdrawn and (b) curtailed since 1979. [8602]

  Mr. Norris
  The Traffic Commissioners' records of bus service registrations, variations and withdrawals do not differentiate between rural and urban routes, and so the information requested cannot be provided. The annual report of the Traffic Commissioners shows the total numbers of services withdrawn or varied for each traffic area.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural train stations have closed since 1979. [8601]

  Mr. Watts
  Twenty stations in rural locations have been closed since 1979.

  Research Costs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's transport research budget is devoted to investigating transport by(a) rail and (b) road; and what sums his Department has spent on these areas in the last year for which figures are available. [8604]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 49. It is primarily for the rail industry to commission research particular to its needs. In 1994–95 my Department spent £69,000 on research devoted to investigating transport by rail and £33,800,000 on research devoted to investigating transport by road.

  National Integrated Transport Strategy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to advance a national integrated transport strategy. [8605]

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the future direction of transport policy will be taken in the light of the national transport debate.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9589]
  502
  Mr. Norris
  Records of the powers and the parliamentary procedures specified in relation to them are not kept and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the past five years the holder of his office has travelled overseas at public expense without being accompanied by civil servants. [9813]

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the environmental organisations he has met over the past year to discuss transport issues. [8599]

  Sir George Young
  Since taking up my position in July, I have had meetings with a number of environmental organisations, including:

  The Cyclists Public Affairs Group

  English Heritage

  English Nature

  The Environmental Transport Association

  The National Trust

  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Transport 2000.

  Newarthill
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list existing contracts between the Highways Agency and the United Kingdom company Newarthill and its subsidiaries. [9722]

  Mr. Watts
  Newarthill is the ultimate parent company of a number of subsidiary firms making up the Sir Robert McAlpine group. The Highways Agency's business contracts are confined to Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd., which is presently undertaking one contract in joint venture with Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd. The contract is the A406 Silver street to Hall lane, Fore street underpass, which commenced on 24 April 1995.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of noise and settlement in combination with each other will qualify as a serious effect under the Union Railways discretionary purchase scheme published in July 1995 in relation to the channel tunnel rail link. [9088]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The discretionary purchase guidelines placed in the Library on 19 July 1995 outline the type of factors that Union Railways Ltd. takes into account when deciding whether the enjoyment of a property is likely to be seriously affected. The factors listed are not exhaustive and other factors and combination of factors will be taken into account when considering individual applications.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  North Korea
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to appeals for food aid in response to the famine in North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [9068]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA contributed £150,000 through UN agencies and the International Red Cross to give food and other relief supplies last autumn. We have recently agreed to fund two Save the Children Fund nutritionalists to work with the World Food Programme in North Korea on famine assessment.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Sri Lankan Government on providing financial and material help to rebuild Jaffna; and if he will make a statement. [8559]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government on a number of occasions that we are ready to help in assessing the rehabilitation of power supplies in Jaffna as soon as peace has been restored and the relevant Sri Lankan officials are in place.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance he plans to make available to Cyprus when a settlement is agreed; and if he will make a statement. [8551]

  Mr. Hanley
  The question of any financial assistance to Cyprus in the context of a settlement will be considered at the appropriate time.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public opinion surveys his Department has undertaken on attitudes to aid and development issues. [8875]

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of a survey on the effectiveness of its external communications, the ODA commissioned National Opinion Poll to conduct a public opinion survey in November 1995 which looked generally at the way the public viewed the aid programme.

  Bilateral Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which five recipient countries have received the largest(a) increase and (b) decrease in United Kingdom bilateral aid since 1992. [8871]

  Mr. Hanley
  Statistics on aid expenditure usually relate to financial years, and in this case cover the changes between 1992–93 and 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available. The table gives the requested information for expenditure on the ODA aid programme, excluding the Commonwealth Development Corporation and expenditure from other Government Departments.
  504

  The countries receiving the largest increases and decreases in bilateral ODA aid programme expenditure from 1992–93 to 1994–95

  Recipient country

  Change (£ million) 1994–95 cf 1992–93

  Increases

  Rwanda

  +45.0

  Russia

  +20.8

  Malawi

  +20.3

  Pakistan

  +8.9

  States of ex-Yugoslavia

  +8.5

  Decreases

  Malaysia1

  -16.7

  Ghana

  -15.2

  Somalia

  -13.7

  India

  -12.1

  Zimbabwe

  -11.8

  1Expenditure on Pergau is included for 1992–93 but not for 1994–95. If expenditure on Pergau were excluded from the 1992–93 figures, Malaysia would no longer appear in the table. Bangladesh would then feature with a decrease of -£10.6 million.

  Aid Expenditure (Effects)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to measure the impact of aid expenditure on the poorest people. [9119]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA's policy information marker system identifies aid used for direct assistance to poor people. More broadly, the ODA assesses the impact of its programmes on poverty reduction through close project monitoring, assessment made at project completion and subsequent project evaluations. The evidence gathered in recent years is summarised in the "Progress Report on ODA's Policy Objectives", dated May 1995, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Aid Allocations (Priorities)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the priority sectors in aid allocations to recipient countries following the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental review of expenditure. [8869]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA will continue to allocate the majority of bilateral aid on a country-by-country basis.

  Country strategies and priority sectors will be developed according to the specific needs of individual countries, and in full consultation with them. These programmes will contribute to the wider aims set out in the ODA's revised mission statement.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current and future regional priorities for the aid programme following the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review. [8873]

  Mr. Hanley
  The fundamental expenditure review confirmed the need for continued substantial levels of concessional aid. The ODA's intention will remain to focus this aid on where it is most needed and where it can do most good. This means that aid will continue to be concentrated on the poorest countries, although there
  505
  remains a continuing need for help to be given to countries in transition. The FER 'concluded that the effectiveness of the aid programme will be increased if substantial aid programmes are confined to a smaller number of recipients. The ODA will continue to move in this direction.

  Dominica
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been provided to Dominica for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the changes in the aid provision. [8697]

  Mr. Hanley
  UK bilateral aid disbursements to Dominica over the past five financial years were as follows:

  1990–91: £1.565 million.

  1991–92: £1.986 million.

  1992–93: £2.907 million.

  1993–94: £2.173 million.

  1994–95: £0.287 million.

  The lower disbursement figure in 1994–95 relates to the UK's decision to tie the release of funds from our 1993 aid grant to the clearance of arrears on repayments of past UK aid loans to Dominica.

  Developing Countries (Private Expenditure)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest figures on private flows from the United Kingdom to developing countries in(a) pound sterling and (b) as a percentage of GNP. [8949]

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest estimate of UK private flows to developing countries in 1994 is as follows:

  £ million

  Direct investment

  3,100

  Guaranteed export credits (net)

  27

  Other bilateral securities and claims

  1,241

  Total

  £4,368

  Total as a percentage of GNP

  0.64 per cent.

  Development Assistance
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aims and objectives of United Kingdom development assistance following the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review. [8874]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA fundamental expenditure review reviewed the ODA's mission statement set out in its 1995 departmental report. It concluded that there was scope for greater clarity and focus about what the ODA should be seeking to achieve. As a consequence, the ODA has adopted the following revised mission statement:"ODA's purpose is to improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
  To this end ODA will aim:
  506

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

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

  to enhance productive capacity and to conserve the environment; and

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

  This revised mission statement will appear in ODA's 1996 departmental report.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement in respect of the future principal civil service pension scheme. [9110]

  Mr. Willetts
  Occupational pensions for civil servants will continue to be provided through the principal civil service pension scheme.

  Public Service Pensioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the pensions payable to public service pensioners in each of the years from 1979 covering grades from CA to assistant secretary, assuming the top of grade retiring salary, the award of pensionable performance pay and 30 years' service. [9111]

  Mr. Willetts
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9142]

  Mr. Willetts
  My agency chief executives have no plans to change their arrangements for the provision of pre-retirement courses.

  Open Government Code
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total cost to date of publicising(a) the citizens charters and (b) the open government code. [8557]

  Mr. Willetts
  To date, 40 main charters have been produced covering a wide range of public services. In addition, there are 8,000 local charters setting out the standards of service that users can expect. The cost of publicising charters is the responsibility of individual Departments and services. This information is not held centrally by my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total cost to date of specifically publicising the open government code is approximately £183,000.
  507
  I gave additional details of the way in which the code has been publicised in my answer to the hon. Member on 9 January 1996, Official Report, column 121.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance he intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9228]

  Mr. Willetts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People,Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that the Cabinet Office and those bodies for which it is responsible are made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Engagements
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Monday 18 December and for Tuesday 19 December 1995. [8609]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  On each day, I had a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in her Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by her before they are sent; and if she will identify such letters to which amendments by her have been made in 1994–95. [7837]

  Mr. Sproat
  Parliamentary questions are passed on to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. In 1994–95 no such replies were amended by Ministers.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action heads of all her Department's executive agencies are taking to protect pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies; and if she will make a statement. [9135]

  Mr. Sproat
  Neither the Historic Royal Palaces agency nor the Royal Parks agency has any plans to make economies by cutting the provision of pre-retirement training, which we consider to be an important step in preparing our staff for leaving full-time employment.

  Television Licences (Visually Impaired Persons)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the visually impaired persons rebate on television licence costs was last reviewed; and what the rebate would now be if it had been increased in line with inflation since then. [8554]

  Mr. Sproat
  The reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people used to be equivalent to the radio licence fee. The last increase was in 1965 and, since radio licences were abolished in 1971, the reduction in the television licence fee issued to blind people has remained at £1.25. If the reduction had increased with inflation from 1965 it would have risen to £12.65 by November 1995, based on latest available retail prices index figures. A specially adapted monitor which receives broadcast television signals in sound only is available from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. No licence is required to use such a monitor.

  BBC World Arabic Service
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will require the British Broadcasting Corporation to explain the circumstances in which the news broadcasters of the BBC World Arabic Service were interrupted during coverage of Her Majesty's Government's decision to deport Professor Mohammed al-Masari; and if she will make a statement. [8723]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that the BBC is investigating as a matter of urgency the circumstances surrounding the reported interruptions to BBC Worldwide's Arabic news service. This television service is a commercial venture and it is for the BBC to decide what action to take in the light of its findings.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance she intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which she has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if she will make a statement. [9233]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People gave on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that my Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 31 December 1995 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; and if she will list the works of art and museum objects which
  509
  are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax. [9015]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Condition/wishes

  Paintings by Joshua Reynolds

  National Trust

  Condition

  Pair of George I Pier Glasses

  National Trust

  Condition

  Chattels from Killerton

  National Trust

  Condition

  Four works of Ben Nicholson and two works by Barbara Hepworth

  Tate Gallery

  Condition

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half-year ended 31 December 1995, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institutions; and if she will list any items for which the licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit. [9014]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A painting "The Holy Family", by Giulio Romano, (c.1490–1546)

  1,720,320

  Export licence granted.

  A George II open armchair, c.1727

  325,000

  Export licence granted.

  A pair of George II walnut side chairs, c.1731

  446,363

  Export licence granted.

  A pair of George II open armchairs, 1740

  202,912.50

  Export licence granted.

  A painting "Judith with the Head of Holofernes" by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1530

  314,662.50

  Acquired by the Burrell Collection, Glasgow.

  A court dress or mantua of ivory silk damask, c.1755

  78,826

  Acquired by the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection of the Historic Royal Palaces, Hampton Court.

  The Coronation Bible of George III, c.1761

  350,000

  Export licence granted.

  The frame of the Coronation Crown of George IV, 1821

  376,000

  Export licence application withdrawn.

  The frame of the Coronation Crown of Queen Adelaide, 1831

  425,000

  Export licence application withdrawn.

  The frame of the Imperial State Crown of George I, 1715

  576,000

  Export licence application withdrawn.

  510

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A painting "La Lecture de Moliere" by Jean Francois de Troy

  4,497,672

  Purchased by a UK buyer.

  A Celtic buckle from a chariot horse harness, c.1st century A.D.

  2,940.63

  Acquired by the Kings Lynn Museum.

  Three letter-books and a diary of Sir William Boothby (1639–1706)

  32,500

  Acquired by the British Library.

  A drawing "Landscape with Boats on a River and Merchandise on the Shore" by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called II Guercino (1591–1666)

  70,000

  Export licence granted.

  An Anglo-Indian lacquer commode, c.1770–1780

  49,000

  Export licence application withdrawn,

  A painting "The Holy Family with the Infant St. John" by Fra Bartolommeo (1472–1517)

  14,000,00

  Decision deferred until after 8 May 1996.

  A painting "Lord Willoughby de Broke and his family at Breakfast" by Johan Zoffany, c.1766

  3,500,000

  Decision deferred until after 5 February 1996.

  A lady's secretary by Thomas Chippendale (1718–1779)

  570,000

  Decision deferred until after 5 February 1996.

  An archive of manuscripts relating to the editing of "Principia Mathematica" by Sir Isaac Newton c.1726

  400,000

  Decision deferred until after 5 February 1996.

  A collection of architectural drawings for Trentham Hall signed or annotated by Sir Charles Barry and others, 1834–1914

  75,820

  Decision deferred until after 5 February 1996.

  BBC Transmitters
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make it a condition of the acquisition of the BBC transmitters that the company awarded the licence shall have an obligation to(a) acquire the ownership, (b) maintain and (c) fully finance the running of community-owned booster masts throughout Britain. [7733]

  Mr. Sproat
  The BBC is handling the arrangements for the sale of its transmission services. At present, the responsibility for the ownership, maintenance and funding of community-owned booster masts in Britain lies with the communities themselves. We have no plans to impose on the purchaser of BBC transmission services new obligations in respect of community-owned booster masts.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9592]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Televised Sport
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) which television organisations are giving evidence to the Government in connection with the possible protection for the terrestrial television channels of the major sporting events; [8708]

  (2) on what date the Government begin their consideration of the coverage of major sporting events on terrestrial television; [8709]

  (3) when she expects the Government's consideration of protection of major sporting events for the terrestrial television channels to be completed; [8707]

  (4) if she will list the people who are currently considering the issue of how to protect the major sporting events for the terrestrial television channels. [8706]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government's position is that sporting bodies should in general be free to sell their broadcasting rights in the interests of their sport. We have received a number of representations, and are aware of public debate on this issue; and we are keeping our policy underclosereview.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Numeracy and Literacy Centres
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she has had with local education authorities concerning her proposal to establish numeracy and literacy centres; what will be the basis of selection for those attending; and if attendence will be voluntary or optional or obligatory additional to existing teaching duties or on secondment for an existing appointment. [8459]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Departmental officials consulted the local authority associations on the nature of the scheme and have offered all local education authorities the opportunity to attend a discussion on 16 January to inform the production of their bids.

  Details of the operation of the scheme and the criteria for selection of LEAs are included in the letter which was sent to all chief education officers on 5 January. I will write to the hon. Member enclosing a copy of this letter, and will place copies of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the Budget on Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; and if she will make a statement. [8456]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to all training and enterprise council chairmen in England on 28 November regarding the effects of the budget announcement on TECs. Officials from the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside have had preliminary meetings with all TECs in the region. Detailed discussions with Barnsley and Doncaster TEC will begin later this month.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the published information on the value of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC's contract with the Employment Department in the financial year 1994–95; and if she will make a statement. [8430]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council's budget for 1994–95 was published on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 102, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and the TEC's annual report for 1994–95 indicates income and expenditure relating to a range of activities, including those for which the Department contracts with the TEC. The accuracy of the written answer was checked by my officials, and the financial information in the TEC's annual report is extracted from the annual statutory report and accounts which are subject to external audit.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what negotiations have taken place between her Department and Barnsley and Doncaster TEC to make provision for employment for the over-45 year age group; and if she will make a statement. [8431]

  Mr. Paice
  Negotiations between the Department and Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council cover a number of matters, including training for work which is open to eligible unemployed adults up to the age of 63. Clients in the over 45 age group also have access to a range of Employment Service programmes through the local jobcentres.

  Youth Training Scheme (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many eligible young people in Walthamstow are currently unable to obtain a place on a youth training scheme. [8975]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no young people in Walthamstow for whom the youth training guarantee has not been met.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of new nursery places likely to be created in the nursery voucher pilot scheme areas as a result of the voucher scheme. [9058]
  513
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of additional places created through the nursery voucher scheme will depend on the response of providers to parental demand. I am confident that providers of all types, either alone or in partnership with each other, will satisfy parental demand over time.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of Office for Standards in Education inspections of nursery providers that will be carried out in the nursery voucher pilot areas during phase 1; what these inspections will cost; and what extra resources will be made available to Ofsted to accommodate increased inspection. [8719]

  Mr. Squire
  Setting aside maintained schools which are already subject to regular inspection by Ofsted, initial planning estimates indicate that for the first phase of the scheme some 600 inspections of voucher redeeming establishments will be required. The precise number will depend upon the number of providers who take part in the scheme.

  A total of £5 million has been set aside for the inspection and administration during the first phase, the greater proportion of which will be spent on the recruitment and training of inspectors in preparation for the second phase.

  Post-GCSE Pupils
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics are maintained(a) nationally and (b) regionally providing details of the movement of pupils in the two years following GCSE. [8540]

  Mr. Paice
  Statistics are collected by careers services on the first destinations of all 16-year-olds following the completion of their compulsory education. The local area statistics are aggregated to provide regional and national figures. The findings are normally published early the following year and the report on the destinations of the 1995 year group is expected shortly. In recent years the report has been published by the Association of County Councils with the support of the UK heads of careers services and the Department.

  Additionally, since 1985 the Department has funded the youth cohort study. This is a postal questionnaire survey of approximately 20,000 young people in their first year after the end of compulsory schooling. The sample is representative of young people of the given age group in England and Wales.

  Further questionnaires are sent to the same young people in each of the following two years, so providing information on their progress at 16–17, 17–18, 18–19 years of age.

  The YCS provides detailed information on the school experience, current activity, education, qualifications, employment and training of young people, together with a small amount of contextual socio-demographic background data. The study was designed to provide a national picture and reports normally concentrate on national figures.
  514
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will collect statistics on the movement of pupils in the two years following GCSE. [8541]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department plans to extend the requirement on careers services so that they also collect information on the first destinations of 17 and 18-year-old school leavers. In future years this requirement may be further extended to include the corresponding further education college leavers and provide a fuller picture.

  Classroom Violence
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have been subjected to violence in the classroom in each year since 1990. [9259]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give a breakdown of the Ofsted budget for 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [9556]

  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.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what considerations led the Government office for the north-west and the Employment Service not to consult training providers for their views in compiling the north-west training for work study. [9703]

  Mr. Paice
  The study was designed to identify how training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service could work together more effectively to enhance the take-up of training for work opportunities. It is a highly focused study and there was insufficient time available for another study involving training providers or interviews of TFW participants.

  The results were subsequently discussed at a workshop that involved a number of training providers and their views have been taken into account by TECs, the ES and the Government office in managing TFW.

  Education Budget (Metropolitan Counties)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the percentage of each of the metropolitan counties' education budget which is spent on(a) schools and (b) on non-school expenditure together with the amount of money this represents per school pupil in each case. [8882]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows for each metropolitan county local education authority the percentage of net recurrent expenditure spent in
  515
  1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, on: (a) pre-primary, primary, secondary and special schools; and (b) other education services, including education other than at school, adult education, continuing education, discretionary awards, youth and other

  Expenditure on Education and its cost per pupil—Metropolitan LEAs Net recurrent expenditure 1993–94

  Pre-primary/primary secondary and special

  Non-school

  Percentage of expenditure (a)

  Cost per pupil

  Percentage of expenditure (b)

  Cost per pupil

  Birmingham

  95

  2,313

  5

  112

  Coventry

  90

  2,319

  10

  248

  Dudley

  90

  1,950

  10

  210

  Sandwell

  94

  2,241

  6

  152

  Solihull

  94

  1,939

  6

  121

  Walsall

  89

  2,103

  11

  247

  Wolverhampton

  91

  2,313

  9

  215

  Knowsley

  91

  2,393

  9

  239

  Liverpool

  93

  2,260

  7

  182

  St. Helens

  96

  2,270

  4

  87

  Sefton

  96

  2,102

  4

  86

  Wirral

  93

  2,210

  7

  176

  Bolton

  94

  2,074

  6

  130

  Bury

  93

  2,084

  7

  146

  Manchester

  94

  2,531

  6

  150

  Oldham

  94

  2,110

  6

  143

  Rochdale

  92

  2,130

  8

  182

  Salford

  94

  2,107

  6

  127

  Stockport

  89

  1,954

  11

  247

  Tameside

  93

  1,975

  7

  139

  Trafford

  96

  2,095

  4

  93

  Wigan

  96

  2,093

  4

  77

  Barnsley

  94

  2,090

  6

  143

  Doncaster

  97

  2,236

  3

  79

  Rotherham

  94

  2,187

  6

  134

  Sheffield

  90

  2,161

  10

  230

  Bradford

  96

  2,276

  4

  90

  Calderdale

  92

  2,049

  8

  169

  Kirklees

  91

  2,225

  9

  222

  Leeds

  91

  2,115

  9

  197

  Wakefield

  96

  2,124

  4

  98

  Gateshead

  86

  2,167

  14

  346

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  89

  2,250

  11

  271

  North Tyneside'

  94

  2,104

  6

  123

  South Tyneside

  89

  1,950

  11

  241

  Sunderland

  95

  2,045

  5

  118

  Total

  93

  2,179

  7

  161

  Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are employed in each local education authority(a) currently (b) in 1979, (c) in 1985 and (d) in 1990; and if she will make a statement. [8676]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The full-time equivalent numbers of teachers employed in each local authority area in the maintained—including grant-maintained—nursery, primary and secondary sector in January 1995 are shown in the following table. The table excludes staff in sixth form colleges which transferred to the further education sector on 1 April 1993.

  Information for the years 1979, 1985 and 1990 include sixth form colleges and are contained in the Department of Education and Science "Pupil/Teacher Ratios in each
  516
  community services, service strategy and regulation and education support services. The table also shows the amount spent per pupil, although in the case of non-schools expenditure school pupils are not the principal clients and the figures are not therefore meaningful.

  Local Education Authority in England", statistical bulletins 17/79, 6/86 and 5/91, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary1 sector

  England

  January 1995

  Local education authority area

  FTE of teachers

  Corporation of London

  16

  Camden

  1,346

  Greenwich

  1,939

  Hackney

  1,429

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  941

  Islington

  1,360

  Kensington and Chelsea

  674

  Lambeth

  1,680

  Lewisham

  1,863

  Southwark

  1,687

  517

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary1 sector

  England

  January 1995

  Local education authority area

  FTE of teachers

  Tower Hamlets

  2,250

  Wandsworth

  1,561

  Westminster

  1,121

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,446

  Barnet

  2,638

  Bexley

  1,836

  Brent

  1,971

  Bromley

  2,181

  Croydon

  2,409

  Ealing

  2,097

  Enfield

  2,358

  Haringey

  1,730

  Harrow

  1,576

  Havering

  1,891

  Hillingdon

  1,870

  Hounslow

  1,890

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,057

  Merton

  1,269

  Newham

  1,968

  Redbridge

  1,937

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,052

  Sutton

  1,354

  Waltham Forest

  1,706

  Birmingham

  9,366

  Coventry

  2,657

  Dudley

  2,576

  Sandwell

  2,689

  Solihull

  1,845

  Walsall

  2,560

  Wolverhampton

  2,377

  Knowsley

  1,446

  Liverpool

  4,194

  St. Helens

  1,635

  Sefton

  2,546

  Wirral

  2,927

  Bolton

  2,467

  Bury

  1,420

  Manchester

  3,587

  Oldham

  2,202

  Rochdale

  1,819

  Salford

  1,821

  Stockport

  2,185

  Tameside

  1,842

  Trafford

  1,694

  Wigan

  2,754

  Barnsley

  1,704

  Doncaster

  2,703

  Rotherham

  2,440

  Sheffield

  3,719

  Bradford

  4,779

  Calderdale

  1,769

  Kirklees

  3,373

  Leeds

  5,759

  Wakefield

  2,704

  Gateshead

  1,715

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,104

  North Tyneside

  1,639

  South Tyneside

  1,340

  Sunderland

  2,728

  Isles of Scilly

  26

  Avon

  7,677

  Bedfordshire

  5,008

  Berkshire

  6,171

  Buckinghamshire

  5,310

  Cambridge

  5,573

  Cheshire

  8,013

  Cleveland

  5,189

  Cornwall

  3,675

  518

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary1 sector

  England

  January 1995

  Local education authority area

  FTE of teachers

  Cumbria

  4,016

  Derbyshire

  7,555

  Devon

  7,437

  Dorset

  4,393

  Durham

  5,117

  East Sussex

  4,899

  Essex

  11,771

  Gloucestershire

  4,258

  Hampshire

  11,871

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,329

  Hertfordshire

  8,725

  Humberside

  7,394

  Isle of Wight

  999

  Kent

  12,552

  Lancashire

  12,088

  Leicestershire

  7,810

  Lincolnshire

  4,877

  Norfolk

  5,898

  North Yorkshire

  5,774

  Northamptonshire

  5,624

  Northumberland

  2,672

  Nottinghamshire

  8,354

  Oxfordshire

  4,426

  Shropshire

  3,384

  Somerset

  3,665

  Staffordshire

  8,245

  Suffolk

  5,466

  Surrey

  6,529

  Warwickshire

  4,027

  West Sussex

  5,230

  Wiltshire

  4,698

  England

  392,910

  1Excluding sixth form colleges which transferred to the new FE sector on 1 April 1993.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9585]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information cannot be supplied other than at disproportionate cost, but the overwhelming majority of statutory instruments which are subject to parliamentary procedure are subject to the negative procedure.

  Employment Advertisements (Age Limit)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what her Department's policy towards banning an upper age limit in employment advertisements. [9724]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department remains committed to the elimination of upper age limits in job advertisements. Age discrimination makes no business sense and that is why the Government's campaign for older workers continues to emphasise this to employers. Increasing numbers of employers are responding to the message and are recruiting people on the basis of ability and skill and
  519
  not age. The Department has produced a series of publications aimed at employers and older workers as part of a co-ordinated campaign.

  The campaign's latest publication, "Age Works", encourages recruitment agencies and employment businesses to oppose age discrimination in the selection and recruitment of older workers in their job vacancies. Another publication to be published later this year targets the recruitment advertising industry.

  Social and Economic Deprivation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where the district which includes the Hastings travel-to-work area lies for levels of social and economic deprivation in relation to other London and south-east districts. [7796]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department's index of local conditions shows that Hastings is the 23rd most deprived district out of a total of 103 districts in London and the south-east.

  Strikes
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many working days have been lost through strike action in 1994; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last 16 years. [9545]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data for working days lost through strike action in the United Kingdom are given in the following table:

  Year

  Working days lost (Thousands)

  1978

  9,405

  1979

  29,474

  1980

  11,964

  1981

  4,266

  1982

  5,313

  1983

  3,754

  1984

  27,135

  1985

  6,402

  1986

  1,920

  1987

  3,546

  1988

  3,702

  1989

  4,128

  1990

  1,903

  1991

  761

  1992

  528

  1993

  649

  1994

  278

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mobile phones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8038]
  520
  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry and its associated executive agencies have been procuring mobile phones since 1990. Therefore, the information that follows covers the period from April 1990 to date.

  We currently have approximately 1,469 mobile phones which were procured under centrally negotiated call-off arrangements. Two suppliers have been used, Racal Vodafone (Vodac Ltd.) from 1 April 1990 to 28 February 1993 and Mercury Communications Ltd. from 1 March 1993 to present.

  The Ministry will shortly be tendering its requirements for mobile phones.

  The number of mobile phones bought each year are as follows:

  1990: 32

  1991: 137

  1992: 162

  1993: 398

  1994: 506

  1995: 234.

  Livestock Transport
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from(a) individual farmers and (b) farming organisations about the practical consequences of implementing EC directive 95/29 on livestock transport in sparsely populated areas. [8200]

  Mrs. Browning
  Out of a total of 127 responses to our recent consultation exercise on proposals for implementing Council directive 95/29/EC,(a) two individuals and (b) 13 farming organisations raised the issue of implementation in sparsely populated areas. Over 680 organisations and individuals were consulted in England and Wales.

  Food Regulations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the food regulations that ceased to be effective in the United Kingdom on 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [8451]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following regulations, and any amendments to them, were revoked on 1 January 1996:

  Food Standards (General Provisions) Order 1994

  Food Standards (Fish Cakes) Order 1950

  Skimmed Milk and Non-Milk Fat Regulations 1960

  Skimmed Milk with Non-Milk Fat (Scotland) Regulations 1960

  Soft Drinks Regulations 1964

  Soft Drinks (Scotland) Regulations 1964

  Meat (Treatment) Regulations 1964

  Meat (Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1964

  Butter Regulations 1966

  Butter (Scotland) Regulations 1966

  Margarine Regulations 1967

  Margarine (Scotland) Regulations 1970

  Ice-Cream Regulations 1967

  Solvents in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1968

  Cheese Regulations 1970

  Cheese (Scotland) Regulations 1970

  521

  Cream Regulations 1970

  Cream (Scotland) Regulations 1970

  Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973

  Colouring Matter in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1973

  Antioxidants in Food Regulations 1978

  Antioxidants in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1978

  Miscellaneous Additives in Food Regulations 1980

  Miscellaneous Additives in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1980

  Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1983

  Sweeteners in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1983

  Bread and Flour Regulations 1984

  Bread and Flour (Scotland) Regulations 1984

  Preservatives in Food Regulations 1989

  Preservatives in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations 1989

  Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  Potassium Bromate (Prohibition as a Flour Improver)
  Regulations 1990

  Potassium Bromate (Prohibition as a Flour Improver) Regulations 1990.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received following his decision to hold back payment of IACS cheques to farmers from December 1995 to January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9336]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Some 83 per cent. of claims under the arable area payments scheme were paid before 31 December 1995. We regret the delay to the remainder, which will be paid as soon as possible. Representations have been received from farming organisations and a number of individuals about the delay in making the remaining payments.

TREASURY

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations underlay his assessment of the prospects for the success of the Euro following the Madrid summit. [7725]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My assessment was based on my experience of frequent discussions of the subject at European Councils and ECOFIN meetings over the past two and a half years.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will ask his panel of independent experts to report on the likelihood of the achievement of monetary union and the implications of the single currency for Britain; [7430]

  (2) if he will commission and publish a report on the benefits and problems of monetary union, assessing the case for and against and the benefits and disbenefits of the United Kingdom's remaining outside. [7434]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Panel of Independent Forecasters' May 1995 report examined economic and 522
  monetary union. A copy of this report is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Tax (Self-assessment)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax inspectors will deal with self-assessment in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and 1997–98. [8313]

  Mr. Jack
  Self-assessment will start with the 1996–97 tax year, and the tax return issued in April 1997. Accordingly, no tax inspectors will be dealing with self-assessment returns in advance of that date, although many inspectors have spent time helping taxpayers to prepare for self-assessment, giving seminars to local accountants, and so on. The need for tax inspector involvement in the work will increase progressively throughout 1997–98 and into 1998–99, as returns are received from taxpayers.

  The Inland Revenue currently employs approximately 6,000 tax inspectors in local offices. Many of these deal with the affairs of taxpayers who receive tax returns, and will continue to do so when they start to received self-assessment tax returns.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons who are not currently using accountants the Department estimates will use accountants when the programme of self-assessment is introduced. [8317]

  Mr. Jack
  Neither the extensive market research programme nor surveys of those who have helped test the new tax return has yielded evidence that significant numbers of people will start to engage accountants as a result of self-assessment. On the contrary, some taxpayers viewed self-assessment as an opportunity to dispense with the services upon which they had previously depended.

  A full trial of the system is taking place in Leicester and may give a clearer indication of likely attitudes in the light of experience of the new system. No such data are yet available.

  The Inland Revenue considers that it is not necessary for those people who do not currently use the services of an accountant to engage one as a result of self-assessment. Those taxpayers who do not wish to calculate their own tax bill can ask the Inland Revenue to do it for them free of charge.

  Income Tax Thresholds
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the maximum by which income tax thresholds could be raised as a consequence of a
  523
  revenue reduction of (a) £1 billion, (b) £2 billion, (c) £3 billion, (d) £4 billion, (e) £5 billion and (f) £6 billion. [8476]

  Mr. Jack
  Latest estimates are that the personal allowance, including the age-related personal allowances, could be raised by the following amounts for the corresponding full year costs at 1996–97 levels.

  Increase in non aged and aged personal allowances

  Full year cost at 1996–97 levels

  £

  £billion

  160

  1

  320

  2

  480

  3

  650

  4

  820

  5

  1,000

  6

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9151]

  Mr. Jack
  The Treasury has no executive agencies.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average income of the highest paid 1 per cent. of the population in each year since 1966; what was the percentage increase in each year; and what was the value of each year's income at 1995 prices. [9271]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information which can be provided, using new earnings survey data, is given in the following table. It is not possible to provide this level of data before 1986.

  Earnings for years before 1995 can be converted to 1995 levels using the retail prices index (all items). This information is published in the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor MM23, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  New Earnings Survey 1986–1995 (Great Britain)

  Year

  1 per cent. earned more than £

  Gross average earnings weekly earnings highest paid 1 per cent. £

  Percentage increase on previous year

  1986

  541

  730

  —

  1987

  602

  838

  14.9

  1988

  674

  968

  15.5

  1989

  768

  1,086

  12.1

  1990

  845

  1,185

  9.2

  1991

  908

  1,255

  5.9

  1992

  961

  1,349

  7.5

  1993

  1,025

  1,490

  10.5

  1994

  1,028

  1,481

  -0.6

  1995

  1,083

  1,597

  7.8

  Full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are United Kingdom relative export unit values at current rates of exchange(a) at the latest available date and (b) at the time of United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism. [9784]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  United Kingdom relative export unit values are published in table 2.15 of "Economic Trends". These figures are also available on the CSO central database, under the identifier FLAA, which can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1966 the percentage changes in the real money supply. [9783]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Data for the narrow and broad measures of the money stock are available in tables 3.1C and 3.1D of "Financial Statistics". Data for the GDP deflator (table 2) and other measures of prices including underlying retail prices (table 23) are available in "Economic Trends". Both these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the United Kingdom's membership of the exchange rate mechanism on(a) manufacturing jobs and (b) manufacturing plants. [9785]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The United Kingdom's membership of the ERM will have been one of the many features of economic policy and conditions at the time that affected manufacturing jobs and manufacturing plants. It is not possible to quantify precisely with any confidence the effects of ERM membership or any other specific feature of economic policy in isolation from others. ERM membership played an important part in enabling the United Kingdom to begin to reduce inflation and so begin the economic recovery which we are still experiencing.

  Personal Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to date of tax relief allowed in respect of appropriate personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme of individuals with annual earnings of(a) £2,000 or below, (b) up to £3,000, (c) up to £4,000, (d) up to £5,000, (e) up to £6,000, (f) up to £7,000, (g) up to £8,000, (h) up to £9,000 and (i) up to £10,000. [8175]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: I regret that the distribution of tax relief by earnings of participants is not available, but the total cost of tax relief for personal pensions is published annually in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics".

  7141 and SC60 Tax Certificates
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers used(a) 714I and (b) SC60 certificates in each of the last five years. [8321]
  525
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: I refer to the reply which the then Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 15 March 1995, Official Report, column 608. The number of 714I holders recorded in April 1995 was 412,913.

  The latest figures available are for October 1995, when 403,502 714I holders were recorded.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his Budget proposals on small businesses during the next five years. [8560]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The Budget will encourage growth in output and jobs in small firms.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what legal costs, arising from the Scott inquiry, have been incurred by the Department on behalf of current and past(a) civil servants and (b) advisers and secondees; [8745]

  (2) what legal costs, arising from the Scott inquiry, have been incurred, on behalf of Ministers and ex-Ministers, by his Department; and if he will name the individuals concerned. [8756]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The value of accounts settled to date from public funds for the provision of external legal services, incurred by my Department on behalf of Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants, former civil servants, and other advisers and secondees in connection with the Scott inquiry is £60,440. The cost of any advice in connection with the Scott inquiry given by Government lawyers as part of their normal duties cannot be quantified. It is not the Government's policy to identify the individuals who have received legal advice, either directly or indirectly.

  Environmental Pollution Report
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates and on what matters, in connection with the 18th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, "Transport and the Environment", he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport. [9094]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: There have been many contacts between the Treasury and the Department of Transport concerning the royal commission report since its publication in October 1994, including several discussions at both official and ministerial level.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the assumptions used to calculate the cost of the increased lower and upper capital limits for long-term care announced in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"; how many additional people he expects to qualify next year under the new capital limits; how many would have qualified next year under the existing 526
  capital limits; and how many qualified in the current financial year. [8653]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: A wide range of data and assumptions underpinned determination of the provision for long-term care capital limit increases set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Of the order of 50,000 people currently in residential or nursing home care can expect to benefit from the increases. At the end of the last financial year, around 370,000 people received public support for residential or nursing home care.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take over the consequences for the Department for Education budget of the revenue effects of the postponement of the policy of transferring Student Loans Company assets to the private sector. [9177]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The postponement of the introduction of private loans will mean that the resultant savings will not be made in 199697. The Government will be considering what, if any, steps need to be taken as a consequence.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the public sector pension funds detailing(a) the size of each scheme and (b) if it is funded or unfunded. [8565]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Full details are not held centrally. Information covering the main public service schemes is as follows:

  Scheme

  Size (number of active members)

  Type

  Local government

  1,190,000

  Funded

  NHS

  870,000

  Unfunded

  Teachers

  610,000

  Unfunded

  Civil Service

  520,000

  Unfunded

  Armed forces

  230,000

  Unfunded

  Police

  140,000

  Unfunded

  Fire

  40,000

  Unfunded

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the extramural contractors to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, who have agreed to their contractual relationship to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment being disclosed to the public, outlining the subject of the contract, its value and its duration; and how many extramural contractors refused to have their contractual relationship being disclosed to the public; [7298]

  (2) how many contracts in universities are being funded by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; how many universities have these contracts; what is the total value of these contracts; how

  527
  many of these contracts are classified; how many of these contractors have agreed to allow their contractual relationship to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to be disclosed to the public; and how many have refused. [7299]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 16 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for details relating to extramural contractors to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down and also for details of contracts with universities has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions. I am answering both questions in this letter.
  In order to avoid any confusion I should explain that we do not make any distinction between extramural research contracts and research contracts specifically with universities. The information you have asked for refers, therefore, to one group of extramural contracts with universities, research institutes and industrial companies.
  As at Tuesday 9 January 1996 CBDE Porton Down had 53 of these contracts. Nineteen of the contractors have confirmed that they are prepared to have their contractual relationship disclosed to the public and, in fact, they are all universities. Fourteen have declined to make all the details of their relationship known to the public of which nine are in universities. The remaining twenty contractors have not declared their position, six of these being in universities.
  Of theses 53 contracts a total of 42 have been placed with 21 universities. They have a value of approximately £5 million and a duration varying from several months to a few years. None of them are classified.
  The nineteen university contractors who are prepared to make details of their relationship known to the public are:

  Birmingham
  Three contracts with a total value of £450K concerned with aspects of detection and decontamination. Duration between 2 to 4 years.

  Bristol
  Two contracts with a total value of £226K concerned with aspects of the medical countermeasures programme. Duration 3 years.

  Durham
  One contract with a total value of £98K concerned with aspects of the protective equipment programme. Duration 3 years.

  Hull
  Two contracts with a total value of £105K concerned with chemical analysis. Duration 3 to 4 years.

  Leeds
  One contract with a total value of £84k concerned with aspects of the medical countermeasures programme. Duration 3 years.

  Newcastle
  One contract with a total value of £68K concerned with aspects of the medical countermeasures programme. Duration 3 years.

  Southampton
  Two contracts with a total value of £178K concerned with aspects of the medical countermeasures and protective equipment programmes. Duration 1 and 4 years.
  528
  Warwick
  One contract with a total value of £156K concerned with the hazard assessment research programme. Duration 4 years.

  UMIST
  Five contracts with a total value of £780K concerned with aspects of the hazard assessment and protective equipment research programmes. Duration between 1 and 3 years.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of tests and studies carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on service volunteers with the nerve agent Tabun; when these tests and studies were first carried out; in which scientific journals the results of these tests and studies have been published; and what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health effects of long-term exposure to Tabun. [9041]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 16 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the purpose of tests and studies carried out by the Chemical Defence Establishment on service volunteers with the nerve agent Tabun; when these tests were first carried out; in which scientific journals the results have been published; and what research his department has a) commissioned and b) evaluated into the health effects of long term exposure to Tabun has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment as one of its divisions.
  Studies to evaluate the nerve agent Tabun were conducted following the discovery of this agent in German shells found after the collapse of the Third Reich at the end of the Second World War. The purpose of the investigations was to determine the incapacitating effects on service personnel resulting from exposure to sub-lethal doses. Military interest has always been concerned with short term exposure and no studies to assess the effects of long term exposure to any nerve agents have been carried out. Work with Tabun involving the use of service volunteers ended over 40 years ago. We can find no record of any results of the studies undertaken appearing in the scientific literature. It is probable that security considerations precluded the open publication of this work at the time it was conducted in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the steering group of the 1980 memorandum of understanding on chemical and biological defence between the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America has met since November 1992; where these meetings were held; what was decided at each of these meetings; and if he will place copies of the minutes of these meetings in the Library. [9043]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The steering group of the 1980 memorandum of understanding on chemical and biological defence between the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America has met three times since November 1992: in Canada in November 1993; in the United States of America in November 1994; and in the United Kingdom in November 1995. These meetings addressed policy on tri-national collaboration. The
  529
  proceedings of these meetings are security classified. It is not therefore appropriate to place copies of the minutes in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds members of the ethics committee overseeing the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment are chosen; if members are required to sign the Official Secrets Act; what access they are given to classified information; and what annual reports this committee produces on its work. [9044]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Individuals are invited to become members of the independent ethics committee on the grounds that their expertise and experience complements those of the existing members, taking into consideration the guidelines on the constitution of ethics committees published by the Royal College of Physicians. The members of the committee are required to sign the Official Secrets Act as they have unrestricted access to any classified information which may related to the decisions taken by the committee. The committee produces an annual report which is given a security classification appropriate to the work conducted in that year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the ethics committee overseeing the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1991 had previously(a) served on a committee related to the work of Porton Down, (b) worked at Porton Down and (c) been in receipt of an extramural contract from Porton Down. [9045]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Two members of the independent ethics committee were members of the medical committee of the Chemical and biological defence board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council in the 1970s and 1980s. The chemical, biological and human technology board replaced the chemical and biological defence board in 1994. Three members of the committee are members of the successor board. None of the independent members of the ethics committee has been employed at CBDE Porton Down. The technical director and the senior military officer of CBDE, who are in attendance at the ethics committee meetings, are employees of the Ministry of Defence. None of the members of the ethics committee is currently in receipt of an extramural contract from Porton Down

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volume of arms and of what type was sold from the United Kingdom to(a) Nigeria, (b) Indonesia and (c) Turkey in each of the past five years. [9565]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 19 December 1995,Official Report, columns 1081–82. Beyond this, it remains Government policy not to reveal details of exports of defence equipment to particular countries. However, some additional information can be found in the annual UK return to the "UN Register of Conventional Arms", and in table 1.11 of the "UK Defence Statistics". Both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the possible redundancies within the Army Technical Support Agency if printing and distribution of technical documents and publications are privatised; and if he will make a statement; [9611]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the security implications of contracting out the non-core activities of the Army Technical Support Agency; and if he will make a statement; [9612]

  (3) what further plans he has for privatising non-core activities of the Army Technical Support Agency; [9613]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of redundancies that will occur in the Army Technical Support Agency directorate of technical services at Woolwich as a result of current privatisation plans; [9614]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the benefits of market testing or contracting out the printing and distribution of Ministry of Defence technical documents and publications. [9610]

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters for the chief executive of the Army Technical Support Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Prince to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 16 January 1996:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS—ARMY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGENCY
  I am replying to five questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA) business as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the ATSA.
  Question: What assessment has been made of the possible redundancies within the ATSA if printing and distribution of technical documents and publications are privatised?
  Answer: The next exact number of redundancies which will result from contractorisation of printing and distribution of technical documentation is the subject of an on-going internal study, the results of which are still awaited. The Trade Unions have been advised accordingly and I will ensure that they and yourself are informed of the outcome as soon as possible.
  Question: What assessment has been made of the security implications of contracting out the non core activities of the ATSA?
  Answer: At present the only ATSA activity with security implications subject to contractorisation considerations is that of printing and distribution. Approximately 1% of the work has security implications. Potential contractors will only be considered providing they meet the MODs security requirements.
  Question: What further plans has CE ATSA for privatising non core activities of the ATSA?
  Answer: The current ATSA Competing for Quality (CFQ) programme, which includes all aspects of Technical Documentation and Publications, and site management services, is ongoing and may lead to further contractorisation. Any additional proposals will be consulted in the normal manner.
  Question: What assessment has been made of the number of redundancies that will occur in the ATSA Directorate of Technical Services (DTS) at Woolwich as a result of current privatisation plans?
  Answer: The exact number of redundancies resulting from the contractorisation of printing and distribution of technical documentation is the subject of an on-going internal study, the results of which are still awaited. The Trade Unions have been advised accordingly and I will ensure that they and yourself are informed of the outcome as soon as possible.

  531
  Question: What assessment has been made of the benefits of market testing or contracting out the printing and distribution of MOD technical documents and publications?
  Answer: The ATSA study into the future of printing and distribution of MOD technical publications concluded that no work should be undertaken on the market testing option as the value of the ATSA print and distribution package is well below the recommended market testing threshold of £5M. This, coupled with the cost of having to collocate the unit as part of the ATSA restructuring programme, if the in-house bid won, made the market testing option non-viable.

  Serving Mothers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving mothers are currently in post with the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland. [8212]

  Mr. Soames
  There are five female officers and 208 service women currently in post with the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland who have dependent children.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discretion is afforded to commanding officers of armed forces regiments in assignment of duties for young mothers who wish to develop careers as serving soldiers while their children are of pre-school attendance age. [8213]

  Mr. Soames
  Commanding officers may exercise discretion in the day-to-day employment of soldiers under their command, subject to the needs of the service. However, it is also the responsibility of all soldiers—male and female, single or married—to make suitable arrangements for the care of their children so that they are fully able to meet their service commitments.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent mothers of young children in the armed forces are required to carry out the same duties as male soldiers. [8214]

  Mr. Soames
  Female personnel with young children are, in common with all other service personnel, with or without the care and control of young children, expected to carry out the full range of duties for which they are employed. However, in accordance with health and safety regulations, special considerations apply to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers which may result in their employment on alternative duties.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the terms and conditions of service in the armed forces for serving mothers with young children will be reviewed. [8215]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans for a special review of the terms and conditions of service for serving mothers with young children. A fundamental review of the terms and conditions of service for all service personnel is taking place under the independent review.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information he received in respect of explosions on the sea bed in and around Beaufort's dyke in the North channel during 1995; when he received this information; what action he is taking as a result; and if he will make a statement; [8323]
  532
  (2) if he will list the explosions on the sea bed in and around Beaufort's dyke in the North channel notified to his Department for each year form 1979 to 1994, indicating the assumed cause of such explosions. [8324]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has only recently received information about probable explosions dating back to 1982 from the British Geological Survey. There are many possible explanations for the readings recorded by the British Geological Survey, but the information provided is incomplete, and accordingly it is not yet possible to make a full analysis of the data.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) publish and (b) place in the Library all correspondence between his Department and Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity on the route of the proposed electricity interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [8325]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our general practice to publish current correspondence between my Department and others.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further assessment he has made in respect of his Department's advice to Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity on the route of the proposed electricity interconnector with regard to(a) problems with the British Gas pipeline and (b) the recent report by the British Geological Survey on explosions around Beaufort's dyke; and if he will make a statement. [8326]

  Mr. Soames
  Future marine engineering work may proceed only once those proposing the work have shown that a thorough environmental survey, including risk analysis, has been conducted and have satisfied the responsible Government Departments and other authorities accordingly. My Department is consulted as necessary as part of this process.

  Royal Observer Corps
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public commendation or recognition his Department has given in respect of the Royal Observer Corps; and if he will make a statement. [8452]

  Mr. Soames
  On 8 December 1995, to commemorate the stand-down of the remaining element of the Royal Observer Corps, invited guests, officers and other ranks attended a ceremony at the Royal Air Force college, Cranwell to lodge the Royal Observer Corps banner in college hall. To mark this occasion, I wrote formally to the commandant of the Royal Observer Corps paying tribute to the men and women of the corps who have given so much to their sovereign and to their country. Throughout they have carried out their duties with honour and dedication.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the applicability of EU directives to compensation arrangements for pain, suffering and loss of amenity arising from military low flying over inhabited areas of Great Britain. [8240]
  533
  Mr. Soames
  We are unaware of any relevant new or impending EU directives having a bearing on the present compensation arrangements arising from military low flying.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received and what research he has commissioned about the use of chemical or biological weapons by the Iraqis during the Gulf war and the effect of such weapons on British service men. [9063]

  Mr. Soames
  There was no evidence of any use of chemical or biological weapons during the Gulf war. Scientific and medical investigations have since confirmed that there is also no evidence that British service men have suffered from any effects which could be attributed to the use of chemical or biological weapons.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions United Kingdom authorities were consulted before the United States of America used depleted weapons in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement. [9030]

  Mr. Soames
  There were no such consultations nor was there a need for them. Depleted uranium ammunition is a standard part of the inventory of both UK and US armed forces.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf war; what assessment has been made by his Department of the longer-term consequences of its use with particular reference to United Kingdom military personnel subject; what plans he has to develop depleted uranium as a weapon for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [9029]

  Mr. Soames
  The British armed forces are equipped with two kinds of ammunition containing depleted uranium, DU: 120 mm tank ammunition, some small quantities of which were fired by Challenger tanks during the Gulf conflict; and 20 mm ammunition for the Royal Navy's Vulcan phalanx point defence system which, apart from some rounds fired for proving purposes, was not used in the Gulf.

  There is no evidence that members of the British forces were exposed to harmful levels of radiation. My Department has, however, run a programme of reassurance monitoring for personnel who were concerned that they may have been exposed to DU. This monitoring has shown no detectable DU contamination of any individual.

  Stocks of an anti-tank round, charm 1, which utilises a depleted uranium penetrator, are available for use by Challenger 1 tanks. Development of the charm 3 round for Challenger 2 tanks, which will also use depleted uranium, will be completed by the end of 1996. Stocks of DU ammunition for the phalanx weapons system are available for use by the Royal Navy. There are no other current plans to purchase further naval weapons systems which employ DU.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will hold an inquiry into the 534
  condition of munitions deposited in deep water, as marked on the relevant charts, just south of the inner sound of Raasay; and if he will make a statement; [9189]

  (2) what representations he has received in respect of sea bed munition dumping, as marked on the relevant charts, in the vicinity of the inner sound of Raasay; and if he will make a statement. [9188]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to hold an inquiry. Current scientific advice indicates that dump sites present no significant risk to human health or the marine environment if left undisturbed. My Department has no record of any representations about the inner sound of Raasay munition dumping ground.

  Merchant Vessels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels have been chartered by his Department for exercises and military support operations in 1995; and how many of these were under the British flag. [9495]

  Mr. Soames
  Some 91 merchant vessels have been chartered for exercises and military support operations in 1995, of which 17 were under the British flag.

  Trident (Nuclear Incidents)
  Mrs Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency berths exist in Scotland for Trident in the event of a nuclear reactor or weapon incident; and where they are situated. [9410]

  Mr. Soames
  No berths are designated specifically for emergency use. The normal operating berths for Trident submarines are at the Clyde submarine base, Faslane and at the royal naval armaments depot, Coulport.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for the safety of(a) military and (b) civilian populations in the event of a nuclear leak from Trident; and if he will make a statement. [9411]

  Mr. Soames
  In the event of an accident involving any defence nuclear material in the UK, the Ministry of Defence nuclear accident response organisation would work in conjunction with the appropriate civil agencies to ensure an effective response to safeguard the public and departmental employees. Where appropriate, information has been issued by the MOD under the provisions of the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992; public safety schemes exist in respect of all UK berths used by nuclear-powered submarines; and guidance on appropriate protective measures in the event of an accident during the transportation of nuclear weapons has been issued to local authorities and the emergency services. These arrangements were described on pages 39 and 40 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995".

  Stolen and Lost Property
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report,

  535
  column 102, about stolen and lost property (a) how many weapons were lost or missing in each period and service and (b) what proportion of (i) all losses and (ii) weapon loss occurred in Northern Ireland. [9723]

  Mr. Soames
  Figures for weapons reported as lost or missing in each period and service could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A central register detailing losses to this level of information is not held.

  Details of losses were given in my answer to the hon. Member on 9 January, Official Report, column 102. The proportion of those losses occurring in Northern Ireland for each of the last five years is:

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  3.2

  1991–92

  1.7

  1992–93

  1.6

  1993–94

  2.6

  1994–95

  '5.2

  1The figure for 1994–95 does not take into account figures for Germany for which returns are not yet available.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the dates on which, (b) the locations where and (c) the units which during the Gulf war were ordered to take nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets because of an assessed threat of possible chemical agent attack. [9619]

  Mr. Soames
  During the conduct of Operation Granby, which ran from 9 August 1990 to 11 April 1991, the assessed threat of chemical weapon attack in the theatre of operations was regarded as sufficiently high to necessitate the issuing of orders for nerve agent pre-treatment, set tablets to be taken during the period from 18 January 1991, following the start of the air war, to 1 March 1991, when hostilities ceased. The orders applied to all units and personnel in, or deploying into, theatre.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reservists served with the Royal Air Force in the Gulf war; and how many of them have notified his Department that they are suffering from the condition known as Gulf war syndrome. [9620]

  Mr. Soames
  Records indicate that a total of 286 Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve personnel served with the Royal Air Force during Operation Granby, of whom approximately 140 deployed to the Gulf theatre. Of those Gulf veterans who have notified my Department of health concerns which they attribute to service in the Gulf, four individuals have indicated that they served with the RAF as reservists.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9595]
  536
  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ukrainian Personnel
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the arrangements that have been made to assist the retraining of Ukrainian military personnel; and if he will make a statement; [9407]

  (2) what assistance is being provided for the resettlement of Ukrainian armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [9408]

  Mr. Soames
  In the course of an increasingly warm bilateral relationship with Ukraine, representatives of the Ukrainian MOD, the defence and security committee of the Supreme Council and the ex-servicemen's committee have been briefed on the UK system for retraining and resettling retired military personnel. These discussions are expected to continue. I also understand that assistance in this area has been provided by the FCO's know-how fund, by the European Union technical aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States—TACIS—programme, by the Soros Foundation's international renaissance foundation and by the German Government.

  Married Quarters (Longhoughton)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the sale of surplus married quarters in Longhoughton, Northumberland, to a housing association was completed; and if he will name the housing association involved. [7706]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Tuesday 9 January 1996]: The 21 surplus married quarters at Longhoughton, Northumberland were offered for sale by limited tender to four housing associations in December 1995. No acceptable offer was received and it has therefore been decided to include these properties in those being offered for transfer to the private sector.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Greenpark Hospital Trust
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the exact amount of debt accrued by the Green Park Hospital HSS Healthcare trust as of 12 December 1995 to its creditors; and if he will list the creditors indicating the amounts owing to each. [8225]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. As at 31 December 1995, the Green Park Hospital HSS Healthcare trust had trade creditors of £1.9 million. This total comprises individual amounts in respect of some 600 creditors. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not appropriate to list amounts owed to individual creditors.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of debt a self-regulatory trust is allowed to accrue at any stage during its fiscal year; and if he will indicate the figure in respect of Green Park Hospital HCC Healthcare trust. [8226]
  537
  Mr. Moss
  A health and social services trust has three key financial duties. These are (1) to break even taking one year with another; (2) to make a 6 per cent. return on its relevant net assets; (3) to operate within its existing external financing limit. A trust is required to operate sound financial systems to control its income and expenditure and satisfy the duties set out in points (1) to (3). The EFL limits a trust's access to all sources of external finance, including the accumulation of trade creditors. For the year 1995–96, the Green Park Hospital HSS Healthcare trust's current EFL is £1,676,000. It should be noted that the EFL is a composite figure which takes account of the overall financial position of trust including debtor, creditor, stock and cash balances. The Green Park Hospital HSS Healthcare trust forecasts to stay within its EFL in 1995–96.

  Colleges of Nursing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many colleges of nursing there are in Northern Ireland; how many students attend each college of nursing(a) in total and (b) from the Republic of Ireland; what is the value of the bursary paid to a student from the Republic of Ireland; to what extent this bursary is means-tested; and what is the estimated cost to public funds for the annual expenditure for Republic of Ireland students. [8227]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  There are six Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery in Northern Ireland

  Training Institution

  Number of students in training

  Number of students from ROI1

  Eastern Area College— Northside

  429

  82

  Eastern Area College— Southside

  397

  46

  Northern Area College of Nursing

  371

  26

  Southern Area College of Nursing

  257

  63

  Western Area College of Nursing

  232

  89

  NI College of Midwifery

  54

  6

  Totals

  1,740

  312

  Figures as at 31 December 1995.

  1Republic of Ireland.

  Controlled/non-Catholic maintained

  Catholic maintained

  Total

  Numbers

  £ million

  Numbers

  £ million

  Numbers

  £ million

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  1,382

  33.3

  1,573

  37.3

  2,955

  70.6

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  2,593

  60.6

  1,122

  27.4

  3,715

  88

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  2,241

  54.7

  914

  22

  3,155

  76.7

  Southern Education and Library Board

  1,646

  38.5

  2,153

  50.4

  3,799

  88.9

  Western Education and Library Board

  1,130

  27.6

  2,038

  48.1

  3,168

  75.7

  Voluntary grammar/grant-maintained integrated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,290

  72.2

  538
  The amount of bursary payable to students is not dependent on their Country of Origin and information on bursaries in payment is therefore not held by Country of Origin. Bursaries are not means tested.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland applicants were refused places in 1995 in the colleges of nursing; and what priority is accorded to students from the Republic of Ireland over students from Northern Ireland in the provision of places. [8228]

  Mr. Moss
  Experience has shown that, on average, there are approximately 10 applicants for each student place.

  No priority is accorded to students from the Republic of Ireland as all places are awarded on a merit basis.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Expenditure)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the projected expenditure for RUC operational policing in 1996; [8472]

  (2) what was the (a) projected and (b) actual expenditure on RUC operational policing in 1995. [8471]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not held in the form requested; police budgets are calculated by financial, not calendar, year. The approved police authority grant for the 1996–97 financial year will be £584 million.

  The projected expenditure—the approved grant to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for the 1995–96 financial year—was £609.2 million. I will write to the hon. Member once the actual expenditure for 1995-96 is known in April 1996. In both cases, the provision covers all RUC and PANI costs.

  Fair Employment Acts (Education)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were(a) the total number and (b) the annual salary payments of staff in the category of school teachers exempted from the anti-discrimination rules of the fair employment Acts; and if he will break down the figures by education board or council for Catholic maintained schools, and by controlled or maintained schools. [8495]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much grant aid, and from which sources, has been allocated to each of the four Belfast constituencies in the past 10 years. [8010]

  Mr. Ancram
  The following grant aid has been committed by the Industrial Development Board under selective financial assistance to client companies in each of the four Belfast constituencies in the last 10 years.

  Belfast North: £2,969,000

  Belfast South: £41,905,000

  Belfast East: £9,348,000

  Belfast West: £67,937,000.

  The figures exclude assistance under the privatisation agreements with Harland and Wolff and Shorts in 1989 which amounted to £205 million and £115 million respectively.

  Information on schemes operated by IDB trade and export division is not recorded in a way in which it could be broken down into constituencies. The information is not therefore available.

  The Local Enterprise Development Unit has committed the following grant aid in the period from 1 April 1988. Information prior to this date would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Belfast North: £9,925,000

  Belfast South: £10,783,000

  Belfast East: £7,648,000

  Belfast West: £14,137,000.

  Ulster Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1995 reported by the Ulster museum, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1994. [9012]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995, a total of 337,829 people visited the Ulster museum and the Armagh county museum—an increase of 25.57 per cent. on the attendance figure for 1994.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9586]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Spending
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the change in Government spending in Northern Ireland in the law, order and protective services budget in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c)0 1997–98; and if he will indicate the sums of money by which other areas of public spending will benefit from these savings in each of these years. [8222]
  540
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  £million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1993 Public Expenditure Survey Outcome

  944

  963

  963

  1995 Public Expenditure Survey Outcome

  1905

  858

  858

  1Latest estimated outturn.

  The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to reallocate these savings within the Northern Ireland block to social and economic programmes has clearly been beneficial. As all savings within the block are combined and used to meet pressures, it is not possible to be precise about where the savings have been allocated.

  Further information was given by my right hon. and learned Friend in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 11 December 1995, Official Report, columns 541–42.

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many(a) republican and (b) loyalist paramilitary prisoners were granted home leave over Christmas; and how many of each persuasion failed to return; [8483]

  (2) how many (a) republican and (b) loyalist paramilitary prisoners were not granted home leave over Christmas. [8484]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 16 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to the two Parliamentary Questions you listed relating to the numbers of paramilitary prisoners who were granted/refused Home Leave over the Christmas period.
  Of those prisoners who are assumed to have paramilitary associations, 125 were eligible to apply for leave under the 1995 Christmas Home Leave Scheme. All of these prisoners were granted 7 days leave from 22–29 December and all returned to prison on 29 December 1995.
  The breakdown was:

  68 prisoners with Republican affiliations

  57 prisoners with Loyalist affiliations

  No such prisoner who was eligible to apply under the 1995 Scheme was refused Christmas Home Leave.
  I hope this information is helpful.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ukraine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement the United Kingdom has in Ukrainian defence conversion projects; and if he will make a statement. [9409]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Her Majesty's Government support the conversion of the Ukrainian military industrial complex through multilateral programmes such as the
  541
  technical aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States—TACIS—programme of the European Union. A total of 5 million ecu has been budgeted to three defence conversion projects in Ukraine. In the 1992 budget, 1 million ecu was allocated to the setting up of an advisory company which was to assist military enterprises in the Kharkov area with defence conversion. Another 1 million ecu has been allocated to six companies from the MIC which are now producing agricultural equipment.

  In the 1993 financial year, 3 million ecu was allocated to another six companies from the MIC.

  British companies from the private sector are also active in this field. For example, a British-Ukrainian joint venture recently signed a contract with the Ukrainian Government for the conversion of a military shipyard to civilian use.

  A feasibility study for this project received support from the UK know-how fund.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9584]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has responsibility for making statutory instruments which are subject to the negative resolution procedure under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, the Antarctic Act 1994 and the Hong Kong Act 1985. He has responsibility for making statutory instruments which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under the Crown Agents Act 1979, the Zimbabwe Act 1979, the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act 1988.

SCOTLAND

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3956]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of Scottish Office staff can be found in the civil service staff in post summary tables which have been placed in the Library. Staff costs are published in the Scottish Office departmental report. It is not possible to provide the other information without disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Homes spent in each of the last three years on publicity and promotions. [7743]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93: £1.142 million

  542

  1993–94: £1.149 million

  1994–95: £0.990 million.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7824]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to the chief executive under the terms of the agency framework document. My right hon. Friend may, on occasion, specifically ask to see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. To date, my right hon. Friend has not asked to see before issue a copy of any of the answers given by chief executives.

  Severe Weather Conditions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Glasgow have been made temporarily homeless due to the recent severe weather conditions. [8941]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information obtained from Glasgow district council suggests that around 1,000 people had to be placed in temporary accommodation following the recent severe weather. This figure does not include those who managed to find temporary accommodation with friends and relatives.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the recent severe weather in Scotland. [8938]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 10 January,Official Report, columns 235–38.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit those areas of Glasgow his Department estimates to be worst affected by the recent severe weather conditions. [8958]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: On 5 January, my right hon. Friend visited the Strathclyde regional council water department headquarters and heard at first hand from the staff who had worked long and hard over the holiday period to maintain services. He learnt about the large numbers of properties which were affected by burst pipes and the efforts made to reduce the ensuring damage. I and my colleagues have paid similar visits in other parts of Scotland and we are all aware of the tremendous efforts made by the staff of the water authorities. Benefits Agency staff have also done very well in dealing with urgent cases of hardship. My right hon. Friend has established a working party to report on the lessons to be learnt from what was, by any standards, an extraordinary series of events.

  Creagan Bridge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who he has consulted on the subject of a Creagan road bridge; and what plans he has to further consultations;. [8544]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of the construction of the Creagan bridge;. [8585]

  (3) what is the timetable for the construction of the Creagan bridge; and if he will make a statement;. [8542]

  (4) what public funds will be made available for the construction of the Creagan bridge. [8543]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have consulted extensively on plans for the Creagan bridge with statutory consultees in line with schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. All directly affected landowners were visited by representatives from the National Roads Directorate. Plans were available for inspection locally at the time the draft road orders were published. On 1 May 1992, a compulsory purchase order was published under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Scotland Act 1947 and on 5 February 1993 main line and side road orders were confirmed. Arrangements are currently being made for a public local inquiry to consider one unwithdrawn objection from a local landowner to the compulsory purchase order.

  The cost of the scheme is currently estimated at £6.22 million. Given a satisfactory outcome at the public inquiry, and the continuing availability of resources, it is anticipated that construction will start in 1997–98, as a publicly funded project.

  Flood Prevention (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has given(a) in writing or (b) verbally to Strathclyde regional council in respect of capital projects concerned with flood prevention. [8485]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No recent approaches have been made by Strathclyde regional council to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in respect of capital projects concerned with flood prevention. Indeed, no approaches have been made since the Brock burn/leven water flood prevention scheme was confirmed in 1993. This scheme was completed in late 1994 and grant assistance at 50 per cent. of eligible costs has been paid.

  However, I am aware that Strathclyde has now commissioned flood studies of some of the areas affected in December 1994. This will assist the unitary councils in determining their flood prevention strategies. I welcome this initiative by Strathclyde regional council.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold an inquiry into the condition of munitions deposited in deep water, as marked on the relevant charts, just south of the inner sound of Raasay; and if he will make a statement. [9186]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office has no plans to hold an inquiry.
  544
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in respect of sea bed munition dumping, as marked on the relevant charts, in the vicinity of the inner sound of Raasay; and if he will make a statement. [9187]

  Mr. Robertson
  No representations have been received by the Scottish Office in respect of munition dumping in that vicinity.

  Skye Bridge Toll
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest available total number of cases referred to the local procurator fiscal in respect of non-payment of the Skye bridge toll; when he expects the procurator fiscal to report further; if such alleged offences will be subject to civil or criminal proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [8677]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available figures relating to non-payment of the Skye bridge toll in contravention of section 38(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 are as follows:There have been 466 instances of non-payment which have been reported to the procurator fiscal; these instances involve 186 separate individuals. The procurator fiscal has been instructed by the Lord Advocate to institute criminal proceedings in respect of all instances where there is a sufficiency of evidence and the charges are now in course of preparation. The procurator fiscal will report the results of these proceedings to the Crown Office.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) guidelines and (b) other advice has been issued by his Department to (i) NHS bodies and (ii) other organisations regarding the extension of the private finance initiative to the operation of health services. [9081]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The "Private Finance Guide", issued to the NHS in Scotland, is the main source of guidance on PH. In it, it is stated that the NHS would
  "manage and provide all the core health services, while the private sector partner could provide a fully serviced building. The precise division of responsibilities between the Trust and its private partner would need to be determined on the basis of whatever arrangement would offer best value for money and least risk".

  No other guidelines have been issued on this subject. It is for trusts and boards to make this decision. The model so far has been that trusts will continue to operate core health services, with the private sector operating support services.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 817, if he will now agree to extend the nature and coverage of the follow-up survey of Beaufort's dyke (a) to include more sophisticated sonar and laser equipment and (b) to cover a wider geographic area, including depths below 30 m; and if he will make a statement. [8576]
  545
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Full particulars of the further Government survey work announced at a press conference on 8 January in Aberdeen will be made available in due course.

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards education in Scottish prisons. [9276]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: As a recognised regime activity, education for prisoners is provided on the basis of need subject to prisoners' willingness to participate in what is a voluntary activity and resources being available. Courses range from literary and numeracy to degree level with a sizeable proportion focusing on recognised qualifications such as the Scottish Vocational Education Council modules to help prisoners find employment and to continue with their studies on release.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list those prisons in Scotland which provide educational courses leading to recognised qualifications for prisoners;. [9273]

  (2) if he will estimate the level of public expenditure that has been devoted to education in Scottish prisons over the last five years and the levels projected to be spent over the next three years;. [9274]

  (3) how many prisoners in Scottish jails are currently studying on courses leading to educational qualifications;. [9275]

  (4) what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to investigate the effect of education in Scottish jails on recidivism rates;. [9277]

  (5) what plans he has to set up a Scottish prison education trust to assist in promoting education in Scottish prisons;. [9278]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the proportion of prisoners in Scottish prisons who would be willing to undertake education while serving prison sentences if appropriate courses were available. [9279]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stewart to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 January 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your questions about listing those prisons which provide educational courses leading to recognised qualifications for prisoners, the level of public expenditure devoted to education in prisons, the number of prisoners currently studying on courses leading to educational qualifications, what studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of education on recidivism rates, what plans there are to set up a Scottish Prison Education Trust and what estimate has been made of the proportion of prisoners who would be willing to undertake education if appropriate courses were available. In absence of the Chief Executive form the office, I am replying on his behalf.
  546
  All prison establishments in Scotland provide educational courses leading to recognised qualification for prisoners save, for the present, the recently formed Peterhead Unit and National Induction Centre at Shotts and Longriggend Remand Unit where the average length of stay for those on remand is relatively short.
  Expenditure on education for prisoners for each of the four years to 31 March 1995 together with the budget for the current financial year is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1991–92

  1,273

  1992–93

  11,674

  1993–94

  1,545

  1994–95

  1,657

  1995–96 Budget

  1,678

  1Payment pattern skewed by incorporation of colleges of further education on 1 April 1993.

  Budget allocations for establishments for 1996–97 (including budgets for education) are still in the process of being agreed. Budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 will be set in due course.
  In terms of the number of prisoners currently studying on courses leading to educational qualifications a recent snapshot showed that there are approximately 1,100 prisoners in this category.
  On the topic of education and recidivism rates, no specific research studies have been undertaken to investigate the effects of education on recidivism. However, the recent computerisation of the system of prisoner records in Scotland will provide an opportunity, in future years, to examine the impact of a range of prisoner programmes, including education on recidivism.
  The Scottish Prison Service has no plans to set up a Scottish Prison Education Trust.
  An estimate of the proportion of prisoners willing to undertake education is not held centrally. Each establishment keeps under review the appropriate mix of regime activities, including education, in the light of the needs of prisoners.

HEALTH

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual saving to the NHS arising from compulsory competitive tendering. [7500]

  Mr. Horam
  As a result of market testing, it is estimated that since 1983 the national health service has saved a total in excess of £1 billion. The improved value for money achieved has released additional resources for direct patient care.

  Paediatric Beds
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of paediatric beds. [7501]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities and trusts are best placed to determine the level and range of paediatric care that is needed by their local population. The development of day care services for children has reduced the demand for beds while increasing the number treated.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation has been made of the results of the general practitioner fundholding initiative. [7502]
  547
  Mr. Malone
  Independent evaluation of general practitioner fundholding has supported its development and many commentators, including the National Audit Office, have called for the benefits to be extended as widely as possible.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on the use of general practice fundholders' savings(a) by general practitioner fundholding practices and (b) by regional health authorities. [9034]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department receives information from each family health services authority each year on total savings spent by general practitioner fundholders, excluding amounts used to supplement their fundholding budgets.

  Monitoring of the detailed use of savings is a local responsibility. Information is not collected centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Services (London)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about accident and emergency services in London. [7503]

  Mr. Malone
  Over the last three months, we have received a total of 18 letters from hon. Members and others.

  National Health Service Facilities (Sales)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association to discuss the purchasing by the private sector of NHS facilities. [7505]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives of the medical profession and discussions cover a wide variety of topics.

  Intensive Care Paediatric Beds
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present occupancy rate of intensive care paediatric beds. [7506]

  Mr. Bowis
  Because information on bed occupancy was not available centrally, the national health service executive arranged for Sheffield Children's hospital to co-ordinate the monitoring of occupancy and demand for beds at the 17 paediatric intensive care units in England for the period to 31 March.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations on the future of Edgware general hospital he has received after the meeting on Wednesday 13 December. [7507]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend has received just over 200 representations, most of which were pre-printed postcards.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the annual saving resulting from the abolition of regional health authorities. [7508]
  548
  Mr. Malone
  By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million. These substantial savings will be retained by the national health service and reinvested in patient care.

  Emergency Admission Beds
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collects centrally concerning the non-availability of beds for emergency admissions in the areas of each district health authority. [7509]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities and national health service trusts should work together to plan and ensure that facilities are available to meet demand. The new patients charter standard on emergency admissions is focusing attention on the importance of this area of work. The NHS executive is looking at ways of identifying best practice and ensuring that it is disseminated across the service.

  Acute and Medical Emergency Beds (Birmingham)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultations he has had with West Midlands regional health authority over the provision of acute and medical emergency beds in hospitals in the city of Birmingham. [7510]

  Mr. Horam
  I am kept regularly informed of emergency services provision in the west midlands and am aware that accident and emergency facilities across Birmingham continue to be made a priority.

  Trust Amalgamations (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the amalgamation of the health and hospital trusts on the Isle of Wight. [7511]

  Mr. Horam
  We have not received a proposal from the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust or St. Mary's Hospital NHS trust to amalgamate.

  District Health Authorities (Purchasing Policy)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the purchasing policies of district health authorities. [7512]

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of the purchasing policies of district health authorities. [7518]

  Mr. Malone
  Local information about purchasing plans is not collected centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private finance initiative schemes he(a) has agreed and (b) is considering. [7513]

  Mr. Horam
  To ensure that national health service capital projects meet NHS needs as cost-effectively as possible, the option of using private finance, under the Government's private finance initiative, must be considered for every potential capital project. Formulation of plans for projects to meet local needs is the responsibility of NHS trusts and health authorities. So far, 45 PFI schemes have been approved by the NHS
  549
  executive, with a total capital value of over £160 million. Information on the number of PFI schemes being considered is not available centrally.

  Hospital Porters
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of hospital porters. [7514]

  Mr. Malone
  The role of hospital porters is typically to transport patients between wards and departments and to move records, equipment and supplies from storage to where they are needed.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of staff for intensive care beds. [7515]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for local health authorities and national health service trusts, which are best placed to determine the needs of their local populations. They have been asked to examine and review local intensive care provision in the light of the report on intensive care provision in England 1993–94.

  Community Care
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care. [7516]

  Mr. Bowis
  I meet members and officers of the Association of Directors of Social Services on numerous occasions throughout the year and discuss a range of issues with them, including issues related to community care.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current instructions he has issued to local health authorities to ensure that, prior to patients being released from health care into community care, adequate inquiries are made to ascertain if this is practicable; and if he will make a statement. [9117]

  Mr. Bowis
  In the case of those treated in hospital for mental disorder, our guidance emphasises that no patient should be discharged unless and until those responsible are satisfied that he or she can live safely in the community, and that adequate arrangements have been made for the patient's treatment supervision, support and care.

  For patients with continuing health and social care needs, recent guidance stresses the need for clear procedures and responsibility for taking decisions about discharge and effective collaboration between key health and social service professionals.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of community care provision; and if he will make a statement on its findings. [7436]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since April 1993, we have had a very full monitoring programme for community care in order to 550
  ensure that implementation stayed on track. In addition, the social services inspectorate carries out regular inspections, statistics are regularly collected and published and longer-term research is in hand to evaluate progress.

  Our monitoring has shown that the implementation of community care has been a good story for vulnerable people, who have already benefited greatly from the new arrangements. Firm foundations have been laid and steady progress continues to be made.

  Community care is, however, a long-term programme and work remains to be done before the full benefits are delivered in all areas. Our programme for development set out in the document "Building Partnerships for Success" will help encourage this further development. As the Audit Commission has pointed out, local authorities need good financial control of their social services budgets. Some could do better if greater use were made of independent sector provision.

  Alcohol-related Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS will spend this year on alcohol-related services. [7517]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1148.

  Care Guidelines (Elderly People)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued about the provision of care to elderly people living in the community. [7519]

  Mr. Bowis
  Policy and practice guidance has been issued by the Department to all local authorities in relation to their community care responsibilities, in "Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond", published in November 1990. Practice guidance on "Care Management and Assessment" was issued in 1991. In addition, the social services inspectorate has produced reports relating to care for elderly people. Guidance was issued in February 1995 on national health service responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs.

  Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Darenth Park General Hospital
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in respect of the new general hospital at Darenth park for the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust. [7520]

  Mr. Horam
  The trust has shortlisted four consortia which have been invited to submit their detailed proposals for the new general hospital by the end of the month.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women over the age of 65 years(a) developed

  551
  breast cancer and (b) died from breast cancer in each region in each of the last four years. [8480]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of women aged 65 years and over who have died from breast cancer in each region in each of the last four years for which data are available is as follows:

  Deaths from breast cancer (ICD1 174) to women aged 65 and over

  England and Wales

  1991

  1992

  21993

  21994

  Northern RHA

  493

  475

  451

  423

  Yorkshire RHA

  576

  527

  592

  523

  Trent RHA

  799

  805

  748

  764

  East Anglian RHA

  376

  410

  380

  433

  North-West Thames RHA

  568

  501

  459

  399

  North-East Thames RHA

  655

  613

  587

  552

  South-East Thames RHA

  715

  687

  692

  545

  South-West Thames RHA

  596

  576

  520

  638

  Wessex RHA

  575

  570

  560

  523

  Oxford RHA

  383

  398

  305

  338

  South Western RHA

  654

  662

  615

  622

  West Midlands RHA

  892

  860

  799

  795

  Mersey RHA

  363

  405

  353

  350

  North Western RHA

  662

  614

  586

  589

  Wales

  495

  529

  512

  492

  England and Wales

  8,802

  8,632

  8,159

  7,986

  Notes:

  1International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision.

  2Provisional data.

  The number of women aged 65 years and over who have been diagnosed as having breast cancer in each region in each of the last four years for which data are available is as follows.

  Incidence of breast cancer (ICD9 174) in women aged 65 and over

  England and Wales

  1989

  1990

  11991

  21992

  Northern RHA

  626

  656

  669

  647

  Yorkshire RHA

  968

  840

  849

  771

  Trent RHA

  982

  1,135

  1,128

  1,177

  East Anglian RHA

  583

  571

  597

  509

  North-West Thames RHA

  840

  933

  889

  912

  North-East Thames RHA

  1,070

  1,002

  996

  1,023

  South-East Thames RHA

  1,061

  1,065

  1,034

  1,102

  South-West Thames RHA

  926

  820

  821

  848

  Wessex RHA

  975

  907

  921

  993

  Oxford RHA

  580

  596

  587

  639

  South Western RHA

  986

  908

  862

  834

  West Midlands RHA

  1,362

  1,364

  1,335

  1,326

  Mersey RHA

  617

  619

  613

  600

  North Western RHA

  1,000

  940

  1,047

  1,080

  Wales

  848

  863

  880

  900

  England and Wales

  13,424

  13,219

  13,198

  13,361

  Notes:

  1Incidence for Wales is an estimate.

  2Incidences for all Thames RHAs, Mersey RHA and Wales are estimates.

  Source:

  Regional cancer registries and Welsh Office.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a ring-fenced levy in order to finance the long-term care of the elderly; if he will include the 552
  payment from this levy of the costs of residential and nursing home care; and if he will make a statement. [9120]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no plans to do so.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those trusts which have made more than a 6 per cent. rate of return on their assets in each year since their inception, indicating the rate of return achieved. [8714]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Reginald Dixon
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prosecution of Reginald Dixon for illegally performing an abortion on Barbara Whiten; and whether, following this case he has any plans to introduce new guidelines or bring forward legislation to clarify patients' rights. [8704]

  Mr. Horam
  We have no plans to introduce legislation in this area. A patient has the right under common law to give or withhold consent prior to examination or treatment. However, in an emergency when a patient is not in a position to express her consent or refusal, a doctor may act without consent when he or she reasonably believes that it is in the best interests of the patient to do so. Guidance on consent for examination or treatment was issued to the national health service in 1990. I understand that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is considering the implications of the recent case for best professional practice.

  Acute and Community Mental Health Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were seen by(a) acute and (b) community mental health services in each health authority in each of the last three years. [8716]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on the number of episodes of in-patient treatment under mental health specialists is published in "Ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England". Information on the number of initial contacts with community psychiatric nurses is published in "Patient Care in the Community, Community Psychiatric Nursing, Summary information for England". Both publications give the information by individual national health service providers, that is, trusts, directly managed units and specialist health authorities with summaries for regional office areas; the data are not available for health authorities. The publications for 1994–95 and for earlier years are available in the Library.

  Carers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure early help is given to the carers of the elderly and disabled in accordance with the recommendations of the British Medical
  553
  Association's report on the subject; and if he will make a statement. [9129]

  Mr. Bowis
  Support for carers is one of our key community care priorities. It is not practicable to prescribe centrally the form which this support should take. It is the responsibility of health and local authorities to offer a suitable range of support, such as respite and home care, based on local needs. Case by case, the services and support provided should reflect the circumstances of individual users and carers.

  Our current guidance to health and local authorities makes clear the importance of involving their carers in decisions made about service users. From April 1996, under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, carers who provide substantial care on a regular basis will have a right to their own assessment if they want it.

  This year, we have included an additional £30 million in community care funding for the provision of respite and home care. Our monitoring shows that the extra £20 million made available in 1994–95 resulted in more day and respite care being provided to the benefit of carers.

  Health Authority Standards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that all NHS health authorities follow the best practice and highest standards which any one authority attains; if he will require that they regard the standards set out in his Department's guidance HSG(95)8 in February 1995 as the minimum acceptable standards; and if he will make a statement. [9153]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are expected to implement fully the requirements set out in HSG(95)8. The details of our arrangements to monitor the implementation of this guidance were set out in a letter to health authorities and local authorities which was issued on 17 August 1995. Copies of the letter are available in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on mental health in each health authority area in each of the last three years(a) in the acute sector and (b) in the community sector. [8715]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts have(a) informed the NHS executive or (b) been investigated in respect of their long-term financial viability. [8711]

  Mr. Horam
  The financial viability of all trusts is investigated before their establishment. Subsequently, this process is on-going as a part of each trust's annual business planning cycle. Trust plans are reviewed by the national health service executive.

  Eye Tests (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Walthamstow have had eye tests in each year since 1987. [8978]
  554
  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Local Authority Responsibilities
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Health what are the statutory responsibilities of local authorities to meet all needs assessed under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and within what time scale services should be provided. [8722]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to assess people whom they think may require community care services, as defined under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, and to decide on the basis of that assessment what, if any, services they should provide and how the needs of local people should be met.

  A summary of local authorities' key powers and duties in community care under this Act and other legislation is set out in our document "A Framework for Local Community Care Charters in England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Local authorities are expected to publish their first local charters, based on this framework, in April 1996. These local charters will give people local information about the services and standards they can expect from their local social services departments, as well as from health and housing authorities.

  Westcliffe Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to approve the bid for PFI funding for the replacement long-stay beds at Westcliffe hospital, Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will make a statement. [9206]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service executive expects to receive a full business case from North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS trust to replace the majority of the beds early in 1997. Approval to funding a capital investment using private finance would be conditional upon such an approach increasing cost-effectiveness and reducing risks for the NHS. The balance of the service will be the responsibility of the health authority, which will be seeking to place patients with local nursing homes.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and qualifications of the current chairman and non-executive directors of Doncaster health authority. [9902]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 October 1995,Official Report, columns 40–41. Chairmen and non-executive members of health authorities are appointed for their personal qualities and skills and the contribution that they can make to the board.

  Infant and Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in(a) infant mortality rates and (b) perinatal mortality rates since 1979. [7498]
  555
  Mr. Horam
  Infant and perinatal mortality rates have fallen, between 1979 and 1994, to the lowest levels ever recorded. Deaths in children under one year of age—the infant mortality rate—have fallen by half. Stillbirths and deaths of babies less than a week old—the perinatal rate—have fallen by nearly 40 per cent.

  Drug Misuse Database
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who owns the data codes and structure of the drug misuse database. [9412]

  Mr. Bowis
  The ownership of such data codes and the structure of the drug misuse database is shared between the Department of Health and the university of Manchester.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b)the affirmative resolution procedure. [9597]

  Magistrates' Courts case April-September 1995

  Received

  Finalised

  Of which, advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other disposals

  Other proceedings

  North

  47,741

  46,710

  1,625

  32,255

  6,247

  2,934

  2,767

  882

  Yorkshire

  42,041

  42,335

  1,052

  28,072

  6,299

  2,975

  3,582

  355

  Mersey/Lancashire

  43,786

  41,667

  1,555

  29,034

  4,030

  3,512

  2,884

  652

  Humber

  34,750

  35,553

  1,802

  23,649

  4,886

  2,440

  2,005

  771

  North-West

  57,334

  57,351

  2,064

  40,333

  4,340

  3,938

  3,349

  3,327

  East Midlands

  43,407

  37,970

  1,246

  25,808

  5,457

  2,502

  2,710

  247

  Wales

  46,442

  46,173

  1,840

  30,944

  5,378

  2,673

  4,372

  1,000

  Midlands

  52,012

  52,054

  2,565

  34,674

  5,404

  3,779

  4,472

  1,160

  Anglia

  53,276

  53,013

  3,760

  36,916

  4,866

  2,941

  3,258

  1,272

  Severn/Thames

  46,947

  46,639

  2,324

  31,387

  5,120

  2,350

  4,470

  988

  South-West

  39,377

  34,391

  1,198

  24,359

  3,717

  2,103

  2,723

  291

  London

  120,741

  121,873

  3,281

  70,928

  15,700

  8,626

  22,030

  1,308

  South-East

  53,621

  51,684

  2,579

  36,136

  5,078

  3,545

  3,987

  359

  Total

  681,475

  667,413

  26,891

  444,495

  76,522

  44,318

  62,609

  12,612

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant could not be found, and other cases where the prosecution could not proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Other proceedings comprise non-criminal proceedings, such as forfeiture hearings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Attorney-General when the internal review of the functions of the Crown Prosecution Service was established; what is its terms of reference; by whom it is being conducted; and when its conclusions will be reported to Parliament. [8460]

  The Attorney-General
  A number of important reviews of the work of the CPS were concluded last year. These included: a report on the merits and feasibility of merger between the CPS fraud divisions and the Serious Fraud Office; a prior options study in the context of the Government's initiative on next steps; and a senior management review. I reported to Parliament the outcome of the merger study and of the prior options study on 31 March 1995,Official Report, columns 1309–17, and 27 October 1995, Official Report, columns 820–21, respectively. On the Senior management review, the CPS,
  556
  Mr. Horam
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service; what was the total number of cases(a) received by magistrates courts and (b) finalised in magistrates courts; and how many cases were (i) received by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police, (ii) completed in the magistrates court, (iii) discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service before or at the magistrates court hearing, (iv) committed to the Crown court by the magistrates court or (v) otherwise disposed of in each Crown Prosecution Service region in total in the first nine months of 1995–96. [8478]

  The Attorney-General
  The table shows the number of defendants whose case was dealt with by the 13 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service during the period of April to September 1995. The figures are not yet available for the quarter ending December 1995. The figures do not include the specialised casework undertaken by the headquarters of the service.

  in common with most other Departments, has carried out a senior management review following the White Papers on the civil service, continuity and change. The report of the senior management review was produced in August 1995 and has been made available to staff and others outside the CPS. Separately, as I announced on 4 December, Official Report, column 17, work continues on a range of measures to improve further the working relationships between the CPS and the police.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9144]
  557
  The Attorney-General
  The one agency for which I am responsible is the Government Property Lawyers. The GPL currently uses the pre-retirement courses provided by the Home Office, but keeps under review the possibility of using courses offered by other bodies.

  Marchioness Accident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Crown Prosecution Service has given to initiating a prosecution in respect of the Marchioness accident since the inquest jury reached its verdict; and if he will make a statement. [9032]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has received in November and December 1995 from the coroner transcripts of the evidence given at the inquest. These are being studied. Once they have been considered, together with the pre-inquest evidence and the results of any additional inquiries which may be necessary, a decision will be made as to whether further criminal proceedings should be instituted.

WALES

  Cancer Registration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the date of completion of the review of cancer registration and the management and organisation of the Wales Cancer Registry; and if he will make a statement. [8467]

  Mr. Hague
  Proposals for the future management of the registry submitted by the Velindre NHS trust and the Welsh combined centres for public health are currently under consideration. I expect the management of the registry to transfer early in the next financial year.

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the introduction of electronic mail for departmental press releases and for their transmission to the Library. [8465]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 9 January 1996,Official Report, columns 109–10.

  Water and Sewage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority Wales area and the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in relation to the corporation's proposals for water uses in the impounded lake behind the Cardiff bay barrage and proposed reductions in sewage pumping stations and interceptor sewers at Leckwith moors, Brindley road, Ferry road and Park street;. [8462]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation and of the National Rivers Authority Wales on the water use strategy for the impounded lake behind the Cardiff bay barrage, in relation to the types of immersion sports, water contact
  558
  water sports and non-contact water sports that will be permitted; and if he will make a statement. [8461]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is an operational matter for the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the membership of community health councils; if he will place a copy of all such representations in the Library; and if he will list the organisations or individuals who have made representations in favour of his proposed changes. [8466]

  Mr. Hague
  More than 150 responses to the consultation have been received, covering a wide spectrum of views. I will consider very carefully all comments before announcing what the next steps should be. At that stage, I will arrange for all the responses, apart from those where respondents have indicated that they would prefer their views not to be separately identified, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Literacy and Numeracy Centres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for literacy and numeracy centres in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9069]

  Mr. Richards
  Plans for raising standards of literacy and numeracy in schools in Wales are set out in the published "Bright Future" programme. Every primary school is to set targets for improvements. Some £3 million is to be devoted to schemes in support during 1996–97.

  Disadvantaged Pupils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to give extra support in the schooling of children from disadvantaged homes; and if he will make a statement. [9065]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend announced his provisional local government revenue proposals for 1996–97 in the House on 28 November,Official Report, column 600. It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available are allocated between services, including education, in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  Government Expenditure Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek payment from the central office of the Conservative party to recompense the Welsh Office for the time taken by civil servants on undertaking the recent report on the purported income and expenditure of all Government Departments in Wales, and in printing and publishing the report. [8636]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The report presents an objective assessment of Government expenditure on behalf of the population of Wales and revenue raised in Wales. The methodology used is clearly explained and open to scrutiny. I am satisfied that the report adds to public
  559
  understanding of fiscal issues relating to Wales and that its preparation and publication at public expense is fully justified.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the percentage of lessons consistently identified as poor by Ofsted included assessments of lessons given in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9071]

  Mr. Richards
  No.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of failing schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9070]

  Mr. Richards
  No such estimates are made. Whether a school is in need of special measures will depend on the findings of a full office of Her Majesty's chief inspector.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cash he has earmarked to identify and improve failing schools; and if he will make a statement. [9072]

  Mr. Richards
  The costs of identifying failing schools are borne from within the overall budget for the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector. Those for improving failing schools will vary: they are not limited to a specifically earmarked sum.

  Valleys Park
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to promote the establishment of a valleys park; and if he will make a statement. [8971]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the programme for the valleys, my right hon. Friend is keen to encourage projects which will help to improve the quality of the environment of the south Wales valleys. I understand an application has been submitted to the Millennium Commission for the development of a valleys park.

  Electricity and Water Industries
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for employment of the proposed takeover of Swalec by Welsh Water. [8637]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Homework Centres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homework centres he has established in each of the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9064]

  Mr. Richards
  Establishment of such centres is a matter for individual schools. The "Bright Future" programme provides that each school in Wales should consider offering facilities for study after hours.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning adult education. [9199]
  560
  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to "People and Prosperity: An Agenda for Action in Wales". It is our policy in Wales to extend educational opportunity and choice, and improve standards, in all phases of education. This includes making good quality education accessible to adults to help them improve their qualifications and update their skills, and promoting a culture of lifelong learning.

  Arts Centre
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the establishment of a national concert hall, opera house and centre for the performing arts is established in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9313]

  Mr. Hague
  I am sympathetic to the development of a national opera house in Wales, but decisions on the provision of arts facilities are a matter for the funding bodies concerned.

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement his Department has in the process of deciding on millennium fund projects in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9338]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office does not participate in decision making on millennium fund applications. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 474.

  InterCity
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange as a matter of urgency to meet executives of InterCity rail services to discuss the robustness of the advertised InterCity through service from Holyhead to Euston. [9314]

  Mr. Hague
  The advertisement and provision of rail services are operational matters for the operator.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh language schemes have so far been agreed between the Welsh Language Board and public bodies in Wales covered by the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993. [9312]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1160, and to the letter sent to him by the chief executive of the Welsh Language Board on the same day.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reconcile the apparent discrepancy for the expenditure on education in Wales, as shown in tables 3 and 4, for 1993–94, of his departmental report, "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1993–94", published on 8 January. [9514]

  Mr. Richards
  There is no discrepancy. The figures in table 3 relate to expenditure per head, as stated in the title. They show that expenditure per head on education was
  561
  about the same in England as in Wales. The figures in table 4 relate to total expenditure. They show that expenditure on education in Wales was a smaller proportion of identifiable general Government expenditure than in England.

  Disabled People (Sport)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the development of sports for disabled people. [9289]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Policy for the development of sports for disabled people is a matter for the Sports Council for Wales. In its strategy document "Changing Times, Changing Needs", the council reaffirmed its commitment to have particular regard to the needs of disabled people within its programmes. The council published the report "Willing and Able: The Provision of Sports Opportunity for Children with Disabilities" in March 1995 and is currently consulting on action programmes for the future.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for the new unitary authority local education authorities in Wales to carry out their responsibilities from 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [9396]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced his provisional local government revenue settlement proposals for 1996–97 on 28 November,Official Report, column 600. It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources are allocated between functions, including education, in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  National Museum and Gallery of Wales
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the attendance figures for 1995 reported by the national museum and gallery of Wales, including its outstations, with the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1994. [9013]

  Mr. Richards
  A total of 780,344 people visited the national museums and galleries of Wales during 1995, a decrease of 10.6 per cent. compared with the 872,936 total in 1994.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding was committed by the Welsh Development Agency to each of the objective 5(b) projects in 1995 listed in his letter of 8 January 1996, ref. CT/95-16178, in answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke; and how much has been allocated to each project to date. [9615]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9590]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the future public funding of the Cardiff Bay opera house trust; when the present public funding of the trust expires; and if he will make a statement.[9721]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is an operational matter for the corporation.

  Staffing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of staff employed for each civil service grade by his office, indicating the percentage who are Welsh speaking where this is known. [2067]

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 December 1995, c. 76–77]I regret that there was an error in my answer. The figure should accordingly read:

  Grade

  Number of people

  Percentage who have notified they have some ability in the use of Welsh

  GI

  1

  100

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total amounts paid to recipients of housing benefit in (1) Scarborough and Whitby, (2) Torquay, (3) Weston-super-Mare, (4) Bournemouth, (5) Brighton, (6) Eastbourne, (7) Newquay, (8) Ramsgate, (9) Margate, (10) Southend-on-Sea, (11) Clacton, (12) Great Yarmouth, (13) Barmouth, (14) Pwllheli, (15) Llandudno, (16) Rhyl, (17) Prestatyn, (18) Southport, (19) Lytham St. Annes, (20) Fleetwood, (21) Morecombe, (22) Skegness, (23) Cleethorpes, (24) Minehead, (25) Worthing, (26) Bridlington, (27) Bognor Regis, (28) Torbay, (29) Polperro, (30) Brixham, (31) Falmouth, (32) St. Ives, (33) Ilfracombe, (34) Burnham on Sea, (35) Weymouth and (36) Herne Bay, in(a) 1991–92 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [3192]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.
  563

  Housing benefit expenditure

  £millions

  Town for which expenditure details requested

  Local authority covering the town

  1991–92 housing benefit expenditure

  1993–94 housing benefit expenditure

  1

  Scarborough and Whitby

  Scarborough

  9.2

  14.5

  2

  Torquay

  Torbay

  See Torbay

  See Torbay

  3

  Weston super Mare

  Woodspring

  14.0

  23.8

  4

  Bournemouth

  Bournemouth

  27.7

  41.7

  5

  Brighton

  Brighton

  34.2

  49.9

  6

  Eastbourne

  Eastbourne

  12.4

  19.9

  7

  Newquay

  Restormel

  6.4

  11.5

  8

  Ramsgate

  Thanet

  19.1

  31.4

  9

  Margate

  Thanet

  19.1

  31.4

  10

  Southend on Sea

  Southend on Sea

  22.7

  36.0

  11

  Clacton

  Tendring

  11.4

  16.9

  12

  Great Yarmouth

  Great Yarmouth

  10.7

  15.4

  13

  Barmouth

  Meirionnydd

  1.9

  2.8

  14

  Pwllheli

  Dwyfor

  1.9

  2.4

  15

  Llandudno

  Aberconwy

  3.8

  5.4

  16

  Rhyl

  Rhuddlan

  5.1

  7.9

  17

  Prestatyn

  Rhuddlan

  5.1

  7.9

  18

  Southport

  Sefton

  26.2

  37.5

  19

  Lytham St. Annes

  Fylde

  4.0

  6.0

  20

  Fleetwood

  Wyre

  4.5

  7.5

  21

  Morecombe

  Lancaster

  12.9

  17.9

  22

  Skegness

  East Lindsey

  9.6

  13.2

  23

  Cleethorpes

  Cleethorpes

  4.9

  6.7

  24

  Minehead

  West Somerset

  3.4

  5.4

  25

  Worthing

  Worthing

  9.4

  14.8

  26

  Bridlington

  East Yorkshire

  7.3

  10.8

  27

  Bognor Regis

  Arun

  12.7

  21.9

  28

  Torbay

  Torbay

  19.0

  27.7

  29

  Polperro

  Caradon

  4.8

  8.5

  30

  Brixham

  Torbay

  See Torbay

  See Torbay

  31

  Falmouth

  Carrick

  7.3

  11.2

  32

  St. Ives

  Penwith

  6.6

  11.1

  33

  Ilfracombe

  North Devon

  8.6

  13.4

  34

  Burnham on Sea

  Sedgemoor

  8.1

  13.2

  35

  Weymouth

  Weymouth

  7.8

  10.6

  36

  Herne Bay

  Canterbury

  15.2

  19.6

  Expenditure figures are those for the local authority districts covering the towns in question. Where a local authority has the same name as a town, for example Brighton, it is possible that they do not cover the same geographic area.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of people aged under 25 years who will be affected by the changes announced in housing benefit for young people in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [8508]

  Mr. Evans
  The proposed changes are to come into effect on 7 October 1996. All new claims after that date, movers, and claims made from 2 January 1996 at the first review will be affected.

  Some 180,000 single people aged under 25 years live in the private rented sector and receive housing benefit.. We estimate that some 130,000 in 1996–97 and 150,000 in 1997–98 will be affected.

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of ministers. [6408]

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

  Financial year

  1Overseas travel and accommodation £

  Car and chauffeuring costs £

  2Domestic travel and accommodation £

  1991–92

  n/a

  1286,391.00

  n/a

  1992–93

  21,115.27

  1274,758.00

  n/a

  1993–94

  17,717.54

  1290,241.00

  n/a

  1994–95

  27,570.38

  1325,815.00

  17,228.00

  1995–30/11

  4,222.35

  1203,088.00

  12,225.00

  1Includes expenditure incurred by Ministers and officials acting in direct support of Ministers.

  2 Includes expenditure by Minsters only.

  n/a = not available.

  Expenditure on Ministerial security costs is included in the running costs expenditure of the Department which is published in the Annual Report.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6407]

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

  Financial year

  Total stuff cost £

  Hospitality £

  1990–91

  n/a

  7,111.00

  1991–92

  n/a

  8,230.00

  1992–93

  n/a

  6,846.00

  1993–94

  n/a

  5,667.00

  1994–95

  1,885,938.00

  14,859.00

  1995–30/November

  1,026,079.00

  7,893.00

  1. Expenditure on hospitality includes the annual reception for disabled people and organisations representing them held by the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People.

  2. Expenditure on hospitality includes entertainment, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.

  3. Expenditure on telephone bills, press and communications, stationery and office refurbishment is included in the running cost expenditure of the Department which is published in the Annual Report.

  4. The information is for all Ministerial offices.

  n/a = not available.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of
  565
  the guidance issued by the Benefits Agency medical services to assist its medical practitioners when considering incapacity benefit applications. [7749]

  Mr. Burt
  A copy of the medical advisers' guide to incapacity benefit is available in the Library.

  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people to date have undergone a medical examination by a medical assistant of the Benefits Agency in relation to claims for the consideration of incapacity benefit; and how many of those applicants have had their benefit stopped as a result. [7750]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Number

  Total examinations

  1222,003

  Total all work test cases disallowed following examination

  2239,626

  1 Includes all work test examinations for Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and credits only cases.

  2 As there is often a delay between the examination and the adjudication officer's decision this figure does not accurately reflect the proportion of examinations which resulted in disallowance. 1. All information is from 13 April 1995 to 30 November 1995 and is subject to change.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated number of hours per month that Benefits Agency doctors will spend dealing with incapacity benefit claims in 1996£97. [8016]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 670, regarding claims for incapacity benefit, if he will express the numbers of incapacity benefit claimants in the various categories as a proportion of the total. [7812]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  Per cent.

  Disallowed for failure to return questionnaire (IB50) without good cause as proportion of total questionnaires issued

  0.5

  Disallowed for failure to attend medical examination without good cause as a proportion of total examinations performed

  0.4

  Found capable of work following all work test as a proportion of all work test examinations

  117

  Appeals lodged with ITS as proportion of those failing all work test

  31

  Successful appeals as proportion of those heard

  43

  Appeals superseded by adjudication officer as proportion of those lodged

  3.8

  As there is often a delay between the examination and the adjudication officer's decision this figure does not accurately represent the proportion of examinations which resulted in disallowance.

  1. Figures include only incapacity benefit claimants and are subject to change.

  2. All figures to end of October 1995.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the benefit savings resulting from 566
  activities in respect of liable relatives in each year since 1989; and how much of this was attributable to maintenance paid. [8142]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the list:

  1989–90: £207 million

  1990–91: £232 million

  1991–92: £283.9 million

  1992–93: £313 million.

  In 1992–93 liable relative action fell under the umbrella of the child support unit.

  These figures include savings made where the level of maintenance reduced the amount of income support in payment; where maintenance removed the need for income support; and those cases where the claim for income support was withdrawn following liable relative action. It is not possible to break the figures down into these different categories.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the benefit savings claimed by the Child Support Agency are calculated in a manner which gives a like-for-like comparison with(a) the liable relatives unit and (b) the court system which preceded it. [8120]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Because of the differing nature of the work, there is no direct like-for-like comparison.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to audit the benefit savings figures produced by the Child Support Agency; [8126]

  (2) what assessment he has made of accounting methods used by the Child Support Agency to calculate benefit savings. [8122]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Audits were carried out by Price Waterhouse in 1993–94 and 1994–95. The auditors found that the procedure for reporting and measuring benefit savings was more likely to understate than overstate benefit savings.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the benefit savings claimed by the Child Support Agency are calculated on the same basis as the benefit savings estimates in the financial memorandum of the Child Support Act 1991. [8127]

  Mr. Mitchell
  No. While the Child Support Agency's benefit savings figures include the effect on benefit expenditure of maintenance paid calculated on the same basis as the estimates for the financial memorandum, the latter figure also included an estimate of the longer-term effect on expenditure of a reduction in the number of lone parents on benefit resulting from enhanced work incentives and other factors. The benefit savings figures, on the other hand, include estimates of the effect on expenditure of claims to benefit ceasing as a result of agency action but take no account of the longer-term incentive effect of the work of the Child Support Agency.
  567
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his estimate of expenditure savings following the Child Support Act 1991 included a calculation of the effects of the withdrawal of benefit claims by recipients of income support. [8141]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Yes.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures are followed by the Child Support Agency when contacting absent parents in cases where paternity has not yet been established; and in how many cases Child Support Agency procedures have been breached in this matter. [5767]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 11 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the procedures followed by the Child Support Agency when tracing and identifying absent parents in cases where paternity has not been established.
  Information about absent parents is provided to the Agency in the first instance by the parent with care (PWC). Where paternity is not yet established the Agency follows set procedures in contacting the alleged absent parent (AAP), and these vary depending on whether the AAP knows that the PWC considers him to be the parent of the child or children in question. Where the PWC has provided a current and confident address for the AAP, and the AAP knows that the PWC considers him to be the parent, the Agency issues a maintenance enquiry form by post to the AAP.
  Where the PWC has provided a current and confident address for the AAP, but the AAP does not know that he is considered to be the parent, the Agency writes to him inviting him to call at the office to discuss "a social security matter". The letter does not give any indication of the Agency's interest.
  If the information provided by the PWC on the identity or address of the AAP is not complete or confident, the Agency takes action to trace the right person. Child support legislation provides that this may include an approach being made to an employer to enable an AAP to be traced. The objective is to arrange for a private interview in the same way as described above, to resolve the paternity issue. Sometimes several men have to be interviewed to eliminate those whose personal details indicate they may be the AAP, before the correct man is identified.
  The method of contacting an employer may be by telephone or letter. When correspondence is sent to an employer it is marked "Private and Confidential—The Personnel Manager". It gives no details for the reason for our request, but quotes the legislation which is being invoked—in this case Child Support legislation—because the employer will have already refused to give the information over the phone in response to a generalised "DSS" request. There are a number of reasons why we could be approaching an employer in this way, including the need to contact a parent who is due money as well as a parent who may be liable to pay it. We never divulge the precise reason to the employer either in our phone contacts or in our letters.
  No correspondence should be issued to an AAP until the Agency is sure that the person traced could very well be the AAP described by the PWC. As explained above, the type of correspondence then issued depends upon whether or not the AAP knows that the PWC regards him as the parent. This is not a new way of working, the Benefits Agency and the DSS before it took similar action when it had responsibility for liable relative work.
  The Agency does not collate information on the number of cases where procedures have been breached. The Agency will, of course, investigate fully any complaint that the correct procedures have not been followed, but such instances are very unusual. For example, available data shows that out of 852, 763 maintenance enquiry forms issued from April 1993 (the inception of the Agency), to October
  568
  1995, 222 of them (0.026 per cent) were issued to someone who in fact had no child maintenance liability in the case concerned. Of this relatively small number, by no means all were because the CSA acted incorrectly (PWCs sometimes give wrong information), but wherever our strict procedures are breached, disciplinary action is taken against the member(s) of staff who are culpable.
  You may wish to note that the Agency has traced and/or identified the whereabouts of over 100,000 absent parents since it was created in April 1993.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in social security spending in real terms in each year since 1978–79, including estimates for each of the next three years, giving figures on the same basis as the answer of 7 June 1993,Official Report, column 144. [8501]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Social Security1 spending from 1978–79 to 1998–99

  Expenditure in £ million

  Years

  Cash

  1995–96 prices

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  1978–79

  16,401

  49,150

  —

  1979–80

  19,377

  49,755

  1.23

  1980–81

  23,483

  50,961

  2.42

  1981–82

  28,582

  56,555

  10.98

  1982–83

  32,451

  59,942

  5.99

  1983–84

  35,159

  62.066

  3.54

  1984–85

  39,716

  66,755

  7.56

  1985–86

  43.237

  68,897

  3.21

  1986–87

  46,611

  72,098

  4.65

  1987–88

  48,982

  71,936

  -0.23

  1988–89

  49,641

  68,331

  -5.01

  1989–90

  52,357

  67,365

  -1.41

  1990–91

  56,392

  67,171

  -0.29

  1991–92

  65,710

  73,672

  9.68

  1992–93

  74,661

  80,434

  9.18

  1993–94

  81,684

  85,505

  6.30

  1994–95

  84,189

  86,504

  1.17

  1995–96

  87,100

  87,100

  0.69

  1996–97

  90,102

  87,690

  0.68

  1997–98

  93,132

  88,429

  0.84

  1998–99

  96,264

  89,391

  1.09

  1Excludes non DSS expenditure on housing and council tax/community charge benefits.

  1. 1994–95 figures are estimated outturn.

  2. Figures from 1995–96 to 1998–99 are planned expenditure.

  3. The real terms decrease over the period 1987–88 to 1990–91 is largely attributable to the fall in unemployment since 1986.

  4. The figures from 1978–79 to 1989–90 are from the 1994 DR and earlier equivalents.

  5. Figures from 1990–91 to 1998–99 are from the 1996–97 FSBR.

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the average number of families who will benefit in 1996–97 from the increase in the child care disregard. [8500]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We estimate that on average between 5,000 and 10,000 families will benefit from the increase in the child care disregard during 1996–97.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the freeze in earnings disregards for housing benefit, council tax benefit, invalid care allowance, unemployment benefit (daily rate) and income support claims; how many claimants (i) of each benefit and (ii) in total will be affected by the freeze; what evidence he has of the effect on work incentives of such a freeze; and if he will make a statement. [8514]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None. The level of earnings disregards and thresholds are kept under review but it has never been the practice to uprate them on an annual basis.

  One-Parent and Child Benefits
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to introduce regulations to integrate one-parent benefit; and child benefit; and if he will make a statement. [8510]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We aim to commence the statutory consultation procedures under sections 170 to 176 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in February. Regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the consultation process is completed.

  Benefits Freeze
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the freeze in social fund (i) maternity payments, (ii) cold weather payments and (iii) capital; how many claimants (1) of each benefit and (2) in total he estimates will be affected by the freeze; and if he will make a statement. [8512]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  If social fund maternity payments had been uprated in line with Rossi since 1990, when they were last increased, the value of estimated additional expenditure—over current forecasts—would be £7 million in 1996–97 and £8 million in 1997–98. Approximately 230,000 claimants would be affected.

  Notes:

  1. The information in respect of Cold Weather Payments is not available as expenditure depends on weather conditions over the next two years.

  2. The information requested for capital is also unavailable.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the freeze in disregards for war pensions, student loans and covenants, expenses from sub-tenants and income from boarders under disability working allowance, family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, invalid care allowance, unemployment benefit (daily rate) and income support claims; how many claimants (i) of each benefit and (ii) in total will be affected by the freeze; and if he will make a statement. [8513]
  570
  Mr. Evans
  None. The income disregards are kept under review, and increased only when it is prudent to do so. None of the incomes listed is taken into account in the calculation of either invalid care allowance or unemployment benefit.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of family credit claimants receive the £10 increase for full-time work. [8516]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 31 August 1995, 87,000 new and renewal family credit awards included the new £10 premium. Awards already in payment when the premium came into effect on 17 July 1995 will become eligible on renewal of the 26 week award. Most existing family credit recipients working 30 hours or more should therefore by now be receiving the increase. In the longer term, we estimate that 345,000 families will benefit.

  Source: Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect of revenues in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 of the freeze in the maintenance disregard for family credit claims; how many claimants will be affected by the freeze; and if he will make a statement. [8515]

  Mr. Evans
  No estimate is made of savings to public funds when a disregard on income is not increased. The income disregards are kept under review and are increased only when it is prudent to do so.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are currently in receipt of family credit and what has been the cost of this benefit in each year since 1989–90. [9264]

  Mr. Evans
  The latest available information is that 605,800 families were receiving family credit on 30 April 1995. The cost of family credit in each year from 1989–90 is set out in the table:

  Year

  Family credit outturn £ million

  1989–90

  425

  1990–91

  494

  1991–92

  626

  1992–93

  929

  1993–94

  1,208

  1994–95

  1,441

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry April 1995. 1995 Departmental Report.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the proposal to extend help with housing benefit and council tax benefit during the first four weeks of work for unemployed people returning to work. [8505]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated additional cost of paying of housing benefit and council tax benefit for the first four weeks for unemployed people, lone parents,
  571
  carers and those attending Government training schemes who return to work is £50 million for each of the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. The overall final cost will depend on the number of people whom this work incentive measure helps back into work. We shall be monitoring and evaluating this carefully.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9139]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department and its agencies—except the Resettlement Agency, which will cease to operate on 1 April 1996–are committed to offering pre-retirement courses to all eligible staff. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  Habitual Residence Rules
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings have resulted from the application of the habitual residence rules. [9347]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The savings from the application of the habitual residence test for the period August 1994 to November 1995 are estimated at £37 million.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers living in the parliamentary constituency of Tottenham have children living with them; and how many(a) have claimed and (b) receive child benefit. [9814]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 90, if the administrative costs of implementing the jobseeker's allowance are additional to those referred to in paragraph 6.19 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96"; and for what reasons these additional costs have arisen. [9810]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administrative costs of implementing the jobseeker's allowance are additional to those referred to in paragraph 6.19 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96". Provision for last year was made on account, pending identification of the full costs of implementation.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 90, what he expects the £200 million DSS administrative costs which have been reclassified as running costs from other current expenditure in 1996–97 will be spent on; and for what reasons it has proved necessary to reclassify this. [9809]
  572
  Mr. Burt
  The reclassification of £200 million DSS administrative costs from other current expenditure to running costs represents a reversal of an earlier, incorrect reclassification. This arose from uncertainties about the vote impact of outsourcing proposals in respect of the Information Technology Services Agency. It returns DSS running costs provision to the level agreed in the public expenditure survey. Details of how this provision will be applied will be provided in the forthcoming social security departmental report "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99".

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9593]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many funeral payments from the social fund for payment towards funeral directors' fees equivalent to the maximum contribution allowable have been paid in each of the last five years, in Scotland. [8587]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many Funeral Payments from the Social Fund for payment towards funeral director's fees equivalent to the maximum contribution allowable have been paid in each of the last five years, in Scotland.
  £500 is the maximum contribution that can be included in a Funeral Payment towards funeral director's fees. This limit was introduced on 5 June 1995 along with other changes to the Funeral Payment scheme. Prior to this date, payments were made at the discretion of the Adjudication Officer and no distinction was made between that part of a Funeral Payment which related to funeral director's fees and other costs.
  The available information is in the enclosed Table A which shows the number of Funeral Payments paid in Scotland, in each month since 5 June 1995, where the amount paid towards the funeral director's fees has been restricted to £500.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Table A

  Month

  Number of cases

  June

  41

  July

  260

  August

  410

  September

  351

  October

  416

  November

  364

  December

  333

  Total

  2,175

  The number of Funeral Payments made in Scotland since June 1995 where that part of the award relating to funeral director's fees has been restricted to £500.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if staff working for the War Pensions Agency receive commission in respect of the number of claims which are met; and if he will make a statement. [9521]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This is a matter for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about commission to War Pensions Agency (WPA) staff.
  WPA staff do not receive commission in respect of the number of claims which are met.
  All staff in WPA, as in other agencies, receive pay awards related to performance. Performance markings are based on achievement of ranges of personal objectives derived from the Agency's high level targets, as published in the business plan.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 152, which offices of the Benefits Agency, other than the Sheffield office, have issued letters to claimants regarding the proposed changes in entitlement under the urgent cases regulations; what action was taken regarding those letters; and if he will place copies of them in the Library. [6434]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, pursuant to his Answer of 5th December, Official Report, column 152, which offices of the Benefits Agency, other than the Sheffield office, have issued letters to claimants regarding the proposed changes in entitlement under the urgent cases regulations; what action was taken regarding those letters; and if he will place copies of them in the Library.
  574
  Benefits Agency offices are organised on a District basis and each District can include up to six offices. Annex A, provides a list of those Districts which incorrectly issued letters to customers following the announcement of the proposed changes.
  Some Districts issued clerical notifications, examples of which are at Annex B and will be placed in the Library.
  Other Districts issued disallowance notices via the Income Support Computer System (ISCS). Unfortunately, it is not practicable to provide copies of these as they are made-up from a library of more than 1000 standard paragraphs and differ depending on a customer's individual circumstances.
  Instructions were issued to all District offices on 1 December 1995 advising that decisions should be rescinded and letters of apology sent to all the customers involved.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A
  List of Benefits Agency District offices that issued letters to customers following the proposed changes in entitlement under the urgent case regulations.

  Sheffield East

  Leaside

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  Manchester Central

  Manchester South

  Sale and East Cheshire

  North Surrey

  South West Thames

  Berkshire

  Lea Roding

  South Leicestershire

  Preston

  Makerfield Benefit Centre.

  Child Care (Heringey)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unaccompanied children are being cared for by the London borough of Haringey under the Children Act 1989. [9815]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest validated information available centrally on the London borough of Haringey is for 31 March 1993, when there were no children being looked after because they had no available parents or other persons with parental responsibility.

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

Lord Borrie
Sir Gordon Johnson Borrie, Knight, having been created Baron Borrie, of Abbots Morton in the County of Hereford and Worcester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Elvel and the Lord Clinton-Davis.

Bahamas: Pension Rates
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the increases in contributions, steps will be taken to modify the disparity between the pensions payable to British pensioners in the Bahamas and those payable by virtue of reciprocal arrangements in Bermuda, Jamaica, Barbados and the United States.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have no plans to pay annual increases to United Kingdom pensioners in the Bahamas. The uprating of state pensions paid overseas was debated at some length in both Houses during consideration of the Pensions Bill last year. Amendments to the Bill, intended to pave the way for the uprating of state pensions in those countries where they cannot be increased, were defeated by large majorities.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and accept the rectitude of everything that he said. Nonetheless perhaps I may ask whether the contributors to those pensions were ever informed that if they lived abroad in some place where no reciprocal arrangements could be made their entitlement would be limited to the original rate of entitlement. If they were so informed, will my noble friend say when and by what means? Having regard to the retroactive effect on the contributions, surely there is a case for reconsideration of the disparity between original rate and current rate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the current policy has been in place almost since the beginning. Going back to 1946, when the rate of pension was increased, that increase was not paid to pensioners abroad under the National Insurance (Increase of Contributory Pensions) Regulations of that year. The position remained the same after the National Insurance Act 1946 came into force. That Act contained a general disqualification from payment of benefits for persons
458
absent from Great Britain. Later legislation brought in the policy that the upratings would not be paid to those pensioners who lived abroad.
As regards informing people, since 1953 a leaflet has been available. Any pensioner or person making inquiries about their pension provision should they go abroad would have received the leaflet and the advice I have given today which I also gave during the debates on what became the Pensions Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not difficult to defend paying a different rate of pension to someone because of the locality in which they live? Some will receive it because they are in the right place, others will not because they are in the wrong place. Surely it is difficult to defend that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend must have defended that policy when he held the position as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I therefore find it as easy to defend as he did. It is clear to anyone going abroad, when they inquire and are given leaflets, that there is no general uprating for every country abroad. The simple fact is that to give a general uprating to all United Kingdom pensioners—that is, an uprating on the United Kingdom inflation rates—would cost the social security budget this year £¼ billion. I do not have to tell your Lordships that with a £90 billion social security budget that kind of pressure would be unsustainable.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that pensioners in this country who pay VAT and, in many cases, British income tax are different from pensioners living abroad and it would be wrong to increase overseas pensions lo the same limit as for domestic pensioners?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. The social security system and pensions arrangements in this country are pay-as-you-go. The pensions and payments today are paid for by the contributions of people in work who pay national insurance and income tax today. So the situation is a great deal different from what one might find in a properly funded pension scheme.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is strange and, to many of us, an injustice—that is why the last question was totally out of order—that we have negotiated agreements with 33 countries where there are pensioners who have not paid what the Minister stated but who receive all the increases and upratings? That is because we have negotiated reciprocal agreements. Why do we not recommence negotiations that were started with Canada? Why do we not recommence negotiations for reciprocal agreements with Commonwealth countries where the upratings do not apply? The figures the Minister quoted have long since been denied and put right by many experts in the pensions field.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can confirm that we have reciprocal arrangements, some of many years' standing, with some countries—for example our fellow members of the European Union—

459
to pay the upratings. However, as I said, if we were to arrange that the uprating should be widely paid to pensioners, wherever they are in the world, it would cost £¼ billion. I am sorry that the noble Lord disagrees but we had that disagreement when we were dealing with the Pensions Bill. I believe that my figures still stand and that £¼ billion would be extremely difficult to find out of the social security budget.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister agree that although the Question refers to only a small number of people, the problem is much wider? The parallels drawn in the Question do not include countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and places with a much larger population which are covered in the amount of money the Minister mentioned as the cost.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am treating the Question as involving not only the Bahamas but on the principle that, if one were to concede the point for the Bahamas, in logic one would have to come to agreement with the other countries, many of which have more United Kingdom pensioners than the Bahamas.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it would be right to pay the money, as per contract, if we could afford it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that question is totally hypothetical. We cannot afford the money. The budget for social security is already £90 billion and, as I said in the debate on the Pensions Bill, if the Treasury were kind enough to give my department £¼ billion more to spend we might have higher priorities for it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if we cannot afford the money, perhaps the Minister will try to reopen negotiations with the Bahamas in order to arrive at some reciprocal agreement so that that aspect of the disparity—it has nothing to do with the £¼ billion—might be alleviated.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I might be tempted to accept my noble friend's suggestion and go to the Bahamas to conduct negotiations with the authorities there. However, the reality is that if one had reciprocal arrangements with the Bahamas, in logic one would have to extend the negotiations to other countries. We would come to the inevitable conclusion that we would pay the uprating and the cost would be the £¼ billion I mentioned.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the question I put. Why have we reciprocal agreements with America, Jerusalem, Spain, Greece, Turkey, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, not just our European partners, but, according to the Minister, we cannot come to reciprocal arrangements with the others? The Minister says that they were long ago, but about 18 months ago we made a reciprocal agreement with Finland. He is not really answering the question.
Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, most of the agreements are of long-standing, for example, a
460
clutch going back to 1955 if my memory serves me rightly. I have little doubt that the cost of a reciprocal agreement with Finland does not come to much, but Finland is now part of the European Union. When 18 months ago we negotiated with that country's authorities, it was part of the European Economic Area, about to become a member of the Union. All the members of the Union have reciprocal agreements with us and each other. That is the difference. However, the cost remains a serious problem.

Employment Agency Standards Office
2.58 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the Employment Agency Standards Office's interpretation of the application of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to deep sea and coastal pilots does not deprive the latter of their livelihood.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the activities of Deep Sea and Coastal Pilots Limited are those of an employment business subject to the Employment Agencies Act 1973. The fees it charges pilots for its services are prohibited by Section 6 of that Act. The Employment Agency Standards Office has explained that to the company and has asked it to comply with the law.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that unhelpful reply. Is he aware that the service which the pilots provide is of great importance to the safety of shipping in the waters adjacent to our shores? A European Commission study has recommended that the service is made mandatory for ships of 10,000 tonnes and over and those carrying hazardous cargoes. If the Employment Agency Standards Office's interpretation of the Act is upheld, our pilots would have to increase their charges, discouraging shipowners from making use of their services or persuading them to turn to pilots of other nations.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no one underestimates the value of the pilots and the work that they undertake. I cannot, however, agree that it necessarily follows that, were the interpretation of the law that the Employment Agency Standards Office is adopting to be followed through by this company, as we believe it should, it would mean that the fees charged have to be increased.
What I wish to emphasise to the noble Lord at this stage is that detailed correspondence has passed between the legal advisers to the company and the office. We await a reply from the company. I wish to make it clear that no precipitated action will be taken, although action could be taken under the criminal law or before an industrial tribunal.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the pilot is a specialist adviser to the masters of many ships, and not a temporary employee

461
of one, and that a central administration is needed because pilots arc widely distributed and work abnormal hours? Is he aware that after World War II this organisation provided pilots to guide ships past mines laid by both sides, but that they now find that the minefields lurking in the opaque waters of job classification are more hazardous?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no one is attacking the quality or value of the work undertaken by pilots. At issue is whether or not this particular company is entitled under the law in place since 1973 to charge fees in respect of that employment. The advice given to the Employment Agency Standards Office is that that is not in compliance with the law and the company should comply. As I said, this is in no sense an attack on the value of the work undertaken.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Employment Agencies Act protects pilots and does not seek to undermine their rights, and that these state agencies should not be allowed to charge individuals for finding them work? Is he aware that it has been suggested to the pilots that, rather than seeking to exempt themselves from the law which protects them, it would be a better idea for them to form themselves into a company in order to deal with this issue themselves?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am certainly aware that an exemption is one of the proposals that they have put forward. My understanding of the position is that originally this company came into being as a co-operative, when the pilots drew together, but is now a wholly commercial company. What is at issue here is essentially whether fees can be charged to the pilots for the employment found for them or whether the cost might be shifted, as happens all over the country in a wide multiplicity of agencies whose fees are charged to those seeking the services of the pilot. It is not for me to indicate how that might be worked out in detail, but there is a relatively straightforward way in which this matter might be resolved.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is the free choice of the pilots to operate through an agency, which they control absolutely through a code of practice and which frees them from the burden of necessary administrative work so that they can concentrate on the highly skilled and vital work of pilotage—their chosen profession?
Is my noble friend also aware that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act seems to be operating against its own aims in adding to the bureaucracy of the work of these pilots?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, to deal with the second point first. I think there is some confusion. There was some belief that the pilots were originally subjected to the seamen's agencies, which were covered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. That has never been the position; they have always been covered by provisions under the 1973 Act.
I really do not think it can be maintained that enforcement of the law and compliance with it in this context puts the work of the pilots at risk. What we need
462
to establish now is whether or not the company is in breach of the law. We await a reply from its legal advisers.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a problem as to whether this Act applies, at any rate in the form in which the agency is putting forward the argument? However, leaving that point aside, am I right in thinking that there has been no complaint from shipowners, no request from pilots for protection, and no suggestion by the company that their work would be any better performed if they were subject to regulation? Against that background, would it not be more sensible to make an exemption order under Section 6 as being more in the spirit of deregulation and also in conformity with the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am certainly not aware of any complaints from shipowners, although I am aware that complaints have been made by pilots on the allegation of a breach.
As regards the noble and learned Lord's main point, I accept, and I cling to the quaint notion, that if there is an authority asserting a particular construction of the law and there are others who disagree with that, it might he appropriate for the courts to resolve the matter. Only when that matter has been settled might the issue of an exemption be addressed. There are two sets of exemptions; in principle, however, we do not favour the extension of further exemptions.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Employment Agency Standards Office bases it case on the assumption that pilots are employed by the shipowner, whereas anybody who has anything to do with the sea knows perfectly well that they are advisers to the captain; and any sensible captain would he very unwise to reject the advice he receives? The pilots are in no way employees of the company that employs the captain.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is the very point. Certainly the pilots arc not employees of the shipowners, the owners of the tankers or whatever it may be. The contention of the office is that they are indeed employees of the company and are hired out to work under the control of others.

Disabled Children: York University Report
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the research report on disabled children and their families, Expert Opinions, by the Social Policy Research Unit of York University, and what were their conclusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): Yes, my Lords. Our conclusions are that it is a useful report and reflects the Government's recently published document, Building Partnerships for Success.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the expert opinions in this survey are particularly valuable because they are those of the parents of disabled children who therefore speak from direct personal experience? Is she further aware that most reported at least one unmet need; and over half reported at least five unmet needs? These families are particularly deprived and suffer severely and disproportionately. Therefore, should not the Government offer to help very much more than they do at present?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord; these parents have a very, very difficult task. I also believe that, on the whole, mothers know best. The Government have a very good record in trying to help parents who have disabled children. The noble Lord will know that only this year we made a grant through the Family Fund of £23 million to families with severely disabled children. We have also helped through social security and housing adaptations, and we have helped carers through the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, which was passed by this House last year.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that many of the children who survive today would not have survived 15 or 20 years ago, and that the stresses put on parents with very severely disabled children are far greater than, I think, any of us would be able to tolerate? Will she kindly look into the provision of much more respite care, or care within the child's home, so that at least the parents can get a break? Many go for nights and nights without sleep because their children are crying all the time.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Countess makes a very valid point. The special transitional grant for this year includes an additional £30 million for respite care. Looking at the additional £20 million that was spent last year, we see that there is more respite care around. The noble Countess is right that it should be targeted, and these families probably need it more than most.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister accept—I am sure she does—that disabled children create disabled families? I am very glad that she mentioned the carers' recognition Act. Will she tell the House what her department is doing to ensure that the provisions of the carers' recognition Act, introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Carter, are being acted upon? Without being discourteous, I hope her reply will not be simply that the department is issuing advice to local authorities and health authorities.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am pleased that I shall not disappoint the noble Baroness. In fact, there is now a requirement for local authorities to publish children's services plans. That will be mandatory from
464
1st April this year, to come into effect next year. It will take into account the wishes and the needs of parents as carers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I know that the Minister wants to help. I take her point about the family fund and carers. But will she accept that this report is a stunning indictment of our society and families who arc suffering? It is not good enough simply to recite what has been done. Far more needs to be done in the future. If the Government abdicate from their responsibilities, the suffering will simply continue. Will the Minister go back to the Secretary of State and say that representations have been made and a valid report, substantiated by the families themselves, has been published? Will she ask him whether something more can be done?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was told that when the report was launched the noble Lord made an impressive speech. He said that he would start the ball rolling by asking this Starred Question today. I think that it is not so much a ball and more of a bullet. I shall go back to my honourable friend the Secretary of State and clearly we shall see what more can be done. The Government's record on this matter is very good indeed.

Sports Violence, Scotland: Guidance to Chief Constables
3.11 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Lord Advocate intends to issue guidance to procurators fiscal as to when, or if, action should be taken by them in connection with brawls on the Scottish soccer field, and, if so, whether the guidance will also take into account violence which occurs on the field in other spectator sports such as rugby football.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I have recently given consideration to the whole issue of sports violence in Scotland. While professional football has formed the basis of much public discussion on this topic in the last few months, the topic is of concern to all sports where there are risks of unacceptable violence or disorderly conduct of a seriously provocative nature. Instructions to chief constables as to the reporting of alleged offences involving such behaviour have been drafted. When these are formally issued by me to chief constables, guidance will at the same time be sent to procurators fiscal, instructing them how to deal with any reports received from the police and instructing them when they themselves should take the initiative to call for reports from the police.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, which I consider in essence to he helpful. However, I should like to add something. Is he aware that there is concern in Scotland about the fact that some procurators fiscal have considered violent action on soccer fields, others have not and others yet-again seem to have paid no attention to acts of violence committed, for

465
example, on the rugby field, the shinty field or the hockey pitch? Will he accept that because soccer has such exposure on television, consideration of soccer is pre-eminent? Is that even-handed? Is it fair treatment? That is my additional question to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am quite clear that the treatment of all sports should he even-handed. I take the view that all those who are involved in the administration and refereeing of sport have a duty to take firm action to prevent violence in the first place and to deal with it when it arises. On the rare occasions when it occurs, in the first instance it is the duty of the police to investigate matters. I am satisfied that, if that is to be done in accordance with the guidelines that I am currently in the course of framing, there will be very few occasions indeed when it will he necessary for the procurators fiscal themselves to take the initiative.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the attention of the noble and learned Lord been drawn to a recent ruling of the House of Lords that it is illegal in this country to inflict bodily harm, even with consent, on another citizen of this country? In the review that he is now undertaking, will he examine the legality of boxing, in which it is the intention of the contestants to inflict bodily harm on one another?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not think that the Question was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill I, to enable me to defend in your Lordships' House the sport of boxing. However, the guidance that I shall issue will apply to all sports, including boxing. In many sports, including football, rugby, boxing and, I dare say, shinty, there is an element of deliberately physical contact involved and a measure of aggression is regarded as an essential part of the game. All those who have played such sports and are knowledgeable about them recognise that there is a line beyond which the physical contact should not go. I believe that experienced police officers are well able to identify that line. I am satisfied that, when those guidelines are made public, they will assist the general public to understand the action taken by the police and by procurators fiscal.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords regard his original Answer as extremely helpful indeed and thank him for it? I draw attention to the fact that it is in total contrast to the silence of the Minister for Sport for England, who has had nothing whatever to say about the continual breaking of the law on sports fields. Will he represent to his colleagues, therefore, that we should have a uniform UK policy in this area?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his compliment to me. It would not be appropriate for me to assume any jurisdiction or responsibility for any violence which may occur south of the Border.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I offer my apologies to the noble and learned Lord because I was not present when he made his maiden speech. I welcome him
466
to his position on the Front Bench and, if I may say so, hope that it will be short-lived. I have said that to a few Lords Advocate before but they keep coming back.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this is a non-party issue which is a matter of considerable seriousness and not capable of being developed at Question Time in your Lordships' House? Would he not prefer to wait until we see the guidelines that he will bring out in relation to all sports and hope that we can make some time in your Lordships' House and elsewhere to debate the issues?
The noble and learned Lord hides his own qualities behind his office. He will correct me if I am wrong but I understand that he is a rugby referee, and so he knows what violence on the field is all about. He is not a violent referee but he referees violence, which is a different issue. Did the Minister say that guidelines to chief constables and procurators fiscal would be published? If that is the case, shall we know what they are? If so, that would seem to violate the principle of the Crown Office not telling people why decisions are made.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I should clarify the matter. The instructions that I shall give to chief constables in terms of the statutory powers open to me will be made public. However, in accordance with the normal practice in Scotland, guidance to the procurators fiscal will be kept confidential as that is deemed to be in the public interest in relation to all matters upon which guidance is issued. The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to my experience as a referee. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that nowadays I am limited to refereeing primary school boys. I find it possible to keep up with them.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accept that whatever guidance he publishes will have no effect on the principal cause of the problem; namely, the weak refereeing that takes place at most of our spectator sports in Scotland? Does he agree that he, or someone from his office, should have a meeting with the Scottish Football Association and try to encourage it to apply some consistency of standards of refereeing? Would that not go some considerable way to eliminating the problem?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sure that those responsible for the instruction, grading and supervision of refereeing in Scotland will take account of the noble Lord's words. I can assure the House that such a meeting has already taken place with the SFA and I intend to initiate similar discussions with the Scottish Rugby Union.

Business of the House: Debates, 17th January
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

467
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Morris of Castle Morris set down for tomorrow shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Carter set down for the same day to two hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a consolidation Bill which brings together and makes more readily accessible the existing law relating to the organisation and administration of the police which is presently to be found in the Police Act 1964 and certain other enactments. For the most part, the Bill extends to England and Wales only, because Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own legislation in this area.
Consolidation is desirable in this case because the 1964 Act has been heavily amended by later Acts, most notably Chapter I of Part I of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. The Bill also includes those provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as subsequently amended, governing the establishment and operation of the Police Complaints Authority.
I take this opportunity to offer my thanks—and I am sure those of the whole House—to the draftsman of the Bill and of the other consolidation Bills which will follow it during this Session for continuing their important work. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is the first of two linked consolidation Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall speak to them together and then move the second formally.
The two Bills restate most of the employment legislation which remained unconsolidated after the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Your Lordships will note that the Bills have the same short titles as Bills which were introduced in the last Session of Parliament, and indeed their form and content are very similar as well. The previous two Bills did not complete their passage through this House as a number of relevant developments took place after they had been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. These included amendments which were made during the passage of the Bills which became the Pensions Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the making of new regulations providing for
468
consultation with the representatives of employees who are to be made redundant in circumstances where they are not represented by a trade union, and the increase of various monetary limits in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
Each of those developments needed to be reflected in the two consolidation Bills. Taken together, however, they would have necessitated heavy amendment of those Bills at a comparatively late stage in their progress. I concluded therefore that the better course of action would be not to proceed further with the consolidation Bills in the last Session but to introduce new Bills this Session, which could then be considered afresh.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bills a Second Reading, they will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Employment Rights Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have already referred to the Bill and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted to bring forward the Broadcasting Bill. It amends the regulatory structure introduced in the 1990 Broadcasting Act and is designed to ensure that the new digital technology benefits viewers and listeners and that British industry maintains and develops its leading position in this area.
I am confident that your Lordships will scrutinise it rigorously, but I also hope you will be able wholeheartedly to support its aspirations. I do not, however, suggest that the Bill as drafted cannot be improved. Indeed, the Government intend to introduce some amendments at the Committee stage, to which I shall refer later.
The Bill is very complicated, but reflects four key policy principles: first, to safeguard and encourage plurality and diversity; secondly, to maintain our unique tradition of public service broadcasting, including not only the public broadcasting corporations but also the independent sector; thirdly, to foster the competitiveness

469
of the UK broadcasting industry, which leads the world in digital technology; and, finally, to maintain standards of impartiality, taste and decency.
I should like now to turn to Parts I and II of the Bill, which concern digital terrestrial broadcasting. I shall begin with digital terrestrial television. Digital television promises to have a greater impact than the introduction of colour. Sound and pictures are converted into binary code. Using a process called digital compression, the transmitter sends not the whole image, but only the information needed to effect changes between frames. This uses much less spectrum than the existing "analogue" process.
Through another process, known as "multiplexing", the signals of several broadcasters are combined into a single stream on a single frequency channel. Thus there is no longer a direct one-to-one relationship between a television service and a frequency. The signals are finally received and decoded by digital receivers or set-top boxes attached to existing sets.
Initially these advances will offer at least 18 national television channels on six multiplexes, which, in the medium term, will serve from 60 to over 90 per cent. of the population. There will also be improvements in picture quality, increased potential for widescreen, and some potential for interactivity, enabling viewers to choose different soundtracks or camera angles for the same programme.
In the longer term, the coverage of digital terrestrial television can be increased to levels similar to that of current analogue transmissions. Once that happens, frequencies currently used for analogue transmission might be released for other uses. Five years after the introduction of digital terrestrial television or once 50 per cent. of the population has digital receivers, whichever is the sooner, the Government will review setting a date for the so-called "analogue switch-off".
Cable and satellite broadcasters can provide hundreds of channels. They can begin digital transmission now. But terrestrial delivery has certain advantages. It is capable of being received by virtually the whole country; it uses existing aerials; it will not require a satellite dish or expensive cabling; it will be better suited to portable reception and it provides flexibility for regional programming.
Digital technology offers much for radio as well, particularly for the quality of in-car reception. And it is on radio that the first digital terrestrial services have already begun. The BBC began its existing national services on its own digital multiplex on 27th September 1995, and those services will soon be supplemented. In addition there will be a multiplex for at least six digital independent national radio services and, in most areas, a multiplex offering six local digital services. We have decided that a further digital radio multiplex should be used for extra local services in areas of greatest demand, including London and other major cities. Unfortunately, technical constraints and international agreements mean that some areas may in the medium term be unable to receive local digital radio services. We shall clarify the position as soon as possible.
470
Digital technology will also enable improved additional services; for example, advanced teletext, data services, or in-car direction finders. However, since the spectrum employed is primarily intended for broadcasting, the Bill ensures that at least 90 per cent. of digital capacity on each multiplex must be made available for the provision of television and radio programmes.
At present there are no digital television sets or set-top boxes. The digital audience is almost zero. Major investment is needed to produce the transmission infrastructure and the programming to be carried on it. We therefore concluded that frequency channels should be allocated to multiplex providers rather than individual broadcasters. That makes it easier for large numbers of broadcasters to participate, not just those large enough to manage a whole channel. It also allows non-broadcasters with relevant technical and commercial expertise to participate.
The Independent Television Commission will license television multiplexes, which will be awarded to those who are best able to meet three key criteria: investment in infrastructure; investment in promotion and marketing (perhaps involving measures to reduce the cost of receivers) and programme variety. The Radio Authority will license independent radio multiplexes.
Digital broadcasting is a major, long-term investment. Its investors must have a fair chance of a return. So multiplex licences will run for 12 years, with the opportunity to renew for 12 more. No payments will be made to the Exchequer in the first period. But, except for local radio, a percentage of revenue reflecting the state of the market will be payable for the second.
Public service broadcasters have particular requirements and duties placed upon them. We would like them to help launch digital broadcasting. So we shall reserve half a multiplex for each public service television channel. The BBC will be offered control of the multiplex with the greatest potential coverage. Channel 3, Channel 4, Teletext, and, in Wales, S4C will share the multiplex with the second greatest coverage.
Channel 5 will be offered half the space on the multiplex with the third highest coverage. This is expected to reach around 80 per cent.—more than the projected reach of Channel 5's analogue service.
In return for their guaranteed places, public service broadcasters will be required to simulcast their existing analogue services on digital—that is to say, to broadcast them at the same time—in their entirety and free-to-air.
Public service broadcasters will also be able to do completely new things. Half a multiplex is sufficient to simulcast in widescreen and to provide at least one, and possibly two, further full programme services, which may be funded by advertising, by subscription; by pay-per-view or by a mixture of all three. The BBC is also free to provide new programme services on its multiplex, and has said it plans to do so.
On radio, the BBC is already operating its own national multiplex. The three existing independent national stations—Classic FM, Virgin and Talk Radio—will be offered guaranteed places on the second national multiplex. This will leave space for three new stations.

471
Digital capacity is tighter for radio than for television, so there is less scope for existing broadcasters to provide new services.
Currently, independent radio licences are awarded for eight years, at the end of which there is full re-tendering. It would be unattractive for the independent national radio companies to invest in digital when they could lose their analogue licence, and thus their digital guaranteed place, within a very few years. We therefore propose that existing independent national radio broadcasters who accept guaranteed places will be able, for one period only, to renew their analogue licence, subject to revised cash payments negotiated by the Radio Authority. We shall be introducing a government amendment to that effect.
BBC local radio bears public service responsibilities, and capacity will be reserved for them on local multiplexes. But limited capacity precludes guaranteed places for independent local radio stations. However, independent local stations which are part of successful applications from multiplex providers will, like their national counterparts, be allowed to renew their analogue licences once.
I should like to conclude my remarks on the digital elements in the Bill by mentioning three specific points. The first is programming at local, regional and UK national level. Our revised proposals for Wales mean that Channel 4 will be able to offer digital viewers its existing analogue service, in full and with the same scheduling as the rest of the UK. And, on digital, S4C will be free to expand or complement its peak-hour Welsh language service, which itself must be simulcast.
More generally, there is likely to be demand for increased regional and local television programming throughout the UK. The Bill caters for this. As I have said, one of the principal criteria on which the ITC will judge applications is the variety of programme services prospective multiplex providers intend to transmit. We expect the ITC to take full account of proposals for local, regional, community and special interest channels and programming as an important element in assessing variety. Moreover, digital broadcasting will make it easier to split services between different regional and local areas.
The second point relates to ownership. The Bill seeks to encourage investment in digital technology while preventing the abuse of dominant positions and the excessive accumulation of control over the new digital channels. To encourage investment, there will be no constraints on cross-ownership between multiplex providers, broadcasters and the providers of the conditional access systems. A transmission provider may also be a multiplex provider.
Multiplex providers' licences will require them to treat broadcasters,
"fairly, reasonably and on a non-discriminatory basis".
Moreover, the Bill provides that no more than three of the six television multiplexes may be controlled by the same organisation. Nor may a single broadcaster dominate the digital medium. For television, there will be a points system limiting any broadcaster to around
472
25 per cent. of new digital services. For radio, broadcasters will be limited to one national station, and to one (or in some cases two) local stations per multiplex.
The third point concerns the control of conditional access systems. Digital broadcasting will allow subscription and pay-per-view services on terrestrial television. Providers of the encryption technology and subscription management services should not be able to abuse their position as "gatekeepers". We intend, through licensing, to ensure that they do not discriminate unduly between broadcasters or multiplex providers and that they do not unreasonably refuse access to their services.
This issue is not covered by the Bill because the controls will be introduced through amendments to licences issued under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The Government yesterday published a paper setting out detailed proposals on exactly how this should be implemented.
I turn now to the proposals in Clause 62 and Schedule 2 to the Bill concerning media ownership. These aim to allow British companies greater scope to respond to technological change, while maintaining diversity and plurality. Since 1990, the media industry has seen major changes. Cable and satellite broadcasting has expanded dramatically. Commercial radio has grown very considerably. New technology has forced down costs for the press. Digital broadcasting provides further potential for major expansion. It was against this background that the Government decided to review the cross-media ownership regulations in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
We remain convinced that, because of its ability to inform the public, influence opinion and engender political debate, the media make up an industry unlike any other. It is central to our culture, our democratic system, our access to information and our way of life. Its regulation must reflect that. Nevertheless, technological and business developments make liberalisation of the extensive existing ownership controls highly desirable.
Most British media companies specialise in one single area: the press, television or radio. That fragmentation is underpinned by prohibitions on cross-media ownership. But technological change provides the opportunity for newspapers, broadcasters and production companies to apply their traditional expertise in new and complementary areas.
Meanwhile, competition is increasing. Only major media companies can make the investments and take the risks associated with the modern media market. We want to see UK companies succeeding in the domestic and international marketplace. The new rules therefore relax existing constraints on cross-media holdings, allowing groups to control a mix of newspapers, television and radio licences. They will also abolish the limits on the number of Channel 3 television and independent radio licences which one company may control, replacing them with a simpler single measure based on shares of the overall television and radio markets.

473
These new limits directly reflect readers', viewers' and listeners' actual use of the media, at both national and local level. We intend to use audience share to limit holdings in television, and newspaper circulation to limit the ability of powerful newspaper groups to buy into broadcasters. The radio points system (which measures potential audience) will remain as the method for limiting holdings in radio. Audience share relates directly to the principle of plurality. That makes it appropriate in this context. Revenue shares reflect the market power of a media enterprise, rather than its ability to influence opinion and engender debate—and market power is primarily controlled through competition legislation.
Currently, nobody may control more than two licences to provide Channel 3 and Channel 5 television, or more than 35 local radio licences. The Bill abolishes these rules and proposes instead limits of 15 per cent. share of the total television audience, and 15 per cent. of the total points in the radio points scheme. We propose, however, to retain a few additional controls, specifically aimed at preserving plurality and diversity. No one will be permitted to own more than one national radio licence. No one will be allowed to hold a licence to provide a national Channel 3 service (such as breakfast television) and the licence to provide Channel 5. And where, as in London, there is more than one regional Channel 3 service, they must be separately controlled. All of these represent unavoidably scarce and powerful sources of influence—nationally or regionally—which must not be aggregated even within the overall 15 per cent. limit.
Newspapers are not subject to overall market share limits. However, it is important that dominant newspaper groups do not also become dominant broadcasters. The Bill will therefore prevent those groups having 20 per cent. or more of national newspaper circulation from acquiring Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences or radio licences or vice versa. But this restriction does not apply to the emerging markets of cable, satellite and digital terrestrial broadcasting.
For the same reasons the Bill also seeks to prevent the emergence of local media monopolies. The existing rule that the same person may not control regional Channel 3 and local radio licences whose areas significantly overlap therefore remains. We shall also retain the restrictions preventing one company holding multiple radio licences in a particular area. Radio operators will still only be allowed to own one FM station and one AM station in areas which are substantially the same.
Local newspapers will be able to own the holders of regional Channel 3 licences only where they have less than 20 per cent. of local newspaper circulation in that region. They may not own a local radio licensee if they have 50 per cent. or more of local newspaper circulation in the area concerned, and, where they have 20 per cent. or more of the circulation, they may not own local radio licensees who account for more than 50 per cent. of the radio points for the area. Reciprocal restrictions will apply to the stakes that broadcasters may hold in local newspapers within their broadcasting area.
474
In determining the local newspaper market for the purpose of these controls, we shall include local freesheets but exclude national newspapers. Freesheets increasingly carry significant amounts of news and editorial. So they should be subject to the same restrictions as paid-for newspapers. They are part of the market in reporting news of local and regional significance, whereas national newspapers do not focus on reporting local issues. But if a national newspaper substantially differentiates its local or regional editions, the regulator will treat these as local papers, and they will be within the scope of these controls.
The Bill also proposes to allow joint ownership of cable, terrestrial and satellite television licences. However, since national newspaper groups have been able to establish significant holdings in cable and satellite, we propose to prevent those cable and satellite groups in which national newspapers with 20 per cent. or more of national circulation have an interest of more than 20 per cent. from controlling licences to provide Channels 3 and 5, or national and local radio. Again, the aim is to prevent joint control of dominant newspapers and dominant broadcasters.
Currently, local newspapers, local radio stations and regional Channel 3 services are prevented from owning cable franchises in their areas of operation. But since cable operators control a means of delivering programmes, not the programmes themselves, the Bill proposes to abolish these cross-ownership restrictions.
The Bill also revises the definition of "control" in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Our aim is to ensure that the legislation cannot be circumvented by arrangements which, while producing control in practice, do not technically breach the statutory definition. The revised definition allows the relevant regulator to conclude that control is exercised if it is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, to expect that a person will be able, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of the body in question are conducted in accordance with his wishes.
These measures represent a substantial liberalisation. But we have also built a number of important safeguards into the Bill. First, alliances between newspapers and broadcasters will be subject to a public interest test. The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority will have the power to prevent newspapers acquiring broadcasting licences if they judge this to he against the public interest. There will be three criteria to assess this: promoting media plurality and diversity; maintaining a strong industry for the benefit of the country; and ensuring the proper operation of markets. The ITC and the Radio Authority will seek advice as necessary from the competition authorities.
A second important safeguard will ensure the regional nature of the Channel 3 network. The unique regional nature of ITV is a major strength. Channel 3 licences include commitments to both regional programming and regional programme production, which are closely monitored by the ITC. Most of the ITV companies regularly exceed their regional programming commitments and see that as in their commercial interests.

475
Nevertheless, some fear that consolidation within the ITV network and newspaper control of Channel 3 licences could mean more metropolitan domination. Clause 63 of the Bill therefore enables the commission to vary a Channel 3 licence following a change of control, to include new conditions to preserve the quality, range and regional character of the existing programming.
Clause 64 of the Bill changes the current funding arrangements for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. Under the current system S4C receives a grant from my department equivalent to 3.2 per cent. of all territorial television revenues from advertising sponsorship and subscription in the previous year.
The television advertising market fluctuates considerably. This is unsatisfactory both for S4C, which needs to make business plans for serval years ahead, and for Government in planning public expenditure. The new arrangements will be based on the payment to be made to S4C in January 1997 under the existing formula. That amount will then be increased from 1998 onwards in line with the RPI. The Bill also empowers the Secretary of State to alter S4C's funding to reflect transmission costs.
Clause 66 amends the formula for securing the income of Channel 4. It gives the Government powers to alter by order the distribution of any Channel 4 revenue above its guaranteed income, by adjusting the percentages allocated to the ITV companies, to Channel 4's reserve fund and to Channel 4's current expenditure.
The present arrangements are not a subsidy to the ITV companies, but a form of insurance premium as a guarantee of Channel 4's long term future. Channel 4 has been tremendously successful in the past two years. But with Channel 5 and new digital services in prospect we still see the need for a safety mechanism for Channel 4 to secure its continuing success within its existing remit. Nevertheless, we want to be able to allow Channel 4 to retain more of its own revenues to invest in programmes. We propose to specify the relevant percentages nearer the time, taking account of the prevailing circumstances of the broadcasting market.
The BBC's new draft Charter and draft Agreement, discussed by your Lordships last week, provide for the development of the BBC's commercial activities. But they also ensure that the commercial operations are funded separately from the public services supported by the licence fee. Accordingly, the Bill empowers the ITC and the Radio Authority to license and regulate commercial services which are owned or partly owned by a company in which the BBC has a stake.
We announced on 27th November that the BBC's transmission services would be privatised and that the BBC would handle the sale. The Bill includes provisions designed to assist the BBC to transfer in the sale those rights within the BBC's transmission services which currently either cannot be transferred at all, or cannot be transferred without the consent of a third party. These provisions are similar to those at Schedule 9 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 concerning the former IBA's transmission network.
476
Part IV of the Bill merges the existing Broadcasting Complaints Commission and Broadcasting Standards Council—another change foreshadowed in the 1994 White Paper.
We need effective mechanisms to benchmark standards, for canvassing viewers', listeners' and the public views, and to investigate complaints. The proposed new Broadcasting Standards Commission will build on the work of the two existing bodies in fulfilling these functions. It will be a single, recognisable, independent body dedicated to maintaining standards in broadcasting.
The new body's powers and functions differ slightly from those of its predecessor. In addition to the Code of Practice previously produced in the areas of taste and decency, the commission will now he invited to produce privacy and fairness guidelines. It will also be required to publish, in its regular reports, summaries of every fairness or standards complaint, whether they have been upheld in whole or in part, and details of all steps taken by broadcasters as a result of findings made against them. Such action would include both the direct response to the commission's conclusions and any internal measures taken. Broadcasters will thus need to demonstrate to the public that they have given the complaint due and proper attention within any timescale set by the commission.
One further proposal, which the Government intend to introduce as an amendment to the Bill, is to simplify the procedure for re-advertising independent local radio licences. The 1990 Act generally requires all local radio licences to be re-advertised at the end of their term. The Government propose to enable the Radio Authority to invite expressions of interest in an expiring independent local radio licence. If only the existing licensee is interested, then provided the authority is satisfied that the other criteria in the Act would continue to be met, the licence could simply be renewed. But if others are interested, and deposit a bond as a back-up, then it will he re-advertised in the usual way. This should reduce uncertainty, concern and expense, and allow radio companies to concentrate on making programmes, without damaging the chances for prospective newcomers.
Finally, your Lordships will wish to know that we shall be bringing forward government amendments on a number of technical points relating to the 1990 Act, following representations we have received from the regulators.
I began my remarks by noting that this Bill deals with an enormously complex subject, to which this speech is just an introduction. I have had to compress verbally what I wanted to say and I hope I have "multiplexed" my message clearly. I look forward to listening to 'your Lordships speaking with the plurality of voices we in government are keen to encourage. But, as I also said, I hope our debate will proceed on a largely non-partisan basis and we shall always be willing to help explain points informally if asked. The issues involved are very important for the future of our society, of our economy and our democracy. We have already shown we shall respond to well reasoned suggestions for improving our

477
proposals, and I assure your Lordships that I shall pursue our debates in this House in a receptive but critical frame of mind.
The Bill is complicated, but it merits careful and constructive examination, not least because it deals with revolutionary technological developments at the cutting edge of the broadcasting and multi-media changes of the late 1990s, which are so important to both our citizens and our industry. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
3.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting us with such a comprehensive Bill which seeks to shape the structure and to regulate the behaviour of a wide range of diverse media activities. That required some courage and ingenuity on the part of the Government since the future of broadcasting is not easy to forecast. We on this side will try to be as positive and constructive as possible, not least because that is the spirit which the Minister usually brings to the House. I must add that I am grateful that I do not have to repeat all the technological explanations which the Minister so courageously went through.
Before getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I must first say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill. Her introduction to this House gave me personally as much pleasure as any in my decade here. She revives many memories, happy and sad, and her interest in the arts and media field is well established. She comes from a marvellous Scottish stable and we shall all enjoy her contributions today and in the future.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not propose today to trudge through this highly complex Bill in great technical detail. That lies ahead in Committee. However, several issues of great principle are wrapped up in its technical jargon. We wish to highlight them now and shall later propose amendments relating to them. I suspect that some of our main concerns will be shared across the parties.
There is much in the Bill that we welcome, as it amends or fills the gaps in the tattered 1990 Act. It also grasps the digital nettle which promises several technical benefits to broadcasters and to viewers. We especially welcome the guaranteed access for existing terrestrial broadcasters. However, it is not all that simple or rosy. Technology is not the sole or the prime priority of broadcasting. Broadcasting is above all about programmes for the public to watch, and we shall judge the Bill by how it affects that.
Perhaps I may now summarise what seem to me to he the broad general consequences of the Bill for broadcasting. I would say that they will be to expand the commercialisation of British broadcasting; to multiply the broadcasting channels available while at the same time increasing the concentration of power controlling them; that many new channels will be targeted pay-per-view, thus fragmenting the national audience; and that, as well as a reduction in universal
478
access, there will inevitably be reduced access for the less prosperous groups and localities in our society. Therefore, beneath an appearance of increased choice there will be a reality of reduced access to broadcasting for some.
Not all of that will give us great pleasure. Certainly the fragmentation of the audience, with some groups excluded, has implications for the cohesion and common knowledge of our democratic society. The share of public service broadcasting in that future landscape is apparently bound to be reduced. We regret that and will look to resist it while of course accepting that much of the technological tide is irresistible. However, what we do not always accept is the underlying philosophy of the Bill that the commercial tide is not only irresistible but also to be encouraged in every form described in the Bill.
We certainly welcome the fact that the BBC has been guaranteed a whole digital multiplex. I am not wholly clear how it will finance that risky investment. Last week we discussed the BBC's new Charter. The BBC's basic dilemma is that it must dramatically increase its commercial activities and revenues, including by pay-per-view which will be at the heart of digital broadcasting, yet that is bound to call into question its right to the licence fee which is essential to its public service broadcasting functions. I am not sure how it gets out of that vicious circle. Certainly, its share of British broadcasting will seriously decline, especially if it is excluded from televising major sporting events.
The principle of universality of access originally—long ago—provided free-to-air to all by the BBC is very important to us. That cannot now mean in practice that every single person can watch every programme on every channel regardless of ability to pay, but it does mean that there should be as far as possible access without technical hindrance by broadcasters to frequencies and by viewers to programmes—and viewers should include those with impaired hearing or impaired sight. That means that all broadcasters deemed fit and proper should have fair and equal access to a digital multiplex and to the decoders. It also means that all viewers should have fair access to the decoding technology which releases broadcasts to their sets. To us, that means satellite and cable as well as terrestrial.
The set-top boxes are potentially, but not inevitably, a natural monopoly. Most consumers will want or be able to afford only one. If that one is controlled by a programme service provider, and technologically can exclude other competing services, it is a vehicle of monopolistic practice. That critical issue is not properly addressed in the Bill. We do not accept that the existing telecommunications legislation is sufficient. There should be a strongly enforceable statutory requirement for common, fair and non-discriminatory access to. any encryption or subscription management system. If the Government do not provide that here—I am bound to say that last night's press statement on licensing from the Department of Trade and Industry, which, unhelpfully, was not distributed to us, is probably not good enough—we shall seek to protect the public interest by tabling amendments in Committee against potential monopoly abuse.

479
We are also concerned that there is no criterion of quality in the process of selecting multiplex operators. The miserable 1990 Act at least flirted with a quality threshold, but here there is no mention of programme quality among the several criteria for issuing multiplex licences. Do the Government not care about quality in our broadcasting? I am sure that that is not true. Are commercial expansion and profit their prime concerns? I hope that that is not true. We shall seek to reintroduce the quality criterion and I suspect that the ITC, as licence issuer, will welcome that.
The provisions on cross-media ownership covered by Clause 62 and Schedule 2 are somewhat changed since the White Paper and will attract much attention. They often take us, as they took the Minister, nearly into the realms of higher mathematics when assessing permitted ceilings of control and dominance. We support much of that. We accept that some loosening is required as the different forms of media—print, picture and sound—converge, but I must warn the Minister that I do not accept all the free market arguments currently floating around. Broadcasting is not like any other commodity, subject only to market forces. I agree with all that the Minister said on that. Because of its immense political and cultural significance, any excessive concentration of media power is of political as well as economic concern. That is why we welcome the safeguard of public interest to be applied to ownership and control issues.
We are, however, still concerned to preserve the precious regional identity and independence in British broadcasting. It seems likely that the proposed changes that will follow from the Bill could result in us having just two dominant ITV companies—I guess that one will be based on Carlton and another on Granada—plus perhaps a confederation on the Celtic fringe. We should try to establish minimum levels of regional programmes, staff and facilities. We must be very careful to ensure that local near-monopolies do not develop among our regional TV, radio, newspapers and cable. We will carefully scrutinise Clause 63 onwards and the relevant schedules accordingly.
It is worth pointing out that radio, which is often forgotten, is an important part of the Bill. British radio is of high quality and is often helpfully locally focused. We welcome the decision to roll forward the licences of existing radio companies, such as the very good Classic FM, provided that they take up the digital audio slots.
It puzzles me a little that independent local radio does not appear to have the same rights of access to the multiplexes as those provided for national radio and for local BBC and we will want to look closely at that. It also seems that radio is more constrained than TV in its scope for expansion. It is also more vulnerable to predators from other sectors.
I am concerned too that low population areas may not be able to support a fully subscribed local multiplex. We must consider how we ensure that they get off the ground viably. That is part of the continuing thread of my concern about the Bill. I am concerned about those who will lose out in the future media world—the outer areas of the United Kingdom which may not be
480
adequately covered by digital and the less prosperous groups in society (the poor, the old and the unemployed) who will not be able to afford access to this expensive technology, either to the receiving equipment or to the pay-per-view services.
That raises the central question that is not answered in the Bill. What will be the date for switching from analogue to digital? When that happens will the marginal groups and the localities be deprived of most of the best of broadcasting if digital pay-per-view is beyond their reach or beyond their pockets? That issue must be faced and, it is to be hoped, resolved.
While talking of groups which lose out from the Bill, I must point out that its cross-media ownership clauses specifically discriminate against one newspaper group through the 20 per cent. ceiling on the national newspaper market. That excludes the Mirror Group from joining in terrestrial TV. I assume that that is not because it is the largest newspaper supporter of the Labour Party. I have heard argued that that is not discrimination because the 20 per cent. ceiling also excludes News International. But that is disingenuous and meaningless in commercial reality since the latter group has its own large share of the television market and, I presume, would not wish to enter the crowded and less profitable terrestrial market. It would seem to me fair to correct that particular discrimination if possible. It strikes me, without any commitment, that an amended ceiling at, say, 25 per cent. would do that and then the continuing public interest test could still be applied.
A number of other particular issues warrant the attention of the House. The Channel 4 funding question, which is covered in Clause 66, has aroused much heat and a great volume of briefing paper. The compromise formula proposed by the ITC—that is, moving to zero payments but retaining the mechanism after 1997—has practical attractions, especially with the uncertainties of Channel 5 ahead. No one handling the 1990 Act ever imagined that it would work out so unfairly to Channel 4, with so many millions of pounds moving out of Channel 4 programmes and into the pockets of ITV shareholders. Had that been foreseen the Bill would never have passed. We shall look at it carefully to see how to get a fairer balance. What is certain is that we must have clarity after 1997 and must not have an annual battle over the amount of cross-funding. It is not clear that we can achieve that with the present mechanism.
While considering television funding, we shall want to look at the whole issue of taxation and levies on television. It is not currently a level playing field. We shall consider ways of ensuring fair taxation of our broadcasters. We also want to ensure fair access to programming by British and European programme makers, whether by minimum programme origins or in terms of investment or percentage of turnover, and we shall be influenced by the developing European position on that.
A large section of the Bill treats the accountability for standards in programme content and the merging of the bodies that monitor that into the new Broadcasting Standards Commission. We broadly welcome that

481
rationalisation, although I personally would like to see more provision for greater involvement by the consumers of broadcasting. They should be involved not just in after-the-event complaints about taste and so forth but in influencing what the consumers want from broadcasting; for example, on the televising of sports or on the date for switching off analogue.
The privatisation of the BBC transmitters will also attract our close attention. I can say now that our reaction will depend on whether the Government can clarify exactly how the proceeds are to be distributed to the BBC and also on the precise arrangements to regulate the transmitters to avoid predatory pricing and discrimination when they are privatised.
I began by stating our prime concern with the fundamental principle of common and fair access to broadcasting which is not satisfactorily guaranteed or indeed even covered in the Bill. My final specific and probably most important point also relates to a further aspect of common access; that is, the televising of sports. That is also ignored by the Bill.
We have recently seen dramatic developments in this area, with satellite subscription channels buying up virtual monopoly rights to televise whole areas of British sport. As examples I can mention the following: in rugby the super league and the championships; in Rugby Union the club, county and perhaps soon the five nations; premier league soccer; in tennis the Davis Cup; in cricket the overseas tests, home one-clay internationals, the county championship and Sunday league; in golf the Ryder Cup, the US Open and the US and European PGA; in boxing many managers of leading boxers; basket ball; ice hockey; the snooker opens; and the Olympics around the corner.
I am not concerned to oppose the particular broadcaster involved. In the future it may well be another. We are concerned here with the principle. The implications of this are profoundly worrying and I especially look forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Howell, who has unequalled experience and authority in this area. This development means that the majority of the British people will not have access to most great British sporting events where in the past they have had national and free access. The poor, the old and the unemployed will certainly not be able to afford much subscription or pay-per-view. The BBC and ITV will not be able to afford to buy the rights to broadcast them; and without sport their chance of survival in the highly competitive media world described in the Bill are worryingly thin.
Anyone who cares that the nation should have access to great sporting events and that the BBC and ITV should be enabled to survive must care about this issue of principle. The Prime Minister certainly cares and has said so publicly. I hope that the Minister noted that. The all-party Select Committee concluded recently that major sporting events must be preserved for universal access. Mr. David Mellor, who when he was a Minister steered through the 1990 Act, said last week that he had made a mistake and that protection must now be strengthened. So far, the Government have said that this is a matter just for the market and that the sporting
482
bodies must be allowed to sell sport at the highest price to any bidder, however minority a broadcaster that bidder may be. We do not wholly accept that.
Our understanding is that sport should receive as much money as is reasonable, given the other claims. The 1990 Act tried to provide some guarantees hut it ignored the one real threat; namely, subscription satellite. We shall look for ways, through amendment, in which to reinforce the intentions of the 1990 Act and to review the protected list.
I ask all sides of the House to join us in finding a solution which is fair to the broadcasters, to the public and to the sporting bodies. It will he sad if that balanced and moderate approach is opposed.
Finally, I should like to put to the House what I see as the central dilemma at the heart of this Bill; namely, how do we make the digital revolution happen? When one listens to the cheerleaders of the free market, one can get carried away into believing that we shall automatically have this world of a limitless choice of wonderful programmes. I have said that in fact the choice will not be for all.
I doubt also the automaticity. The digital revolution, costing £8 billion to launch, may prove very cautious and patchy. At present there are no viewers, no broadcasters and no equipment. Viewers will not pay £500 to £600 for new receiving equipment until there is a range of high quality digital programmes. Programme makers, including the BBC, will not commit themselves expensively until there are more guaranteed viewers and revenues. Multiplex operators can do little without broadcasters, and equipment makers will not invest heavily without a big market. It would be like one of those bicycle races where everybody goes as slowly as possible compatible with staying upright and waits for somebody to take the lead in order to ride in the slipstream. Only one broadcaster, Sky Satellite, would stand outside that paralysed circle. Through a mixture of entrepreneurial foresight, which I admire, and privileged treatment by this Government, it will sit with its digital technology in place, with more channels to offer, with its experience of pay TV and free from the taxes and levies which burden its terrestrial competitors.
Terrestrial digital television will be launched successfully and will survive on a national scale only if the initial investment can he encouraged and the programmes have the necessary quality and variety, including the sports coverage which its viewers require.
The question for broadcasters and the Government is how that can be achieved. I suggest that it can be achieved only by encouraging the rapid national take-up of digital receivers so that broadcasters, have an audience and the equipment manufacturers have a mass market. The switch-over day can then be guaranteed. The Government may need to inspire that since market forces may not. I look forward to hearing any of the Minister's views on how to ensure that the digital revolution takes place. It will certainly need vision to bring about the best kind of British broadcasting future.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join

483
immediately with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill. I also join the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for explaining so clearly this complex and technical Bill. He even managed to increase my understanding of the complexities of multiplex digital broadcasting.
As has been said, because of the character of the Bill and because it has so many different parts, even though they are interlocking parts, it is essentially a Committee Bill. It is likely to have a rather long Committee stage. Therefore, on Second Reading, I shall concentrate on what seem to us on these Benches to be some of the main issues in the Bill and on some issues which are not in the Bill but should be. I welcome the Minister's readiness to consider improvements to the Bill and I hope that he will listen to ideas with a sympathetic ear.
This is a very important Bill. Together with the new BBC Charter and Agreement, which we debated last week, it is probably the last major broadcasting legislation of this century; it will shape British broadcasting in the early years of the 21st century. In the face of vast technological change, the development of digital transmission, and the fact that multi-channel television is now with us and that the old frontiers between print and electronic media are disappearing, the challenge for Parliament and the Government is to try to define what is the public interest in a very difficult situation and how it can best be preserved.
Alongside traditional players—the BBC and commercial broadcasters—there are now, with digital broadcasting still to come, new players in satellite and cable television. Among them is the dominating presence of BSkyB. And behind BSkyB is Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation. The Bill surely presents the opportunity for the Government and the Labour Party in Opposition to summon up their courage regarding the future role of Murdoch's interests in the British media scene.
By any standards, Rupert Murdoch is in my judgment a brilliant and aggressive media innovator and a risk taker on a breathtaking scale. He has made the most of the government-created loophole, the so-called non-domestic satellite. Now that BSkyB has reaped the rewards of the risks he has taken, surely the time has come for it to be treated fairly but on the same terms as its competitors.
Sky's successful establishment of, for example, the 24-hour news service is a major advance in the public interest. The creation of its sports channel—we shall come in a few moments to some of the implications—providing single-sport coverage over long periods of time, again, is in the public interest because it is something beyond the capacity of other terrestrial broadcasters. It enhances choice.
Now that newspaper groups are to be allowed to hid for ITV franchises and vice versa, I believe that Sky has a case in that area. I put the matter more generally than the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who expressed it in terms of the particular interest of the Mirror Group. But there is an objection to the 20 per cent. rule in that
484
sphere. In effect, it is a practical ban on two newspaper groups—the News International group and the Daily Mirror group. For reasons of general equity, I cannot see why, for example, the Daily Mirror should be banned from going into the TV ownership business because it is a few ownership percentage points above the Daily Mail or the Daily Express.
I agree entirely with the Minister that dominant newspaper groups should not he allowed to become dominant broadcasters. But would it not be better to treat all the press tycoons equally and then apply a rigorous public interest test via the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
If my plea for fairness between newspaper groups is heeded, should there not be fairness between commercial broadcasting groups? ITV pays nearly £400 million per year to the Treasury and under the ITC licences is obliged to spend large sums of money on original programmes. Sky is licensed by the ITC, as are all the other organisations, but pays only £750,000 for its licence. It pays nothing to the Treasury and so far has a very poor record of expenditure on original programming despite revenues which now approach £800 million. The Government's excuse is that ITV consists of domestic broadcasters using domestic frequencies while Sky is that rare breed—the non-domestic broadcaster using satellite frequencies. That is absolute humbug. Sky is a domestic broadcaster which produces television programmes for domestic audiences in competition with ITV. I fully concede and welcome that it provides useful British jobs in both London and Scotland. Its satellite frequencies are international but they are allocated under an agreement to which Her Majesty's Government are a party. In our judgment Sky should be treated as the domestic broadcaster it is. We should look at the Bill to see what opportunities exist to press that proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the question of conditional access and the technology of the smart card for subscribers to satellite and cable operations. At present this is dominated by a Murdoch company called Videocrypt. On any principle of competition law it seems wrong that there is no public control where a programme provider is also the gatekeeper and can control access to other programme providers who compete with him. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Sky argues that others could have taken the risks it did and could still set up rival systems. However, what matters is the interests of ordinary viewers to be able to buy a single black box.
I am genuinely puzzled by the government position. The Minister mentioned some announcement by the DTI yesterday. Like the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I had no notice of that but I read carefully the questions and answers provided by the Secretary of State when the Bill was launched. I find the information curiously evasive. It talks about doing something sometime in the future in relation to digital television under a European Union directive but promises nothing on present analogue broadcasting on satellite and cable. Yet the Secretary of State is on record as saying:

485
"I recognise we must take steps to prevent unfair competition in this field … The Government is committed to a vigorous response to proven anti-competitive behaviour in this field as in others".
What is the Government's response to those stirring words? The Secretary of State's response to the question of whether Murdoch's dominance could be challenged was that the market would decide. The public interest now requires that in the proposed legislation there should be a provision to force the Murdoch interests to license Videocrypt to other service providers for a regulated fee. This is a serious broadcasting issue rather than a DTI issue, and for my part I believe that the right body to establish that fee is the ITC.
My final point on Sky relates to sporting rights. Mr. Murdoch's money has transferred sporting events to exclusive broadcasting on pay television, depriving millions of viewers of what they had been accustomed to see free on public service channels. Sky's latest bid is to buy next century's Olympic Games. As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, this is not an easy issue. The legislation offers an opportunity to strike a new balance between, on the one hand, the very proper interests of Sky, which I concede freely has added to public choice of programmes in the sporting field, together with the interests of sports providers, who did not have a fair deal under the old duopoly of the BBC and ITV, and, on the other hand, the principle of universal reception of major sporting events in this country. There is need to draw up a fresh list of these events and to legislate to ensure that such events cannot he exclusively transferred to subscription channels. In this regard, I refer not only to pay-per-view channels, as is the present law, but also to monthly subscription channels. I do not believe that the considerations here are mutually exclusive. If one has regard to sporting occasions that continue over many days, as some do, there is a lot to be said for a subscription channel that covers the whole activity from beginning to end, provided that the major events within those few days are available to everyone on the basis of universal reception.
I turn to the Bill's changes relating to the ownership of television companies. The vitally important issue here is the preservation of the regional character of ITV in the face of greater concentration of ownership. The ITV system provides twice as much regional programming as the BBC, and all the figures show that it is among the most widely appreciated programming in terms of the audience. Clause 63 is crucial in this respect. I welcome its inclusion in the Bill. However, we shall seek to strengthen it with amendments to ensure that regional programmes continue to be made in the region by programme makers who live in the region and know all about it, not simply by people who fly in from outside. The Minister will appreciate that many of the smaller regional companies, who are potential targets of takeover bids, are proud of their local programming and often do a good deal more than the minimum required by the licence. We shall also want to look at amendments to ensure that on takeover the new owner is required to maintain the enhanced level of programming which viewers have been enjoying from the incumbent rather than simply the original minimum under the terms of the licence.
486
Clause 66 is concerned with the new formula for Channel 4. I do not want to go over arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has already mentioned. It was never the intention of Parliament in erecting an insurance policy—as the Minister termed it—for the special remit of Channel 4 that there should be massive subsidies from the minority channel to the ITV companies who provide the mass appeal channels. It is right that once the present timescale is completed at the end of 1997 there should be a new arrangement. I say to the Minister that our present disposition is that at that stage the best solution will be to abolish the funding formula altogether. I believe that Channel 4 was unreasonable some time ago in seeking an immediate change in this matter. The point at which the Bill provides a moment for review is the right time to do it. For my part, I believe that it is better to go for a simple abolition at that stage rather than the Bill's compromise, which is a recipe for continuing bad blood in the Independent Television system.
I leave the complications of the digital multiplexes to the Committee stage, except for two points. One relates to the need to insert a quality criterion and the other relates specifically to the Welsh fourth channel. Unlike other existing broadcasters, the Welsh fourth channel feels that the arrangements, which will prevent it having half a multiplex, mean that in Wales it will not be allowed to develop the possibilities of digital broadcasting, high-definition television and wide screen that will be available to fellow citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom. We wish to have an assurance from the Minister that when sufficient band width eventually becomes available ways may be found to redress that inequality.
The Minister also mentioned the new funding arrangements. There is great concern in S4C about the implications of those arrangements. It believes that, given the extra costs of digital broadcasting, it may face an extra £27 million in the three years from 1998. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Geraint will develop those matters more fully, and with greater authority, than I can. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a reassuring response to those concerns.
There are many other aspects of the Bill. There is, for example, the question of standards which I do not wish to go into beyond referring to the Broadcasting Standards Council. I was an original critic, in days gone by, of the establishment of the council, but under the experienced direction of Colin Shaw, and now under the chairmanship of Lady Howe, it has been performing a constructive, serious and sensible role in terms of sustaining the standards of broadcasting in this country. I also echo what has been said about radio. Radio is continually overshadowed by television issues—it has been overshadowed in my speech today—but I am very much aware that radio is an important medium. For millions of people it is sometimes more important than television. There are various matters in relation to radio that we shall want to apply our minds to in Committee.
I come back to where I started. The Bill underlines that we are no longer in a cosy world of national broadcasters cosily regulating. There is now a global world—indeed a global marketplace—of information

487
technology, of which broadcasting is just a part. The British broadcasting industry is only a small part of this global scene, although from Britain's point of view it is an important part. The broadcasting industry in Britain employs 42,000 people and it contributes more than £3.5 billion to the British economy. Britain is the biggest exporter of broadcast programmes after the United States although I think it is a good long way behind the United States. That is all of great significance. Of even greater significance, however, is the fact that, as the Minister said, broadcasting—indeed, the media industry—is an industry which, in his words, is unlike any other. It is much more than an industry. It accounts for the way people spend 40 per cent. of their leisure time. According to an astonishing and terrifying statistic, in a third of our homes there are more than three televisions. Broadcasting is the biggest single factor as regards making an impact on the climate of opinion in this country and on our national culture. That is the justification for this Bill finding forms of regulation that make the new telecommunications technology our servant and not our master.
4.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, the Bill that is before us seems at first sight a very technical Bill, dealing as it does in a large part with regulating the development of digital broadcasting. The detail of such a system is something that is certainly beyond my knowledge, capabilities or expertise, but the implications are clear—there will be more channels available and media ownership will be concentrated in broader based companies.
Friends who travel more extensively than myself tell me of the size of the New York TV listings guide. They say that it is more like a telephone directory. There is a vast array of channels and enormous variations in the standards of programming that can be seen. In our own country with the advent of satellite and cable we are beginning to experience something of this. There is more choice and there is more specialisation available for those able and willing to pay. The developments that this Bill prepares us for will not only extend this trend but will also provide much greater potential for the expansion of services that are available.
Since the Church fell out with Galileo, Christians have often been seen as people who want to stand in the way of progress. I am not of that mind and neither is the Church. I welcome this Bill and the developments that will follow, but that does not mean that I do not have concerns. I was particularly interested to read Part IV of the Bill which effects the merger of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. One statutory new body will be established in their place—the Broadcasting Standards Commission. On the basis alone that this reduces the number of quangos that exist I warmly welcome that recommendation. It seems to me that this new body, the BSC, by combining their roles will be better able to perform the functions of its predecessors and will have more teeth to enable it to do so. It has to be said, however, that the detail of the
488
working of the new body will require careful consideration. I believe that there is a good deal of work to he done in this respect.
With the growth in the number of broadcasters and the number of programmes broadcast there will he a need for greater vigilance if standards of taste and decency are to be maintained and if programmes are to deal fairly with individuals and not misrepresent the truth. There is an ongoing debate, to which some of your Lordships may well have contributed, that centres on whether broadcasters should set standards of taste and decency or whether they must reflect the standards current in society; whether television and radio are merely mirrors on society, or whether they are agents and catalysts for change.
Integral to this debate is the whole question of whose standards are the ones that count. The values that I hold dear and that shape my life would certainly not be held by some. The values that many espouse nowadays I find difficult to accept. Yet I believe that even in such a pluralist society as our own there is still a set of core values to which the majority would subscribe. It is this set of values, among them respect for human life; respect for personal freedom; and respect for the individual, that I believe it is the duty of broadcasters to uphold. These values are worked out in the response we make to violence, sexual exploitation, blasphemy and a general inhumanity and lack of decency that we sometimes see on the television screen in particular. Even if we pay to see a channel of our choice in the privacy of our sitting room, should we be allowed to watch something that degrades another person or offends the values of the majority in our society? I believe that we should not, because those who are most easily influenced by what they see or hear might be inclined to turn their fantasy into our reality and so continue what is seen by many as the downward spiral in moral values.
This may be an unpopular thing to say and something that would be condemned by those who argue for civil liberties. While personal freedom is fundamental to the Christian understanding of the individual, yet higher on the agenda is responsibility for one another. When the liberty of one person to commission, broadcast or view something threatens the liberty or the integrity of another, I believe that we have a duty to protect the freedom of the latter before the liberty of the former.
I believe that in the age of digital broadcasting and of broader and more concentrated media ownership, the BSC will have a tremendously difficult job to do and will carry great responsibility for monitoring on our behalf what is happening on our television screens and on our radios. I believe that the provisions made for the Broadcasting Standards Commission in this Bill will provide the right sort of body to shoulder this important task on behalf of the nation. I would simply ask that those who lead it do so with courage and with a strong sense of promoting the very best of values, and not of being pulled down to the level of the lowest common denominator. Only in this way can we hope to maintain those core values that continue to give us identity,

489
witness to our humanity, and provide something of the social cohesion that is so vital to the health and wholeness of our nation.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the admirable speech of my noble friend who introduced it. It is a complicated Bill and there will no doubt be a great deal of discussion of it in Committee.
It would be unwise for any one speaker at this stage to try to cover even half of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I shall concentrate on the particular provision which happens to interest me. In doing so I should declare an interest. I was a non-executive director of Channel 4 many years ago. At that time, as I believe is still the case, there was a system of rotating directorships under which one served for three years and was then chucked out. Since then I have had no financial connection with Channel 4. Even then the finances were not very lavish.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said about Channel 4. The formula that was produced to finance Channel 4, however well meant it was at the time—and I am sure there was a genuine effort to produce a safety net for Channel 4, whose fortunes at one time perhaps looked doubtful—is out of date and irrelevant. There is no danger of Channel 4 failing to reach the benchmark of 14 per cent. of total terrestrial advertising revenue. Most media analysts are equally convinced that that is not likely to happen. Therefore, the case for continuing the arrangement is nil.
The Government have recognised that in Clause 66 of the Bill. It is gobbledegook, but if one can unravel its meaning it provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to diminish the take of the independent television companies from 50 per cent. downwards. (There is an argument about whether it should be 50 per cent. or half. I always thought that they were the same, but apparently it is an important matter to substitute "50 per cent." for "hall") That is something, and presumably it will give the Secretary of State the power to reduce the 50 per cent. figure to nil.
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, that is a formula for trouble. It is a formula for endless bickering and dispute between the ITV companies and Channel 4, year after year, about exactly what the amount should be. Therefore, I strongly agree—and I know that Channel 4 would certainly wish—that the arrangement should be abolished. That formula should not continue and Channel 4 should stand on its own. There is something ludicrous about a public service broadcasting organisation subsidising, quite lavishly, private broadcasting organisations, and, for example, helping a particular private broadcasting organisation to take over a chain of hotels. Surely that cannot be what Parliament or the Government intended. The whole situation is ludicrous.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will at least consider the possibility of modifying the Bill by removing those clauses altogether and leaving it to
490
Channel 4 to stand on its own and do as best it can without subsidising the independent television companies.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I appreciate the warm welcome I have been given by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Members of the House have been particularly kind and helpful to me as a newcomer, and that has made my presence here much easier.
I recognise that my presence in this House is to a large extent due to my role in supporting my late husband throughout his political life. 1 hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven for making one of his cardinal principles my starting point in addressing the issues contained in the Broadcasting Bill.
John set great store by the principle of public service. It is one of the best traditions in British public life and one which is much admired in other countries. It is so ingrained in the public's expectations of the way their leaders should behave that lapses from it cause justifiable outrage and disappointment at any fall in public standards.
The public service tradition is not the monopoly of any one political party but has inspired those of all political beliefs to put something back into our country, from which they feel they have benefited so much.
Public service broadcasting is one of those traditions. It should not be regarded as the exclusive preserve of the BBC. Indeed, I believe that the real success of the public service tradition in the UK has been that it has permeated both the BBC and the independent systems. The distinction between them is therefore primarily one of sources of funding. Partly for that reason, I was very happy to accept an invitation from Scottish Television to become a non-executive director, which is an interest that I now declare.
One of the key ingredients in public service broadcasting tends to be taken for granted. Universality of provision has ensured that television and radio services are available to all parts of the United Kingdom, irrespective of the costs involved to the transmitting authorities. That surely has been a force for cohesion in our society, providing the entire nation with a common corpus of knowledge, and perhaps even attitudes, which must be a prerequisite for any form of national debate let alone consensus. But it is important that that universality of provision also applies to some elements of programme content. Coverage of key national sporting events must not be restricted on grounds of geography or ability to subscribe to an additional service. Otherwise the alienation felt by some sections of the population unable to enjoy such events, or to participate in the discussion of them afterwards, would be a dangerously divisive influence on society.
That universality of provision runs the risk of being eroded. While it is right to consider that the current core services should be supplemented by others whose availability is restricted on the basis of geography or

491
income, anything which diminishes the central role of the current public service broadcasting authorities should be resisted.
There is a danger, which must be guarded against, that the new services, while not in themselves as popular or as universally receivable, might, however, by fragmenting the audience or outbidding for coverage of key national events, reduce the capacity of public service broadcasting organisations to continue to serve the public and to ensure that coverage of national sporting events is not restricted to a minority.
The reputation of Britain's broadcasters and programme makers has been built on the quality of their programming—and that depends ultimately on the quality of the workforce. The BBC has long been the wellspring that has supplied the whole of the industry with much of its creative and technical talent. It has therefore been the BBC's standards of training and production which have become the benchmark standards for the whole industry and have helped to guarantee the vitality of a system that has served us well and is still admired throughout the world. We neglect this at our peril.
The Bill has two main themes, the first of which concerns the introduction of digital technology which could facilitate the introduction of many more television and radio services, while the other proposals on media ownership might be thought to make greater concentration of ownership more likely. Both, I believe, should be judged by the criterion of what is best for the listener and viewer.
For we must resist the technological imperative whereby invention has become the mother of necessity. Technology has dramatically increased the options open to broadcasters. Better communications have made the news agenda of both radio and television truly that of the global village. Technology increases the range of options open to us but it does not, and must not, determine how they should be used. Decisions on the number of services must be based not on technical considerations but on listener demand and the availability of resources, both human and financial, to provide the programming they wish.
Few people would want to admit publicly that as human beings we are powerless to control the technology we have created. Yet it has a power to freeze our critical faculties and produce a sense of inevitability about the nature and direction of change which comes pretty close to inducing an abdication of responsibility.
On ownership, I believe that there may be a stronger case for permitting a relaxation of ownership restrictions within television and radio rather than making them more vulnerable to bids from newspaper groups, which, whatever their other qualities, come from a different tradition.
In conclusion, I should like to suggest that there is perhaps a danger in looking at one or other aspect of broadcasting in isolation. Since the Annan Committee was set up more than 20 years ago, no one has looked at broadcasting in the round, yet surely the financing of the BBC, the scope of the services it will provide, the
492
use to which additional spectrum is put by the independent sector, the regulation of satellite or cable TV, the possibilities of digital broadcasting, and cross-media ownership rules, cannot be looked at in isolation. If those issues are examined separately, there is a danger that conclusions will be reached without adequate attention being paid to the knock-on effect on other aspects of broadcasting. I am aware that technology seems to move the goalposts all the time and it is never possible to find the ideal time to deal with the various complex issues facing broadcasting at the moment. But, if the time is never right, the task nonetheless needs to be attempted, and now seems to be the most appropriate moment for us to ask what sort of broadcasting we want in the future, and what steps we can take to ensure that we have it.
Broadcasting is truly at the crossroads, and decisions taken now will irretrievably determine its future pattern. Broadcasting is too important to leave its future to chance—or even to the market place.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is a great pleasure that it falls to me to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, on her maiden speech. When, last year, after the sad loss which she suffered in 1994 (a loss, if I may say so, which was shared and felt by the entire country) she took her seat in your Lordships' House, it gave all of us great pleasure; and it has given us great pleasure today to hear her make her maiden speech on such an important issue. We have all listened with admiration and interest to her speech based upon personal knowledge of the media, a speech delivered in the calm and thoughtful way which is in the best tradition of your Lordships' House. It has been an impressive maiden speech and I hope that the noble Baroness will not think it merely a conventional form of words if I say that I hope that it is the first of many contributions that she will make to your Lordships' deliberations.
I fear that my speech may be slightly longer than that of the noble Baroness, and may even be slightly more controversial. A Bill containing 97 clauses and eight schedules is not a document to be rapidly absorbed or lightly treated, especially when it proposes legislation which is designed to make provision for television and sound broadcasting not only into the next century and next millennium but also in a new and completely uncharted technological environment. My concern in the debate is not technological. It can be summed up in one word—quality.
As the noble Baroness suggested, we should not be hypnotised by new technology to the extent that we fail to give attention to what I believe to be the real significance of the Bill. Behind the unavoidable jargon of multiplexes, wideband and bit compression, lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, the important question of the product which is being delivered to the viewer and listener. Among computer programmers there is an expression which sums up all this—GIGO; an acronym for garbage in, garbage out. It is a truth which is as valid for radio and television programmes

493
as it is for computer programmes. If a programme maker produces third-rate drama, rubbishy soap opera, sloppy documentaries, ill-mannered interviews or slanted news, that is what the licence payer will get however ingenious the technology to transmit it may be. The question then is: does this legislation provide the framework within which broadcasters not only can produce but are required to produce programmes of high quality?
It is, of course, a highly controversial piece of legislation. Indeed, it may be only a slight exaggeration to suggest that the only clause of the 97 which will command universal agreement is the last clause—the Short Title. But for the rest there are bound to be heated arguments—indeed, they have already started—about such crucial matters as impartiality, taste and decency, the functions of regulatory authorities and cross-media ownership. These concerns affect both television and radio. As we have already heard today, many television companies are rightly worried about Channel 4 funding and ITV licence fees, about the regional character of independent television (so eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth) and about the rules governing ownership.
But in the interests of reasonable brevity I want at this stage in the consideration of the Bill to confine myself to two parts of it: first, Part II dealing with digital terrestrial sound broadcasting—or, to put it more briefly, radio—and Part IV which effects the merger of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. In the first case, radio, I must declare an interest as a recent chairman of the Radio Authority. Although that is a past rather than a current interest, it would be surprising if my approach to the legislation did not carry with it some of the perceptions of the radio industry which I formed during my time at the authority. Let me say at once that as regards sound broadcasting, I believe that the Bill will he generally welcomed in the industry.
There are, however, certain aspects of it which need to he closely scrutinised, and which will almost certainly he the subject of amendments during the Committee stage. The most sensitive area with which I am concerned is, perhaps, that dealing with the relaxation of the rules governing what is generically known as "cross-media ownership". That is not simply a matter of monopolies and financial engineering. It is an issue which is absolutely crucial to the standards of quality and diversity—those two concepts are closely interlinked—in broadcasting.
It is vital to balance the dangers posed by the monopolistic concentration of broadcasting outlets against the benefits of diversity and choice which may result from plurality of ownership. For example, Schedule 2 of the Bill we are now considering seeks to relax some of the rules governing the ownership of radio stations by newspapers. The question is: will this result in reduced choice and lower standards—often the result of the establishment of monopolies—or will it result in fresh ideas and wider sources of news and information? That is not an easy question to answer and it is one of those which will have to be answered by the Radio Authority which is now, under this legislation, to have the responsibility of deciding whether, and when, this
494
kind of cross-media ownership is in the public interest. That is a welcome safeguard and one which I am convinced the Radio Authority will discharge with efficiency and will indeed be in the public interest.
It might he relevant to remark in passing that the legislation seems at first sight to have a certain inconsistency between its approach to cross-media ownership on the one hand and, on the other hand, the principle (in itself sound) that radio companies are not allowed to own two licences on the same waveband in a single locality. That is a wise principle but if no single radio company is allowed to dominate the scene it would he difficult to justify any legislation which allowed the local press to do so instead. In considering the Bill, it will he important for Parliament to ensure that anti-monopoly safeguards remain firm and effective. We must look at that carefully at Committee stage.
Another important aspect of the Bill concerns the renewal of licences, especially for national radio stations. As will he familiar to most noble Lords, under the 1990 Act the renewal of a national radio licence is subject, save in exceptional circumstances, to the highest financial bid. In other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has already hinted, when the licence period of a station such as Classic FM—one of the great success stories of commercial radio—comes to an end, it could lose its licence to someone bidding —10 more than Classic, whatever the track record or background of the bidder. The Government have now evidently accepted the general principle that, possibly subject to some safeguards regarding quality and track record, such as a performance threshold, there should be automatic renewal of national licences. That is a welcome development and I look forward to pursuing it at Committee stage.
I now wish to turn to Part IV of the Bill dealing with the establishment of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the regulatory body which, together with the Independent Television Commission, the governors of the BBC and the Radio Authority, will now be the principal guardians of quality and excellence in broadcasting. At this stage I shall not dwell on my belief which I have stated before in your Lordships' House and which I still hold that there ought to be one overarching regulatory authority comprehending all television and sound broadcasting. I shall simply say that the merger of the BSC and the BCC is a small step in the right direction. There are, however, one or two aspects of Part IV which cause me some concern.
The first is that there is no specific requirement under the Bill as at present drafted for the new BSC, when publishing its findings or complaints, to state clearly not just whether a complaint has been upheld in whole or in part but specifically whether or not each separate part of a complaint has been upheld. It would close a significant loophole in the legislation if that could be provided for.
Something to which I shall almost certainly wish to return at Committee stage is that more generally, and perhaps more important, it is difficult to understand why there is a distinction in one significant respect between complaints made to the new BSC on matters of fairness and those made on matters of standards.

495
In summary, as I understand the Bill in its present form—and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood—fairness complaints concerning partiality, impartiality and objectivity may not be entertained by the BSC unless they are made by someone directly affected by the programme concerned; while standards complaints may be made by anyone, provided that they are made within a specified time after the transmission of the programme. It may be that that is no more than a hangover from the remit of the two separate bodies, the BCC and the BSC which are now to be amalgamated. I would be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister would explain whether there is any deeper significance in the desire to treat the two categories of complaint differently.
One consequence, for example, could be that a complaint of unfairness against the notorious programme on the Hiroshima atomic bomb could only be entertained if it were made by someone directly affected by the events in the programme. That would be unlikely. Is that what is intended by treating the two categories of complaint differently? I hope that the Minister can clarify the position. I believe that the new Broadcasting Standards Commission needs sharper teeth than the Bill seems to adumbrate. That is something to which we shall return at Committee stage.
Finally, without attaching too much weight to it, perhaps I may comment on the references which the Minister made in his introductory speech to what I believe to be a misleading concept of "public service broadcasting"—a sound bite which has become current in the media debate. It seems in some cases to assume that public service broadcasting is the monopoly of the BBC. The Minister made clear in introducing the Bill that there is a substantial amount of public service broadcasting on independent television and radio. The only valid distinction, in my view, is between publicly funded and commercially funded broadcasting. The whole concept of public service broadcasting is becoming less relevant as the BBC develops into a mass entertainment organisation, competing for listeners and viewers with the independent sector. I make the point just as an aside designed, with very little hope of success, to remove a virtually meaningless cliché from the debate.
The important thing about the Bill is that, in the words of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, it seeks to establish a framework for broadcasting in the 21st century. In the words of a former shadow heritage Secretary, that framework has to allow British broadcasting companies to meet the challenges of explosive technological change. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, what matters in my view is not what astonishing technology is used to provide a framework for our information and our entertainment; it is the quality of that information and entertainment when it reaches us that counts.
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is a great delight to me from this side of the House to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of
496
Gilmorehill, on what I think noble Lords will agree was a fine, perceptive and knowledgeable maiden speech. I join the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and many others of your Lordships in expressing the strong hope that she will speak many times in the future.
In the spirit of the times I will declare an interest: I like British television. I think it is the best in the world. But I am not yet convinced that the industry needs all of this new Broadcasting Bill to keep it that way. My noble friend has argued that the coming of digital television and radio is a revolution for which the country must be prepared. I have no dispute about that. The Bill contains 97 clauses and the first 61 concentrate exclusively upon digital matters. Then, after the break, so to speak, comes the rest of it. It is some of the rest of it with which I am worried.
Part III of the Bill in particular is concerned with amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990. The individual clauses, once passed into law, will radically change the ownership rules for ITV companies. My interpretation is that an excellent system of regional ownership and diversity in commercial television will be in danger as soon as the legislation is on the statute book this year. A rash of takeovers will probably follow. The big will follow the small and "local" may not mean "local" for very much longer. I hope that noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend the Minister, will take heed of a straightforward plea for much more thought on this issue. Indeed, this particular point was strongly alluded to both by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
The history of commercial television in Britain is relatively short. In the mid-1950s the Government decided to create a network of independently financed television companies. Eventually there were 15 different stations licensed to broadcast. The ITV structure probably had its faults, but regional television spawned genuine originality. Anglia gave a superlative series on wildlife conservation; Granada pioneered documentary journalism. Would there have been any hope for either programme species if the ownership of ITV had been confined to a few rich conglomerates? I doubt it. Yet that is precisely the course upon which Part III of this Bill now sets us.
I regard regional diversity as the United Kingdom's most precious asset. We are not a nation of look-alike, sound-alike, think-alike Anglo-Saxons. But the crude realities of chain store economics are ever conspiring against us. These days you cannot tell the difference between a McDonald's hamburger in Exeter or Edinburgh. Sainsbury's shelves are stacked with much the same goods from Truro to Telford. And, if we are honest, everyone probably owns an identical item of Marks & Spencer underwear.
Identical clothing, groceries and fast food are one thing. Identical culture is quite another. No National Heritage horror plot would ever seriously suggest identical arts in every corner of an identikit kingdom. So let us reconsider the risk to regional television. It was never meant to be the same, or owned by the same people. That was realised by previous legislators when they drew up the ITV regional map 40 years ago.

497
Even those responsible for the much criticised 1990 Broadcasting Act did not forget the importance of regionality. Within their original framework was a simple interpretation of the two classes of ITV companies. "Big ones" were expected to make programmes for the network; "small ones" were to concentrate on those vital regional ingredients; and no financial group could own a big company and a small one at the same time. That was the original rule. It was perhaps too strict for common sense, so it was relaxed and re-set as a two-licence limit.
Two licences was still the sensible boundary by the time the Government published their White Paper on media ownership last May. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State had invited consultations from big ITV companies and from small ones too. But Secretaries of State come and go, and continuity is always the loser. The present Secretary of State decided to abandon the two-licence rule, and did so without any formal consultation with the group of small ITV companies.
It is worth reminding the House of her hurried decision-making. The White Paper on media ownership was published in May, under Stephen Dorrell's careful stewardship. Mrs. Bottomley's Broadcasting Bill appeared just after Christmas—and here we are again, just after it. I have always had my doubts about legislating in haste; for with a general election 16 months or less away, there is no time at all to repent at leisure.
My personal concern is for quality regional television. As a West Country man I genuinely value my local station, Westcountry Television. It has done much more than the regulators ever expected or demanded. It is locally owned, and most of the staff are shareholders too—a far cry from the "bastions of restrictive practice" so reviled by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she examined the ITV patient and prescribed the 1990 Broadcasting Bill.
I have listened carefully to the Government's explanation of this policy: it takes big players to succeed in global markets, so they say. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for this question: if Carlton TV or Meridian bid for my local station, how will it help them compete worldwide?
Where is the economic logic for the Government's assertion that big is beautiful? I read the White Paper on media ownership very carefully. I was impressed with the calibre of research on other matters. But not a shred of evidence is cited to substantiate this obsession with size. Indeed, these days large entrepreneurial projects are usually undertaken by consortia, joint ventures or alliances rather than by single industrial giants. That way, risks are spread and particular talents are introduced as required. That is as true of engineering work, such as the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link, as it is for television.
Let us look at the track records of our big ITV companies. If Carlton, Granada and Meridian were really so keen to break into world markets, why has there been no sign of it? What is their international strategy? If the Government believe that past legislation
498
has stifled expansion, how does anyone explain the rise of Mr. Murdoch's satellite empire in Britain'? Did he not reach for the sky entirely within the law?
Such anomalies make me suspicious of the whole argument. Building larger media companies in order to fight the world brings no guarantee of success, and may hamper the entry and growth of small innovative companies into the domestic market. It is an old-fashioned policy that is very unlikely to work. Indeed, if you let the big get too big at home, why should they bother competing abroad at all? It is no disrespect to my profitable local TV station, but if Carlton or Meridian have their eye on Westcountry it is unlikely to have anything to do with a great global plan.
My point is simplicity itself. The ITV companies at greatest risk of takeover are the very ITV companies regarded as important enough to protect in previous legislation. What is more, these companies can contribute very little to the world expansion of British television envisaged in the mind of the Secretary of State. No global ambition requires a new studio in Barnstaple, surely! Westcountry has installed one—and a very good one it is, too. It is handy for me, of course, but it is also a real feather in the cap of the region as a whole. For it is from Barnstaple that Westcountry's weekly bulletin of news about the region is compiled for the benefit of Breton viewers, in fluent French too. It is a healthy innovation, a worthwhile contribution to the regional balance of payments. But it is hardly the stuff of multi-national TV development.
So let us suppose that this Bill goes through unchanged, and the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for instance, or one of his expansionist rivals, snaffles up my friendly neighbourhood ITV station. In that event, Ministers insist, I am not to worry. They have thought of everything! New powers will he given to the Independent Television Commission to ensure that any new owner maintains the same high, regionally diverse standards. Hurrah! But these fine men and women at the ITC are just regulators, are they not? They are those same people who were sucked into the muddle of licence-bidding after the 1990 Broadcasting Act—a muddle that still means that Central TV pays only £2,000 a year for its privilege to broadcast, while Yorkshire TV has to find around £38 million for an identical licence.
Regulators have difficulty enough these days dealing with simple commodities such as water, electricity and gas—the sort of commodities that are pretty well identical in composition, if not always in price. But how do we expect regulators to make meaningful value judgments, on regional grounds, for ITV? It is no good simply counting the hours of local programmes and checking them against some arbitrary performance yardstick. To take my own area again, when Westcountry Television began, three years ago, not even the ITC believed in the value of seven separate studios around the region, all linked by the very digital technology that now causes my right honourable friend the Secretary of State such excitement. Westcountry was there first, offering viewers in remote areas entirely local coverage. And how would the ITC measure the quality of political programmes? Westcountry's

499
hypothetical new owners could surely knock together a regular political series, and meet the quantity rules. But Westcountry happens to spend more on politics than any other ITV station, bar one. The smallest company on the mainland is outspent only by one of the largest, Granada.
I sense incredulity in the House. Why should a little regional company spend so much money on a subject that even politicians are glad to avoid? I will tell the House why. Once you arrive as far as Taunton and beyond, you are almost 200 miles from Westminster. And the further you go, the more remote the government machine seems to be. Ministers and shadow Ministers come to visit us sparingly. Their idea of a trip to the West Country is Bristol. So it may be that the very distance from the political centre gives West Country people a taste for political reporting. But it takes a local ITV station, with truly local management, to know its own audience and risk big budgets satisfying demand.
Westcountry Television was the only ITV station to respect the British Legion's call for broadcasting silence at the 11th minute of the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month last year. Not even the BBC made the effort. I believe that that is another example of a TV station which is responsive to the real needs of its viewers. Anyone who knows my part of the world knows how deep the military traditions run there. But would a small branch of the Carlton/Central empire ever have been allowed to turn off the programming? Could local managers have reached the moguls in London in time? Frankly, I do not want my local TV station owned by some invisible bankers. I am far from convinced of the economic arguments for changing the ownership rules to the extent proposed in this Bill at the moment.
I believe that the small companies need and deserve the kind of protection from predatory takeover that previous legislation has always granted. At the very least, the Government should consider an amendment to the Bill ensuring adequate safeguards against predatory takeovers of the small companies.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be the first speaker on this side of the House to congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill on her very interesting and important contribution to the debate. I was particularly glad that she emphasised the longstanding tradition of public service and its resonance in the broadcasting policies of this country. I am sure that that theme will continue through the contributions that are made at every stage of the Bill from this side of the House.
As I have a longstanding commitment to another speaking engagement this evening, which was arranged before the date of this Second Reading was set, I must apologise to the House and to the Minister for having to leave before the conclusion of the debate. I must also declare a series of interests as a contributor for many years on a professional basis to several television and radio companies which have been mentioned today, and to others which have not been mentioned, and also as
500
having been a long-term employee of the BBC. It is, however, as a consumer—as a viewer and a listener—that I want to address a few remarks to the House. After all, as my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lady Smith emphasised, it is as consumers of good quality programmes that we should judge the contents of the Bill and not its contribution to the commercial marketing forces which may underlie it.
I wish specifically to speak about the new Broadcasting Standards Commission in Part IV of the Bill. The provisions are fair enough so far as they go, although I echo the concerns felt by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the very narrow basis of legitimate concerns and complaints about specific programmes. It seems to me that a chance has been missed in the Bill to develop and expand the role of the viewer and the listener as consumers in broadcasting policy in this country.
I should like to propose—perhaps rather radically, but I believe that it can help our understanding of the role of the consumer in broadcasting—that the new body should not be called the Broadcasting Standards Commission but rather the Broadcasting Consumers Commission or, indeed, the Broadcasting Consumers Council. To use that title would not simply change a formal framework of words but would enable a much more positive, less reactive and more proactive position to be adopted by a consumer body in the formation of strategy and policy about broadcasting. I should like to see a Broadcasting Consumers Council have within its remit formal consultation and advice on a much broader agenda than the rather reactive agenda contained in the legislation. For example, there could be a statutory role for setting the strategy for overall quality of programmes. My noble friend Lord Donoughue alluded to that.
There are proposals which enable the new Broadcasting Standards Commission to have a research capacity and to develop positive policies in areas concerned specifically with its areas of remit on violence, taste and decency. But, in my view, it should be possible to elaborate and expand that research role in such a way that contributions are made on a much broader agenda about specific areas of quality.
I am interested that in Clause 82 of the Bill the new body is allowed to represent the UK on international bodies concerned with setting standards for TV programmes. That seems to suggest a general quality remit which is perhaps more broad than the narrower national one suggested earlier in the legislation. At home, it seems to me that if the Broadcasting Consumers Council or the Broadcasting Consumers Commission were to have a wider range of responsibility, it should also be reflected in a wider range of membership of such a consumer body.
My noble friend Lord Donoughue referred to the very important regional identity of broadcasting and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, gave a vivid picture of the special regional interests in individual programmes. It seems to me that if we are to continue to conduct a broad policy approach to such regional identity, the broadcasting consumers need to be represented at that

501
kind of regional level. Perhaps at least their concern should he reflected in regional outposts of any new body intended to reflect consumers' interests. That is particularly important in the light of the renewal of the BBC Charter, a subject mentioned in the debate last week, which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend. The powers of national governors and national broadcasting councils of the BBC will be reduced under the new Charter.
Another significant message from the Bill related to consumer involvement is the whole issue of broadening and opening the appointments procedure to any new body. Given that the legislation was drawn up after the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on standards in public life, I am surprised that there is no mention of the relevant recommendations that he made about future appointments to public bodies. Perhaps I can take a few moments to mention those specific recommendations and those which should be relevant to an appointments system to a new body. First, selection on merit should take account of the need to appoint hoards which include a balance of skills and backgrounds. All appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies should be made following advice from a panel or committee which includes an independent element. A new independent commissioner for public appointments, who may be one of the Civil Service commissioners, should be appointed. The public appointments commissioner should monitor, regulate and approve appointments procedures. I hope to be able to introduce or support amendments to achieve that kind of openness in appointments to the new body.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise that the new body of consumer interests, which, as I said, I should prefer to see renamed the Broadcasting Consumers Council, must be an essential part of achieving and maintaining general quality of programmes in a proactive rather than simply a reactive way. To achieve good quality must be the basic aim of the legislation. Personally, I look forward to supporting all attempts that are made to place on the face of the Bill the most stringent requirements for good quality in the future of broadcasting in every way.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, this is a complex, important and valuable Bill. I very much hope that we shall treat it largely as a non-party Bill. Two main subjects are covered: the issues relating to the availability of digital multiplex techniques; and, in Part IV, the regulation duties of the new BSC.
I should like to make a few comments on Part IV. I welcome warmly the combining of the old BSC and BCC. But there are many obligations of the new BSC which are excessively permissive rather than mandatory. If this is not corrected, it will give rise to misunderstandings and the kind of weakness on the part of the new BSC that we have seen occurring in the old organisation.
I shall give a few examples. Clause 68(1) states:
"The BSC may draw up guidance relating to principles to he observed".
502
Surely it would he better to say that the BSC "shall" draw up "rules": that would be much better wording and give more teeth to the BSC. Again, in Clause 69(1) the Bill states:
"It shall he the duty of the BSC to draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance".
What is the point of the words "giving guidance"? It should draw up a code or rules to regulate practices within its field. Again, in Clause 70(2) it states:
"the BSC may make reports on the matters specified … on such occasions as they think fit".
Surely the word "may" should be replaced by "shall". Those are indications of the comparative weakness of the new BSC which I deplore and hope that we can correct at Committee stage.
Clause 80 determines the action to be taken by the BSC when it considers complaints on fairness or standards. Inter alia, the BSC must report on "any action taken"—laid down in Clause 80(7)(c)—by the offending broadcaster. Again that is too weak. The BSC should also state what action it instructed the broadcaster to take.
Clause 84 requires the BSC to publish an annual report. The existing BSC publishes monthly summaries of complaints, indicating those which are upheld and those which are not. That should be made mandatory too, for an annual report leaves matters open for far too long.
The most important omission from the new powers of the BSC is any reference to complaints on impartiality. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made the point that it was possible to complain about individuals being unfairly treated on the grounds of not observing the impartiality rule; but that does not cover organisations, whether political or commercial. It is extremely important that we bring within the powers of the BSC the ability to deal with complaints on impartiality. The ITC has full powers under Clause 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to deal with complaints relating to impartiality. But the public, the licence holders, can complain to the BBC itself only about the lack of impartiality which is required in the new Charter and Agreement.
As I made clear in the debate on the Charter and Agreement, the BBC is thus judge and jury in its own case. That is completely illogical. Company directors do not themselves decide whether regulations on, for instance, the provision of financial information or on health and safety at work are being complied with when complaints are made. Neither do trustees of great charities themselves judge as to whether they are acting within the powers given to them by the Charities Act. Why therefore should the BBC be allowed to be judge and jury in its own case on this important matter of impartiality, which was referred to by the Select Committee in another place as being of the utmost importance?
There are two possible solutions. The first is to have an independent, over-arching—as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, called it—supervisory commission with similar duties and powers relating to impartiality in BBC programmes as the ITC has for ITV companies,

503
acting right over the whole field of complaints. That is an unnecessarily bureaucratic solution. The best way is to give the new BSC powers over complaints relating to impartiality and to make that clear, just as, under Clause 68(1) of the Bill, it has powers to deal with standards of fairness and decency. That would provide a judgment independent of the BBC governors on matters of impartiality and would give confidence that such complaints will be dealt with fairly and squarely.
I hope that, in dealing with that point when he winds up, my noble friend will not argue that it is part of the regulatory functions of the governors, for they cannot regulate themselves when, at the same time, they are responsible for monitoring the approved objectives of the BBC which they themselves laid down. This is a crucial issue in the Bill and we must consider amendments to correct the ridiculous anomaly, however much the BBC governors and management may want to retain the Bill as drafted.
I want to turn briefly to digital broadcasting. It will make available many new TV channels, both satellite and terrestrial. Existing satellites carry up to 14 transponders, each transmitting one channel at present. Digital transmission will enable each transponder to transmit up to 16 channels, thus increasing the number of channels from up to 14 to some 200; that is an enormous change. Digital terrestrial transmission will also allow a more efficient use of the existing frequency spectrum, so increasing the number of programme channels available; but that will be to a smaller extent than in satellite digital transmission.
It is therefore important to prevent satellite broadcasting, with its huge revenue from subscription channels, from having excessive dominance over terrestrial broadcasting. That may lead, as many other noble Lords have said, to the big sporting events being monopolised by satellite. It will also discourage the production of programmes within the UK.
Another problem, also referred to, relates to the set-top boxes which will be required to receive digital transmissions before it becomes economic to build the facility into the TV sets themselves. The set-top boxes are already required for satellite and cable programmes. But other boxes will be needed in the future for receiving available satellite and terrestrial programmes. It is highly desirable, both on account of cost and opportunities for UK manufacturers, to plan from the start to have a standard specification enabling all the different types of transmission to be received. That is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, spoke so eloquently and clearly and I hope that it will be taken seriously by my noble friend.
Those points raise complex issues which we shall need to discuss at later stages of the Bill, not least to determine the optimum balance between legal restrictions and flexibility to take full advantage of the new opportunities provided by digital broadcasting.
504
Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to the huge and important contribution made by engineers in devising and successfully developing the new digital techniques which will have such far-reaching effects on our national life.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I shall be brief because I wish to concentrate on one aspect of this complex Bill—ITV's regional broadcasting service and the possible threat it may face in the event of any change in ownership. My own regional television service is provided by Grampian Television, which covers a vast area of great diversity, cultural, linguistic and even scenic in nature, and includes those parts of the United Kingdom which are the most remote from Westminster.
As a weary foot soldier, returning home from frequent Council of Europe meetings, usually held outwith the United Kingdom, I, too, know what it means to return home and to catch up with more local interests. Although my remarks may concentrate on my own regional service of Grampian, they probably apply—indeed, I am certain that they do—to all of the regional services.
It is well documented that viewers appreciate regional programmes. Yet, as national and international channels proliferate, only ITV offers a regional service. Therefore, the proposal to relax the rules governing cross-media ownership has given rise to concern, a concern which I share, and this unique aspect of ITV broadcasting could be threatened—indeed, on one reading of the Bill is threatened—in the event of a change in the ownership control of any regional company.
Regional programming is enshrined in existing licences. For instance, under its licence—I cite this merely as an easy example for me to give—Grampian Television must transmit seven-and-a-half hours of regional programmes each week, of which 80 per cent. must be produced in the area covered by the licence. In practice, Grampian transmits nearly nine hours of regional programmes, of which almost 100 per cent. are produced in the area. In November last year National Opinion Poll Research asked viewers in mainland ITV areas to assess the quality of their local regional service. Viewers in north Scotland placed Grampian first across 12 categories of regional programming. So there is fair evidence that the service is valued by its viewers. Most programmes broadcast on other channels are made outwith the north of Scotland, which has its own cultural diversity. It has, if you like, a multilingual heritage—English, Gaelic and Doric, which is the language of my own area. It is geographically distant from all the main production centres.
I am glad that Clause 63 of the Broadcasting Bill recognises that new licence conditions may need to be imposed in order to maintain the standards of a regional Channel 3 service where control of either the licence holder or the body providing programmes for the service is changed. However, I am concerned that, as currently drafted, the clause does not protect the level of service being provided at present. I am of the view that this part

505
of the Bill could he justifiably strengthened. Without such a strengthening both the quality and the quantity of regional output could be jeopardised. I believe, therefore, that the best way to protect the quality and quantity of regional output is by means of the benchmark of existing services at the time of any change of control and not by means of the licence minimum. As a result, viewers would suffer no diminution in service.
I am firmly of the opinion that the quality of a regional programme service to an ITV area is directly linked to the decision-making and editorial control being resident in that area. Clause 63 recognises the importance of regional programmes being made within the region and makes provision to vary licences if necessary. But it does not go far enough to guarantee protection. Because it is an enabling rather than a compulsory measure it gives too great an element of discretion to the Independent Television Commission. It seems to me self-evident that the interests of the viewer and of the regions would be best served by reducing just such an area of discretion which is, as the Bill stands, to he given to the Independent Television Commission.
I am also somewhat concerned that the definition of "regional programming" may not be as clearly and comprehensively defined as it could be. I hope that this will be taken into account by some of us in the form of suitable amendment when the Bill reaches its complicated Committee stage. It is surely only by providing such a clear definition that Clause 63 will have its intended effect.
The preservation of proper regional programming has wider implications than the justly important consideration of viewer satisfaction. The structure of the regional economy and the retention of skills, often in quite remote areas, must also be taken into consideration. A good example of this is the construction and operation of the Grampian television studio in the far distant Stornoway. An indigenous regional television company has one great asset. It knows its area. It understands what binds its viewers together and what does not. It understands that it must cater for the real and varied interests found within its area; and in its programming it will balance these interests with, one would hope, a good judgment.
I am an Aberdonian. Indeed, I am a former Lord Provost of that city. Naturally, I am interested in programmes about that community, one I know so very well. But I do not, and I should not, expect the viewer in, say, Ardnamurclan, or Achiltibuie, or Achmore, or Alness to share my enthusiasms. It is not enough for the makers of regional programmes to be able to locate such places on a map. They have to know and understand them from the inside. I would therefore welcome an additional definition of the concept "made within the area" to mean programmes whose creation covers all stages of the production process, from inception through to transmission, and which are subject to decision-making and editorial control within the area. As far as I can tell, there appears to be no such definition within licences or other ITC documentation. Without a definition, I could envisage that an unscrupulous owner
506
would have a licence to undertake all stages of production at its base outside the area and then merely send a camera crew to shoot film on location.
As I conclude, perhaps I may observe that one of the underlying principles of the Bill—namely, the objective of improving international competitiveness—is laudable. It is laudable in itself and laudable as an underlying principle. But it must not be at the expense of the great strength of the current ITV system—that of the regional programming element.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her excellent maiden speech. It was constructive and the presentation and content were good. I can assure the noble Baroness that, once having made her maiden speech in this House, there will he no stopping her from now on.
Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that a member of my family works for the BBC World Service. The Minister touched in his opening remarks on, and referred quite often to, S4C, the television channel that we have in Wales. Today, I am going to confine my remarks to the setting up of S4C, which came into being in 1982. It is fitting that I should begin my contribution, although he is not in his usual place today, with a generous acknowledgement of the role of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the long and arduous campaign to establish a dedicated and properly funded channel to serve Welsh speakers within the Principality. It took patience, diplomacy and determination— a determination based on the resolve that never again should Welsh be downgraded to inferior status as it was by those young English commissioners on their visitation to Wales in the last century. They were perhaps well intentioned, but their findings have gone down in the history of Wales as the "Treachery of the Blue Books". There is an old Welsh proverb which I am sure all noble Lords have heard: he who is without his language is without nation. By trying to deprive them of their language the treachery was to undermine the identity of the Welsh.
But times have moved on. The cycle of history has turned and times have changed. I am delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, sitting opposite on the Government Benches. We owe so much to him, because when he was a Minister in the other place he gave us S4C, the Welsh channel. He was responsible, with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who was Secretary of State at the time. Who knows?—perhaps if they had given the programmes to two channels, things in Wales today would not be as good as they are. But in their wisdom they gave Wales its own Welsh channel and it has proved to be of good use to the people of Wales. I say to the noble Viscount that if ever he comes to Cardiff or to Wales, perhaps we shall jump and sing the old favourite, "We'll keep a welcome when you come back to Wales again".
We recently had a new Welsh Language Act upgrading the official status of the Welsh language. Perhaps I may also pay generous tribute to the untiring efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Williams of Mostyn, for putting that legislation in place. I would also

507
like to pay tribute to the Government and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who was responsible for guiding the legislation through this House. It has proved to be worth while. We now have the language on the rise because parents desire their children to be bilingual. There is no second-class image, thanks to the Government. Welsh speakers enjoy confidence in the quality and nobility of their culture. I have no doubt that this is due in no small measure to the tremendous international successes that S4C has delivered. "Hedd Wyn" achieved the accolade of a nomination for an Oscar in the best foreign language film category. S4C obtained 26 international awards and nominations last year alone—a first-class achievement from a first-class channel!
Perhaps I may now turn to the Government, run as they are by a party which has only minority support in the Principality of Wales. Perhaps that has something to do with the minority being conscious of the needs of another minority. But the Government did establish the Welsh Language Board to foster growth in the language and they have found resources to give the language financial support on a significant scale. They have given a proper, first-class position to Welsh in the school curriculum. That much at least must be acknowledged by those of us in Opposition.
I genuinely believe that the Department of National Heritage wants to do right by the second public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. I am more concerned that it may not realise some of the implications in this Bill as drafted. I am sure that the majority of noble Lords would fight for the independence of broadcasters from government. It is an important buttress of our democracy. Your Lordships should have regard to Clause 64(2), which allows the Secretary of State to intervene annually in the settlement for S4C and effectively to ignore the principles underlying the new formula. That does not make for the certainty of sure-footed planning for S4C. There should not be this Sword of Damocles hanging over the authority, because the danger is that it will be used to exert political influence over broadcasters. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point when he comes to sum up this debate.
Perhaps I may finish by returning to the danger of giving, or seeming to give, second-class status to Welsh. The Department of National Heritage plans to give only half the capacity to S4C that other terrestrial broadcasters will enjoy. It means that Welsh speakers will not be able to benefit from the exciting advances that digital will bring to viewers on other channels. So other channels will increasingly have the edge over S4C as viewers switch to digital. It will have unfortunate historical echoes if Welsh speakers find that they are being given such second-class status in the Principality. I pray that that does not lead people to a path of struggle and unrest once again. By law, Welsh has equal validity in the official life of Wales. Let us also have equal validity on the airwaves in Wales. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance to the people of Wales that S4C will have its rightful place within broadcasting in the years to come.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am delighted that this important piece of legislation, announced in the gracious Speech in November, has come to your Lordships' House so soon. It has been long awaited. This has been for a very good reason. The Government published several proposals and working papers last year, especially so they could he discussed and debated before this highly complicated legislation came to us. And how right they were! The interest was and is enormous.
In the European Parliament we had naturally, as in any other Parliament, many people lobbying and briefing us, but the prize went, year after year, to the same group; the animal welfare lobby. They managed just to beat the farming lobby. We received thousands of letters; reams of paper and more trees than one would ever wish must have been chopped down to supply the paper. But the flood of information that has landed on my desk, and no doubt on the desks of many of your Lordships, for this Broadcasting Bill, seems to have outstripped both the animals and the farmers!
Despite this, I shall be brief today and touch on only two aspects of this very important but highly complex Bill, as I spoke in some detail on the subject in the debate on 22nd November last year. There are also many speakers today and there will be further opportunities for detail during the progress of the Bill.
The Bill is essential because of all the rapid changes in broadcasting. Even as we speak, new inventions are being made related to either the Internet or other forms of transmission. We are certainly living in exciting times. As Leibniz said:
"The present is great with the future".
Broadcasting has such an enormous influence on our lives that it has to be taken seriously. Apart from the great potential for influence, there are vast possibilities to make gigantic sums of money, of lottery proportions. Here, the Government have tremendous responsibility, and for this reason they need to be congratulated. They have published the discussion documents, listened and substantially altered and built on the original ideas. They listened to all sides, to both the producers and the consumers. For example, on digital terrestrial broadcasting, they have increased quite significantly the amount allowed to each existing broadcaster. That should allow the broadcasters to develop in a major way, if they wish, additional news services, advertising and subscription possibilities. That will further encourage them to invest. They are as a result on the whole, dare I say, mostly satisfied customers looking forward to an exciting future.
This legislation will affect not just our national market; nor are we looking at the European market alone. Surely our target is the global market. Here I would beg to differ with my noble friend Lord Arran in his very fine speech. He may be right concerning analogue, but where digital is concerned we must compete globally. After all, cross-media ownership and broadcasting know no boundaries, and we need to liberalise to be able to compete worldwide.

509
We in this country have some of the best broadcasting in the world, with a reputation higher than most, especially in the case of our World Service. In this new climate, legislation is needed to protect that position. There are changes taking place in our public sector broadcasting which needed to be addressed. We saw that happen last week with the new Charter and Agreement. The BBC's role is to provide high quality programmes with wide-ranging appeal that educate, inform and entertain.
"There are only two forces that carry light to all corners of the globe, the sun in the heaven and the Associated Press".
Mark Twain said that many years ago. For "Associated Press", today I would substitute "television and the wireless".
There is overwhelming support for Part IV of the Bill, the merging of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission with the Broadcasting Standards Council. I hope that that body will be more efficient and easier to operate. The new commission's role will be to act as an independent body to which the public will be able to complain about matters of taste, decency and violence in respect of the content of broadcasts. I mention that even though we have heard a great deal about that part of the Bill. It is a very sensitive subject on which everyone holds strong views.
With the advent of digital broadcasting, we are likely to see many more channels available. It will be of paramount importance that standards are maintained, so perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister to make certain that the new commission will have adequate power to keep decent high standards. I am aware nonetheless of what a media mogul said many years ago:
"It is the duty of a newspaperman to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".
But the media as well as the Government do have a responsibility to the millions who listen and watch daily. The responsibility is built into the freedom of the media. As Clemenceau said:
"Freedom is nothing in the world but the opportunity for self-discipline"—
that is to say, voluntarily to assume responsibility.
Let us hope that with this new Bill will come a new exciting era where Britain will serve the public trust and continue to be a world leader.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill on her thoughtful maiden speech. I particularly welcomed its central theme.
I propose to concentrate on the concerns of S4C about some aspects of the Bill as it stands and the proposed arrangements for digital television in Wales. I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, who played a significant role in the events which led to the setting up of S4C, is unable to speak in the debate for reasons which are unavoidable. However, as is my normal practice, I have discussed with my noble friend
510
the concerns in Wales and in particular those of S4C. He feels deeply about them and I believe that he agrees with the thrust of my comments.
I should like to emphasise that the concerns expressed by the board of S4C arc very important. They are important because S4C is a powerful promoter—possibly the most influential promoter of all—of the popular use of the Welsh language. II' the capacity of S4C to hold the continued support of its viewing audience was to be imperilled as a result of the advent of digitalisation, it would have serious implications for the prospects for the Welsh language in the coming century and possibly for social harmony within Wales.
The case for a separate Welsh language television service was made by a succession of authoritative reports, in particular that of the Crawford Committee published in 1974 and that of the committee that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, published in 1977. That led to the setting up of S4C in 1982. Today it is almost unbelievable that the plans for the service were drawn up, according to a respected opinion—and here I pick up a phrase from the 1978 official report of the Home Office Working Party on the Welsh Television Fourth Channel Project—as "an act of faith".
We now know that the separate Welsh television channel has been strikingly successful. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, reminded the House of some of the achievements of S4C. I should add that it broadcasts 33 hours a week of Welsh language programmes. At other times it broadcasts Channel 4 programmes. It has been a powerful stimulus to the creation of an impressive pool of independent television programme-makers in Wales. Certainly, S4C's capacity to attract sales revenue is inevitably constrained by the small size of its potential Welsh-speaking audience—an audience of just over half a million or so. Yet by now it succeeds in generating yearly about £6 million of advertising revenue. For all those reasons, as well as its record of achievement as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, we are fully justified in saying that S4C has been a success.
We have rightly heard this afternoon that digital technology heralds great changes and opens up exciting opportunities. But the Welsh-speaking community asks: where does S4C go from now on? Is it to be allowed to take full advantage of all the benefits of digital technology?
S4C has two principal concerns. They have already been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is in his place and I am sure that this point will be developed by him also. His words are of special significance because he happens to be the Chair of the Welsh Language Board, which is a statutory board charged with the duty of promoting the use of the Welsh language.
The first concern is that it will have to share the frequency with Channel 4 in Wales. That means that the viewers in Wales will be able to receive both Channel 4 and S4C, which is welcome. However, the sharing arrangement also means that S4C and Channel 4 in Wales will not have access to the full digital capacity that will be

511
available to their competitors in Wales—BBC1, BBC2, HTV and Channel 5. Each will enjoy only half of the capacity of their English language competitors in Wales. Therefore, the resulting quality of the digital service transmitted by S4C will be inferior to that of its competitors. It will not be able to broadcast wide screen programmes of satisfactory quality. In the result, its programmes will be increasingly associated with old-fashioned technology. That would be unfair to S4C, to the Welsh-speaking population and to the Welsh nation.
It is our submission that there should be a clear recognition that S4C must be able to compete for Welsh-speaking viewers with its principal competitors on equal terms. If that principle is right, and I believe it to be right, its implementation is not insoluble. The practical solution is to allocate full separate digital capacity to S4C and to Channel 4 in Wales on the same basis as other broadcasters. I hope that the Minister will he able to say that that option is available.
The introduction of a digital service by S4C cannot take place in isolation from a consideration of the funding of S4C. That is the second principal concern of the board of S4C. It is concerned about the adequacy of the statutory funding. The formula is set out in Clause 64, which introduces a significant departure from the present arrangement. It means that from 1998 onwards S4C will receive the amount of the January 1997 funding as increased by the yearly percentage increase in the RPI, adjusted "to have regard" to the cost of transmitting S4C. I should like to know whether those words include the full costs of the new digital service.
I was not all surprised to hear the Minister say that the proposed index-linked arrangement will give S4C a source of security of future funding. Indeed, that was stated in the question and answer document issued by the Department of National Heritage. That formula seems to have attraction in the sense that the amount of the future subsidy will be more predictable than if it were to be a share of total television revenue, which forms the basis of the present formula.
However, there is another view. The board of S4C has calculated that, in practice, the new formula will mean that S4C will be less generously funded than it would be under the current formula—and substantially so. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that the board has concluded that the loss could be more than £9 million per annum over the three years 1998 to 2000. Such a sum would be in the order of 12 to 15 per cent. of its total yearly income. That would be damaging, and that at a time when the provision of digital service will involve S4C in increased expenditure, and also at a time when the introduction of digital Channel 4 service into Wales could lead to a marked loss of advertising revenue. That has not been mentioned. All that would weaken significantly the capacity of S4C programmes to hold their own against the English language programmes on the other channels.
512
There is another difficulty with the funding clause as it stands. The funding formula which I have described is not necessarily the end of the story. Under subsection (2) the guaranteed index-linked payment may be replaced by,
"such other amount as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order prescribe",
so the funding is not guaranteed, as claimed by the department. As Clause 64 stands, the index-linked formula can be replaced at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, expressed his concern at the existence of that power given to the Secretary of State. Many of us would be opposed to giving that power to the Secretary of State to he exercised solely at his discretion unless it were to be used only when the Secretary of State was satisfied that the product of the index-linked formula would be inadequate to match the necessary requirements of S4C. If that is the intention, the use of the power should be confined to that situation and the limitation should be incorporated in Clause 64. I hope that in reply the Minister will clarify the position.
Before I sit down I wish to endorse the concern so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill about the need to safeguard the quality and the quantity of regionally produced programmes in the event of a change of ownership of the licence holder. Does Clause 62 need to be strengthened in Committee? I hope that the Minister and his advisers will give sympathetic consideration to those points and to other matters relating to S4C and the regional committees which are raised in the course of the debate.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a wise advocate who takes his best point first. Mine is that I shall not detain your Lordships long. I rise essentially to support the observations made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont and by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Part IV of the Bill makes elaborate provision for the Broadcasting Standards Commission, its establishment and its field of operation. However, I am bound to say that in many respects it has the characteristic of a toothless watchdog. Clause 68 provides that the BSC may—the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out that that is merely permissive—
"draw up guidance relating to principles to be observed".
Those are the words that I wish to stress. Why should it not draw up a code stating the principles to be observed so that everybody will know where they are?
Clause 69(2) states:
"It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when drawing up or revising any code relating to standards and practice for programmes, to reflect the general effect".
That provides a very good basis for saying, "Well, it does reflect the general effect. It may not be in the way that you, the standards authority, intended but it certainly is a bona fide exercise by us of our opinion".

513
When one comes to complaints, which are dealt with in Clause 71, I do not quite understand why, in regard to the complaints relating to unjust or unfair treatment or unwanted infringement of privacy, the BSC has to adjudicate on such a complaint, whereas it merely makes a finding as regards complaints relating to standards. But that is probably a subtlety which I have failed to penetrate.
Clause 80 deals with the effect and the power of the BSC. One merely sees there that there must be published by the offending authority a summary of the complaint, which is not difficult, the BSC's findings on the complaint, or a summary of them, and in the case of a standards complaint any observations by the BSC on the complaint or a summary of such observations. All that has to he done under Clause 80(7), where a direction is given, is a summary of any action taken by a broadcasting body to provide a licensed service in pursuance of the direction. I cannot see anything in that which does not prevent the authority saying, "We have taken no action because we do not agree with your finding". There is no obligation to provide an apology or compensation and there is no provision, as far as I can see, for the BSC to say exactly what action should be taken.
I thought that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, say, when he opened, that Part IV is designed to maintain impartiality and standards of taste and decency. I cannot find anything which relates to impartiality in the breadth of the activity which the BSC is entitled to undertake.
When one wishes to use robust language, one can often do no better than to turn to what has been said by the noble Lord, Donoughue, on the relevant subject. That is no doubt a by-product of his affection for boxing. In the debate on 9th January on the BBC draft Charter and Agreement he said:
"It may be seen as a weakness that the Charter suggests only guidelines"—
and that, of course, is all that is suggested in this Bill—
"which are ultimately unenforceable. In the modern media world, where the trashy gutter standards of tabloid journalism are increasingly infecting television, that may indeed be risky. Bad television drives out good. Perhaps that should be nailed down with an enforceable code, as with the Radio Authority".—[Official Report, 9/1/96; co1.26.]
I do not think that I can end on a more satisfactory note than that in support of my submission.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, it gives me particular satisfaction to welcome this Broadcasting Bill. The Government have put forward a timely measure which improves the ownership regime and provides an opportunity for really prompt progress to be made with digital broadcasting.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Bill gives broadcasters and their associated industries the opportunity to show that this country can lead the world in digital broadcasting and that it will help United Kingdom media companies to compete more effectively by allowing them to exploit opportunities in the ever-expanding global media market.
514
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Inglewood on having made such a good start with this Bill. We all know that a great deal of work remains to he done on the detail. In particular, the idea of the multiplex provider as an extra tier in the broadcasting system will need some careful attention as regards the wording of the Bill. This is a good solution to the complexities of digital broadcasting but we must not allow a new power base to be established which stands outside the regulatory process and which runs the risk of becoming a monopoly element within broadcasting. We need to he clear also as to who is going to review the developing technologies to ensure that they are inter-operable and can work together as seamlessly as possible.
I also congratulate my noble friend on having resisted the lobby which describes itself as the "community radio lobby". Local independent radio, which is community radio in its true sense, has made excellent progress under the Radio Authority. I had the pleasure of visiting Star FM in Slough last summer when my 16 year-old daughter was doing her work experience there. Star FM is chaired by my noble friend Lady Flather and serves a small area with programmes which are popular and widely appreciated. It provides good coverage of local affairs and manages to thrive, despite being overlapped by no fewer than 24 other commercial and BBC radio services.
Incidentally, Star FM manages to achieve viability in a small catchment area because its studio equipment is state-of-the-art digital. It is one of the many small companies in the commercial radio system which is already taking advantage of digital technology to very good effect and is working within the system which Parliament has established. It makes no demand on public funding, nor is it seeking any special privileges which might allow enthusiasts to broadcast even if the listeners are not interested in hearing them.
Creditable community radio enthusilasts have shown themselves prepared to apply for independent radio licences and to compete with commercial interests. In many instances, they have won those licences and run effective stations. Of the 53 new licences issued by the Radio Authority since it was established, 20 serve areas with an adult population of 100,000 or less. There arc several successful models within the existing ILR system for linking community aspirations with commercial operations. The new frequencies spectrum, which lies between 107 and 108 MHz, has been allocated specifically to serve those smaller-scale aspirations.
Finally, many of us listen to and greatly esteem the English language services of the World Service of the BBC. Its current affairs programmes and especially its new broadcasts are really first class. The World Service is much less parochial—some would say objective—than Radio 4. The problem is that the World Service is often inaudible in this country. The wave band on which it is available in Britain during the day and evening is 648 medium wave. That is intended for southern Europe and is audible—often not very clearly—only as fall-out in the south of Britain. I admit that during the small hours the World Service is now broadcast on Radio 4

515
frequencies. I ask the Government to ensure that in future the World Service is allocated frequencies that are audible throughout the United Kingdom. The additional cost of my proposal will be minimal. I hope that my noble friend will react sympathetically to my suggestion.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, my intervention in this Second Reading debate will be brief, but brevity is not an indication of the level of my concern about and interest in the important issues and vital implications of the legislative provisions proposed in the Broadcasting Bill. The Bill is timely and is to be welcomed. In the United Kingdom there is an urgent need to establish new and effective structures for the provision and regulation of the dynamic technological changes that confront broadcasting throughout the country. The Bill is particularly welcome because of the acute need to exercise suitable, effective accountability over the huge and growing amounts of private and corporate finance now directly involved in this powerful and important public service.
What is perhaps of more importance is the need to examine and provide suitable parliamentary accountability and democratic control over the social implications and the regressive cultural impact of some forms of broadcasting output on the staple and proven forms of community life throughout the United Kingdom. Broadcasting and broadcasters now almost dominate the national and local political scene. They set the agenda and determine the issues.
Clause 97 of the Bill provides that the legislation will extend to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland people value highly television and radio services. I understand from an official report that the Province has the highest percentage of viewing and listening public in the United Kingdom. There is considerable interest in and discussion of the Bill among broadcasting and media personnel in Northern Ireland. In particular, concern is expressed that all aspects of broadcasting in the Province should be fully considered before any properly informed changes are made. The capacity to maintain and develop regional production at current levels is vital for a number of reasons. Issues relating to ownership and Channel 4's current financial provisions are among those matters that require close examination as they affect Northern Ireland. In this connection, during the Committee Stage, Clause 63 will be of importance.
Many essential issues will emerge during the debate on the Bill. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords, especially those with the necessary expertise and practical knowledge of today's broadcasting ramifications. We hope to improve the text of the Bill and promote improvements that are in the best interests of public service accountability at all levels of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it is difficult to forecast the long-term effects of the huge advances in technology in the broadcasting industry. Most of us arc just capable of coping with the new technology. However, I have yet to meet an adult aged 30 and over who can confidently assert that he or she is competent to operate a video recording machine. But how many of us have the ability to consider how the latest developments can and will impact on broadcasting in the future? We must avoid supporting every aspect of the Bill, which looks fine now but which may, in a short time, prove to have results that are unacceptable. I fear that this Bill contains an area of concern which, if not remedied, may be invidious for the future health of broadcasting in this country. Before I deal with it, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who thanked the Minister for his stated readiness to listen to all the considerations brought forward today.
The development of satellite and cable services has reached a point where a great number of people have grown used to having these services as the primary means of receiving the four terrestrial television services: BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV and Channel 4. Currently, cable operators carry the four terrestrial channels as a free service to their clients. They offer the BBC's two services prominently in their programme guides. That has been an excellent marketing ploy on their part. It encourages would-be viewers to take up the cable options that can, by the very nature of the advanced technology, give better reception. The nub of my concern is that there is no obligation on the satellite and cable companies to continue to carry and offer these services. As the number of subscribers to cable and satellite channels increases, a situation may develop where BBC 1 and 2, ITV and Channel 4 are dropped, as the attraction of carrying those broadcasts—i.e., the sprat to catch the mackerel—is significantly reduced.
Inevitably, new distribution systems will fragment the audiences and the BBC's future as a universally available public service will be seriously undermined, unless an obligation is placed upon cable and satellite operators to carry those services. I believe that this is a serious omission from the Bill which needs to be rectified.
The BBC, which is funded by the licence fee that all viewers are obliged to pay, is exceptionally good value for money. That was acknowledged in the debate in your Lordships' House last week. It is a national asset of which we are all duly proud, particularly when we are holed up in a hotel room overseas, zapping through the channels of the local television stations and constantly bemoaning the fact that there is no BBC. It is also the primary mechanism through which emergency information is carried to the public—for example, in times of war or national disasters. Access to BBC services is fundamental to guarantee that the public receive information in times of emergency.
Regulations that require distribution systems to carry and offer BBC services prominently will ensure that in a multi-channel environment publicly-funded channels

517
are available as a matter of course via all delivery systems—cable, satellite and, who knows, any other system that is still only a gleam in the boffin's eye—without the need for viewers to buy new equipment. If audiences are to be guaranteed access to core licence-fee funded public service broadcasting—i.e., BBC transmissions—in the digital world there should be a guarantee of "must carry" status to those channels on wire-based services, and "must offer" status through satellite conditional access boxes.
In addition, as electronic programme guides become increasingly the norm and allow viewers to choose what they want from the menu on the screen, it must be right that the services of the BBC, as the primary publicly-funded broadcaster—I send a nod of thanks in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for putting me right on the definition—are given prominence in such guides. In that way the public will maintain their familiarity with those services, for which they pay, and must pay, through the licence fee. I urge the Minister to consider these requirements, and I look forward to his comments.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I apologise to the House for my absence during some earlier speeches. I was attending a meeting with the Minister for Disabled People which was arranged some time ago.
I am glad that the noble Baroness referred to the "must carry" provisions of the BBC, which I endorse strongly. I shall develop that point in a moment. By way of recompense for my earlier absence, I propose to cut my speech from 25 to five minutes. The Bill is an official declaration that the starting gun of the new broadcasting gold rush has been fired. The Klondike of the digital age offers massive fortunes to a few and more viewing opportunities to the many, but in the stampede some viewers and listeners will be trampled upon, standards can fall, and wealth can dominate. That is why this debate is of such importance. I was delighted to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Donoughue and those of other noble friends before I had to leave the Chamber.
The challenge for the Bill is not only to provide a legislative framework for digital television and radio but also to ensure fairness for all, high quality programmes and comprehensive access to good television and radio. A sensible and indeed necessary provision of the Bill should he one requiring quality as an important aspect of licensing. That matter was referred to by my noble friend. The Minister made a good speech but it was not particularly impressive as regards the question of quality. It was not definite or specific enough. Perhaps, when he replies, he will be far more insistent and far more specific on the provisions. Without the provision for quality the licensing authorities are prohibited from taking account of programme quality. It is bizarre to prevent the licensing authorities even considering quality. It brings the licensing authorities into disrepute and it certainly providles a loophole for unscrupulous people. I hope that the Minister will he able to respond constructively to that point. I know that he will try to do so.
518
Another major issue is access. Many noble Lords have referred to that matter. I simply wish to add my support to the BBC's call for "must carry" and "must offer" provisions. Competition can only be beneficial if there is access to the market and that means no harriers whatever through gateways for any broadcaster—the BBC or any other. I feel rather redundant in referring to sport because that matter was dealt with so admirably by my noble friend and by many other noble Lords, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will give a tour de force. I am a great fan of sport. Sky is trying not only to please existing viewers but also to attract new ones. That is fair enough but in essence it is using sport as supermarkets use loss leaders—to attract new customers. Therefore it is not genuine competition. That is one reason why I find the present situation unacceptable.
The basic problem is satisfying the viewers, rewarding the players and being fair to the broadcasters. That basic and profound problem is the nub of the whole debate. Obviously there is no simple satisfactory solution. There have to be compromises to reduce the gap between what the BBC and ITV can afford and what Sky will pay. There needs to be movement on both sides. Of course sponsorship is a possibility. We already have pseudo-sponsorship. As a fan and indeed proud patron of the Widnes Rugby League club, I am sorry to say that every major Rugby League match involves Wigan. It breaks my heart to say so. Every Wigan jersey is plastered with the name of Norweb and yet the BBC receives no money for promoting Norweb. That is absolutely ridiculous. Something more is required. The Government should take a hand and consider making direct payments.
Finally, I believe that this Bill should cater for deaf and blind people. I have some considerable experience of the problems of deaf people. We should aim at 100 per cent. subtitling and a special channel for those people who need signing. We should use audio description for blind people. I hope that at the Committee stage the Chamber will listen sympathetically to detailed amendments.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, why is it that I have a sense of déjà vu? I look around your Lordships' Chamber and see so many familiar faces among whom I have spent so many long and, by and large, happy hours debating the intricacies of broadcasting and the media over the eight years since I became a Member of your Lordships' House.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will forgive some of us if we say to Her Majesty's Government, "We told you so!" My noble friend was at that time a Member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, or, as we might say, dans un autre endroit, and so he will not recall that we warned the Government that the new bidding system for ITV licences would prove to be anomalous and unworkable. The Government have had to vary the system and conditions by order on a number of occasions since.

519
We cast doubt on the wisdom that allowed the Murdoch empire's satellite arm to be outside the cross-media provisions of the Act. Little did we imagine that before the ink was dry on the Royal Assent, BSB would be swallowed up by Sky. Little wonder, therefore, that Sky mobilised such powerful support in your Lordships' House to resist the concept that Sky should fall within the scope of UK legislation at a certain level of market penetration, because even as we were debating the Bill in Committee it knew that with the assimilation of BSB it would have passed the threshold in a matter of days, not months. I endorse, therefore, the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to regularise the position of Sky.
I hope that my noble friend will appreciate the irony when I tell him of my suggestion that the regulation of broadcasting was a task singularly unfitted to the Home Office, and that what this country needed was a ministry of culture. That suggestion was rejected, not to say ridiculed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers as foreign, alien and essentially un-British. Ah well, one Minister's ministry of culture is another's Department of National Heritage!
Nevertheless, there is much in this Bill that is to be welcomed. Britain is good at broadcasting. It is something in which this country excels and something of which we have every reason to be proud. All over the world British programmes and British broadcasters command respect and admiration for their quality and authority. The creative talents and skills of our programme makers are second to none. This is not by chance. The quality of our broadcasting is the product of choice; choice that has been secured and widened by successive Conservative governments. They have put in place a strong framework that combines the public interest with effective competition; a healthy environment in which high standards have been maintained and in which the viewer and listener enjoys real choice. I have to say as one who is relentlessly middle-brow that the success of Classic FM has added much to the quality of my life, especially when I am behind the wheel.
Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who created an alternative to BBC television by setting up the independent network in 1955. It was a Conservative Government who established Channel 4 in 1982, operating under a statutory remit to innovate and to extend choice but without any subsidy from the public purse. The present Government have continued to support the BBC, as we discussed last week in your Lordships' House. They have reinvigorated ITV and have promoted competition in the commercial marketplace by allowing Channel 4 to sell its own air time. That is a welcome extension of advertiser choice at a time when the number of ITV sales outlets has been reducing.
The Bill before your Lordships reflects the ever-increasing tempo of change and technical innovation. I remember a pundit telling me in 1990 that he saw no way that digital terrestrial television would he feasible before the end of the first decade of the next century. So much for pundits! First, there is a new
520
framework for the introduction of these digital services. Secondly, the ownership rules arc to be liberalised to encourage new players and new ideas as broadcasting expands and as the viewing and listening public demand a wider range of programmes and services.
As a publisher, I welcome this further liberalisation. Broadcasting, like publishing, can only benefit from wider choice and a more plural marketplace.
Before turning to the future, there is one hangover from the 1990 Act which is not corrected in the Bill. That is the funding arrangements for Channel 4, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and my noble friend Lord Blake.
Your Lordships will recall that in the last legislation the Government's three objectives for broadcasting were competition, choice and quality. In the case of Channel 4, choice and quality were to be guaranteed by the continuation of the statutory programme remit, established in 1981, which requires innovation and the extension of viewer choice beyond the output of ITV. Whatever your Lordships may think of Channel 4's programmes, no one can argue that the channel has not carried out that part of the brief imposed on it.
Competition was to be encouraged by requiring Channel 4 to sell its own airtime as a freestanding organisation, thus ending the monopoly by ITV of the sale of terrestrial television advertising. Channel 4's new task was to earn its revenue competitively and to fulfil its remit by returning the proceeds to programmes, for the benefit of audiences. The ITV companies, on the other hand, being in the business of making profits for shareholders, among whom I know are a number of your Lordships, were quite properly required to make voluntary bids for the right to broadcast.
In 1990 the Government were still concerned that, despite Channel 4's initial success in winning audience share, it might not be commercially viable nor earn sufficient revenue to support its service. They put in place a safety net against failure by which the channel would be subsidised by ITV if its advertising revenue fell below a certain threshold. It is important to emphasise that this was not a deal with ITV. It was not intended to provide either long-term income for ITV, or to sustain ITV's own programme remit. Indeed, the safety net was registered, quite properly, with the European Union for clearance as state aid, as designed to support the public service remit of Channel 4.
Three years into the funding formula its effects are clear—and completely perverse. Far from being a failure, Channel 4 has been a great success, making profits before payments to ITV of £39 million in 1993 and £84 million in 1994. It has reserves of nearly £200 million. No serious independent analyst expects Channel 4 to be in a position of receiving money from ITV; nor does the Independent Television Commission, and nor, I suspect, does my right honourable friend the Member for Surrey South-West in another place.
All I ask my noble friend the Minister is, if he continues to believe that Channel 4 still needs to buy an expensive safety net from ITV, on what figures does he

521
base such a forecast? Without such supporting figures, if he continues with that assertion I can only assume that it is merely a departmental shibboleth.
If Channel 4 did need help after 1997, ITV could not really provide it. Under the terms of the funding formula Channel 4 would have to lose one-third of its annual advertising revenue (namely, £150 million) and a further £150 million from its reserves before triggering a subsidy, which would at any rate be limited to £40 million a year—certainly not enough to rescue it in that event! I find it difficult to envisage any scenario in which the safety net would be invoked and in which it could save Channel 4. The very Ministers who devised the formula in the 1990 Act have stated that it has not worked as they, or Parliament, intended. It has therefore proved to be unnecessary and ineffective.
That alone would he good enough reason to change, but in fact the position is worse in that the formula has become counter-productive. Instead of supporting Channel 4 it has become a drain on the company's programme-making capability. Under the terms of the formula Channel 4 is obliged to pay to the ITV companies half of its so-called excess advertising revenues. By the end of 1997, when the formula is due for revision, the ITV companies will have received around £300 million—three times what they forecast when they hid for their licences in 1991. That is no more and no less than a direct subsidy to them from Channel 4 at the expense of programmes and films.
I have to ask myself, and my noble friend, why the ITV companies require such a subsidy. They are not using it to support their programme making. They all have profits considerably in excess of the Channel 4 transfers and can hardly claim that they need the money to ensure their survival. No, my Lords, the money is going to the shareholders, numbered in thousands, and not to the viewers, numbered in millions. Does a company like Granada need £15 million from Channel 4 when it can afford to bid billions of pounds for the empire of my noble friend Lord Forte?
Parliament, in the 1990 Act, always intended that this matter should be reviewed. The Government recognise that, because they propose in this Bill to take powers to reduce the 50 per cent. figure after 1997. My noble friend must accept that the formula is working perversely. Clearly the ITC accepts that, as does the National Heritage Select Committee in another place.
The Government's proposals set out in Clauses 65 and 66 of the Bill fail to solve the problem; they merely prolong the agony. Tinkering with the percentages may marginally staunch the flow of funds, but it will lock the ITV companies, Channel 4 and the Secretary of State into a regular, perhaps endless, battle over the prescribed percentages. It will be a continual battle over who gets what proportion of Channel 4's earned income, and is no way to organise a fair and competitive commercial situation.
My noble friend has suggested that £300 million is a reasonable insurance premium for a maximum claim of £40 million, with the insured bearing the
522
first £300 million in damages himself. I cannot agree with him, for it is axiomatic that insurance policies arc agreed and not imposed, and I trust that when we come to the Committee stage he will he minded to agree with amendments that I shall table to remove this anomaly once and for all.
Turning briefly to the future, I trust that in creating the regulatory framework for terrestrial digital television we are minded to allow the development of not only regional but sub-regional and local broadcasting. The limited range of digital transmitters allows, for the first time, the real possibility of parish pump television broadcasting. Not only would such programming, inevitably limited to a few minutes a week, he of inestimable service to the local community, it would I believe be a very real extension of local democracy, and one that I suspect might find favour with the Members of another place.
There is one small but significant technical point to be addressed. In common with many noble Lords, I am concerned that the provision of digital services will entail considerable cost to the consumer, especially to those least likely to change their sets—the less well-off, the unemployed and the elderly, who can least afford it. I shall be examining the possibility of some kind of short-term levy on the providers of programmes on the digital network to alleviate this, and also the obligation on the manufacturers of the necessary black boxes to decode the digital signals to make them compatible with other digital, cable and satellite transmissions. One black box that accepts all cards must be achievable.
Lest my noble friend considers that I have been overcritical, let me assure him that I welcome the Bill most sincerely. I congratulate him on the way he introduced it, and I look forward to working with him and your Lordships' Committee and his department in turning what is a good Bill into a potentially great one.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. There is always a danger on Second Reading of a technical and detailed piece of legislation that we end up simply flagging the amendments we intend to introduce. However, the noble Earl made a good point, not only in relation to the Channel 4 formula—I am sure that there will be support from some noble Lords on these Benches on that issue—but also the important technical issue regarding the nature of the change in technology. As he described, we can now have not only international, national and regional, but also local communication and broadcasting.
I sat on the Standing Committee in another place on the 1990 legislation. I was concerned that we always fail as legislators to regulate in good time and to anticipate technological changes. That is why we visit or re-visit broadcasting and the media at least once every five years, and no doubt it will be a shorter timescale in future. As we move from broadcast technology to a multi-media context, we are dealing with rapid changes which at member state level we often fail to regulate. That is why matters such as the achievement of European standards in this area are crucial.

523
All aspects of relevant technology may not be covered by the Bill. Perhaps I may flag up one issue which I intend to raise. I refer to microwave video dissemination. The Government are addressing microwave video distribution in a number of departments. The DTI has undertaken substantial research into the whole area. It is important that when the Department of National Heritage deals with broadcasting legislation it should work in close harmony with other departments that are taking the lead in areas of technological development. We shall wish to return to that issue.
On a local level—it is very attractive to some of us who live in valley communities, surrounded by mountains—the system could create a greater range of programming and dissemination opportunities than the digital terrestrial proposals set out in the White Paper and the Bill.
I agree entirely with, and indicate my support for, any proposed amendment from my noble friend, as perhaps I may call him, Lord Ashley. I agree that we need to address far more strongly the issue of the deaf and visually impaired. We are beyond the code of guidance suggested in Clause 19 of the Bill. I shall support any amendment of the noble Lord which strengthens not just the Teletext services but the audio-described television he indicated. The technology is already available to provide far greater access to the media for those who are deaf or visually impaired. We need to address that issue more strongly in the Bill. I give notice of support for any amendment that he will produce.
I, too, congratulate warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, on her maiden speech. She addressed what I believe is the central issue of the debate: the relationship between the attempt to hold together a public service broadcasting culture with the technological determinants that face us and the influence of the market. It was a thoughtful, philosophical speech in the best tradition of Scottish moral philosophy. I cannot pay a higher compliment than that.
The Bill has four large parts to it. The first deals with terrestrial television. We shall need to consider a number of aspects, in particular that of cost. For example, as regards Wales and the hills and valleys model, the cost of adaptation of the six main transmitters serving Wales would not be massive. That, I believe, would be NTL's estimate. But what would happen with the 180 sub-transmitters? What will be the cost of the adaptation of all those repeaters in order to make reception possible throughout hilly and mountainous areas? It concerns me that the government estimate of the early stages of population coverage—that is before we come to the switch-over and removal of the analogue service—may be over-optimistic. We shall wish to pursue that issue in Committee. It is a matter on which we shall require technical advice. Those of us who proposed that there should be early legislation for digital broadcasting in the 1990 Act will return to some of the advisers we then had. We look forward to an ongoing technical debate with the Government's advisers on the issue. Members of this House and of another place need all the advice to be obtained as we pursue the issues.
524
The second part of the Bill deals with digital audio broadcasting. Since I forgot to declare an interest, as chairman of Screen Wales, when I spoke about television, I must remember now to declare an interest as a director of Marcher Sound, an independent local radio station which serves the Marches of Wales and the North Wales coast.
I am a little concerned that the regime proposed in the Bill and set out in the White Paper for ILR may not be as rigorous as for INR. Again, we shall wish to pursue that in Committee. I am aware that in the Radio Authority we have a regulating body which has proved its worth over the years, certainly since it was renewed under the 1990 Act. We shall wish to consider again as to how the licensing and multiplexing for radio will operate at the local level to ensure that there is a diversity of service.
The third part of the Bill deals with the funding formulae which were devised in our 1990 legislation. I have already referred to that concerning Channel 4. The other has been referred to eloquently by my colleagues. We do not form a Welsh mafia; we agree on important issues. However, it is nice to have the agreement on these issues of the official Liberal Party and the official Labour Party with the official Cross-Bench spokesman on Wales.
S4C has deep concern about its ability to continue to meet the technical challenges of a public service broadcaster in a "smaller" language. The authority and its chief executive are determined that they will respond effectively and with imagination to the challenge. But they need a level playing field. For those reasons they are concerned about the allocation of frequency, the way in which the multiplex will operate and their proportion of the frequency. That issue has been covered. They are concerned too with the funding mechanism to meet those challenges.
We have heard that the current funding on the present formula is based on 3.2 per cent. of the revenue from terrestrial broadcasting advertising. The transfer from DNH to the authority in 1995 amounted to some £63 million. The authority also raised nearly £7 million in other commercial activities. That global figure relates to its own commercial activity. It indicates that it is an enterprising channel. However, it is a matter of concern that while moving from the previous formula to the formula of RPI may appear to bring about a level playing field, because of the additional costs of digitalisation, the channel may well be unfairly penalised in relation to the topographical issues that I discussed earlier—potential transmission costs and so on. Therefore I ask the Minister to give an assurance at Committee stage that the formula will be one upon which, as he said in opening the debate, the channel can plan its business for the future.
Concern has been expressed that the wording of the Bill might indicate potential political interference by a Secretary of State. I am certain that no Secretary of State for National Heritage would wish to interfere with the internal activities of any broadcaster. I am sure that the Government are looking for a formula that will allow the Minister to pay such sums as may be necessary for

525
the additional cost of digitalisation, to remove the funds when they are no longer available and to do it in a way that also guarantees a regular and consistent income for the channel.
The present form of words in Part III is not as helpful as it might be. I would like the Minister to look at that, as I am sure he will do, before we reach Committee stage. Others will wish to consider the wording. There are some formidable Welsh lawyers in this House, as noble Lords will know.
I wish to turn to one more important issue in relation to S4C which has already been mentioned. I make my final declaration of interest as chair of the statutory Welsh Language Board. As it happens, in our usual timely way we have managed, S4C and ourselves, to publish figures which are a good measure of the effectiveness of the channel. They are based upon an NOP survey of viewers in Wales. It appears that over 61 per cent. of the sample—that is the total population of Wales in a structured sample—watched some programmes in Welsh. If we take into account that only 18 per cent. are fully fluent in the population, that sample included a substantial figure who do not follow Welsh as well as the noble Lords, Lord Geraint and Lord Prys-Davies. Fourteen per cent. of those who can receive S4C said that they spent more than half their time watching television on S4C, receiving, we hope, a varied cultural output. Six out of 10 fluent Welsh speakers claim to watch at least half their television on S4C. A more important figure for me, as someone who is charged with extending the domain of the language, is that even among those who can speak no Welsh at all, 20 per cent. watch at least a bit of their programmes in Welsh. That includes the population in the Wirral who are tuned in to "Sgorio" and other sports programmes on S4C.
Twenty per cent. of all those who have ever spoken any Welsh—even a few sentences—who were sampled by the survey said that the use of Welsh on S4C encouraged them to try to use it more often. Clearly the channel is already fulfilling the duty laid upon it by the Government in the early 1980s to provide for a smaller language to have access to the mass media and for it to be part not only of providing cultural output for the population of Wales but of providing valuable employment. That includes my number two son who is employed by a facilities company, Barcud, in Caernarvon. That is my final declaration of interest, and I should remember it. There are over 100 independent companies, as well as the big Facilities House, which work for the channel, creating a cultural industry in Wales. The channel has provided employment throughout Wales, particularly in the north. That is an important investment in the country and the industry.
The Government are well aware of all I have said. They have done their fair share in developing the resource. I only hope that in the Bill we will do nothing to damage a success story in terms of the media in the UK.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I welcome the Broadcasting Bill, which is market-oriented and deregulatory in intent. The main aim appears to he to allow the market to achieve a greater measure of consolidation so as to produce stronger media companies better able to compete on the international front.
My purpose in speaking is to draw attention to a problem at the bottom end of the market where independent local radio stations provide services that have proved to he very popular. The Association of Independent Radio Companies has pointed to an area of unnecessary regulation which was acknowledged in the broadcasting White Paper but appears to have slipped through the net in the preparation of the Bill. Companies are unable at present to apply for two FM licences in the same area. The department has so far demurred at change because it appears to believe that this might lead to over-dominance by particular companies.
One needs a sense of proportion about local radio concentrations. The concentrations are very small compared with television, which we have spent most of the afternoon discussing. The largest radio concentration would have a total current market capitalisation of some £400 million. Granada-LWT's market capitalisation is £4 billion—10 times as much. The Bill expects that TV concentrations will grow further. In that context, radio companies are minnows by comparison and restraining local radio seems unreasonable.
I can see an argument in favour of restricting companies to one FM licence in areas where healthy competition does not exist. But, in urban areas where strong competition already exists, the argument for artificial restraint disappears. In London, for example, there are already some 20 local radio stations and more in the pipeline. We heard from my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever about Star FM, which operates in a limited market but one where there are 24 overlapping local stations.
If stations achieve popularity within this context, that is a good thing and more power to their elbow. But, if spectrum is a scarce resource, then popularity should be an attribute worthy of rewards rather than penalty. In any event, it seems anomalous to restrict development of local radio stations when there is no restriction on co-ownership between local radio and local newspapers.
If considerations of over-dominance nevertheless remain, let that be for the Radio Authority to take into account in its consideration of competitive bids for a new licence. There are also powers for the Office of Fair Trading to ensure a competitive market. Do we need to have a rule which prevents even an application for a second FM licence? That seems to be unnecessary.
I make a final point in favour of this measure of deregulation which I request. It might be argued that the restriction protects diversity. In fact, the reverse seems often to be the case. If there is a successful commercial format on one FM licence in an area, competitors all too often try to imitate that format when they are in competition. However, if one company owned two FM frequencies in its area, then it would he much more

527
likely that the second FM channel would be different from the first. Diversity of ownership does not necessarily imply diversity of output.
The Committee stage will allow us to research these matters more closely, but I should appreciate an initial reaction from my noble friend on the Front Bench to the arguments that I have deployed on behalf of the local radio industry.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as I am a non-executive director of Birmingham Cable, although I shall not touch on any of its affairs today. Secondly, I wish to say what a privilege it is to take part in a debate in which my noble friend Lady Smith made such an excellent maiden speech. It was particularly gratifying to those of us who were friends of John Smith and have admired Elizabeth Smith, if I may call her that, over the years.
We had some excellent openings from the Minister, my noble friend Lord Donoughue and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. They set the tone for the debate and I am glad that we shall approach the Bill in a spirit of co-operation. I hope that tonight the Minister will depart a little from the technicalities of the Bill, which he covers so well, and deal with some of the big issues which arise, particularly sport. He was unable to deal with it when we debated the Charter last week.
I give advance notice of the topic to which I shall return in a minute and I especially hope that the Minister will deal with a question I wish to raise. I have to disclose to the House that in the forthcoming World Cup cricket tournament the entire nation will be deprived of seeing any highlights on the BBC as a result of the withdrawal by Sky Television from the agreement into which it had entered. That is a very serious matter, and I shall return to it shortly. I give notice to the Minister that I should like him to express the same concern as some of us already have done on this subject.
The Bill is an essential piece of legislation, given the technical revolution now available to broadcasters. Vital questions are raised, and they have to be dealt with in this Bill. Previously, every legislative approach has been an attempt to catch up with the existing broadcasting situation, which has seemed to be ahead of the legislators. I hope that this Bill will reverse that process. The Television Act 1954 established ITV; the Broadcasting Act 1981 granted powers of regulation in relation to sports coverage of (and the House should note these words) "events of national interest". That was a declaration by Parliament of immense importance—now challenged, I am afraid, by Sky and some sporting bodies—that the coverage of sports events on television affects the national interest. Parliament visited this subject again in the Broadcasting Act 1990, when these events of national interest had then come to be called "listed events"—about which we shall hear much during the passage of this Bill.
The crucial question in 1990 led the Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to put the issue, as then seen, very clearly to the House. I will quote his remarks:
528
"The rights to sporting events are … a form of property. The sale of those rights is one of the principal means by which sporting bodies … could raise revenue. The Committee would … have to consider whether the apparent mischief which the amendments seek to prevent warrants such a measure"—
as was then being put before the Committee. The "apparent mischief' was that listed events would soon he available only on satellite channels—a mischief indeed!
The noble Earl concluded:
"a satellite channel would not he able to show a listed event on a pay-per-view basis. It would therefore almost certainly only he able to show a listed event at a substantial loss".—[Official Report, 26/7/90; col. 1691.]
That statement, which has proved to be totally inaccurate, though I do not blame the noble Earl, has dominated government thinking, and still does. It is that fundamental thought that has to be corrected. The reality of today is a million miles away from that situation, and it is the reality that we now have to address.
The face of British sport, as it is broadcast to the nation and the world, is determined nowadays not by sport but by Mr. Murdoch, his News International and Sky Television. I join with the two Front Bench speakers in saying that I admire very much some of the things that he has done and the programmes that he has brought about. I have two subscriptions to Sky, one in London and one in Birmingham. I take advantage of it. So I am not prejudiced in that direction. But the time has come for this monopoly to be opened up. That is the essence of the matter.
The major spectator sports division of the Central Council for Physical Recreation wrote to many of us, certainly to me, demanding no interference with its right to maximise its earnings through selling sport to satellite television. We should take note of that. That committee is chaired by the chief executive of the Rugby League, who has just negotiated one of the most extraordinary deals in relation to the future of his sport ever seen in the history of British sport.
Conflicts of interest litter the membership of that committee. Some are legitimate; others are not. Members of the committee are entitled to safeguard their financial interests, as noble Lords on the Front Benches said. But we have a duty to protect the national interest, and that consideration must be supreme. We must not deny this facility to millions of householders who have no access to satellite, mainly through high costs—I believe Sky has increased the cost of its sports coverage three times, an increase of about £100 in recent years. To deny the millions of elderly who supported their sport in better days the opportunity to do so now, in old age or difficult circumstances, is not acceptable. It is anti-social.
I am very sorry to say, as senior vice-president of the CCPR, that to remove from the screens of BBC. ITV and Channel 5 the exposure to sport which millions of young people will undergo if these trends continue would remove from future generations the inspirational effect of British sport which television brings to youngsters, who see the events on television and then want to take up those sports. Therefore, this policy is self-defeating in terms of the future interests of British

529
sport. I regret that none of these considerations finds time or space within the CCPR letter. It should think again and make sure that they do.
To return to the activities of Sky, we must note again what some of us mentioned in last week's debate on the BBC Charter: the control of Rugby League by News International; the saturation coverage of some sports now, particularly football, with all the dangers that that brings for the future, which again might well rebound on the football authorities that allow it; the exclusivity now beginning to creep into cricket coverage, of which I just gave an illustration and to which I shall return; and the removal of much golf, especially the great Ryder Cup victory, in which we all took pride but which was denied a showing to the majority of people in this country. That cannot possibly be right if we regard important sporting occasions as being of national interest. If ever there was a national interest, the Ryder Cup certainly provided one.
These examples are just for starters. Who can doubt that next will come attempts to corner Wimbledon tennis. Let us hope that Wimbledon and the LTA will maintain the resolve that they have shown so far to ensure that maximum audiences for their sport are in their interest, and that they will resist the financial temptations that will no doubt he put in their way. So, too, with Formula One racing.
The most spectacular example of all is the future of the Olympic Games, for which I understand (if reports are accurate) Mr. Murdoch is now offering £1.2 billion for exclusivity. There is no more important sporting festival in the world, bringing the world together, uniting the world with 60 nations competing, than the Olympic Games. We must hope that president Samaranch, who has always maintained a realistic sense of duty in these areas and has always insisted on working through such bodies as the European Broadcasting Union so that the games can be available to the widest possible audiences, will maintain that principle, even though Mr. Murdoch is trying to seduce him. As I know from my own experience, president Samaranch is a difficult man to seduce.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howell: I am talking in sporting and realistic terms.
Turning to the detailed amendments some of us would like to see discussed or inserted in this Bill, it is right that we give notice at this point. Each one of them will provide an opportunity for debate and for the Government to deal with them separately.
We must start by repeating in this Bill Clause 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which deals only with pay television and sporting events. The clause has to be extended to cover subscription television, which was not considered as it was not in evidence at the time when the 1990 Act was discussed by Parliament. We have to consider whether the present list of eight national events should be extended. I believe that it should, but there will he another opportunity to go into detail.
Then there is the question of highlights on television which must be separated from live coverage, so that the public at large can be guaranteed, as in the cases I have
530
already instanced, that at least sight of some major sport is available to them through highlights, even though coverage has been sold to satellite television. I believe that we have to deal with conflicts of interest. Therefore. I shall myself seek to provide that television companies or their executives, having the rights to televise sport, shall not be involved in the government of that sport. That is a very important principle which hitherto has not raised its head—not until recently when the situation in Rugby League and possibly Rugby Union has come to our attention.
Then there is the need for sensible control by regulation or, as I shall propose, by a commission on sport and television, in order to look fairly at the interests of satellite and terrestrial television channels, as well as of sport and the public at large. My noble friend Lord Donoughue mentioned that point. At the moment, it is nobody's job to hold the ring fairly on behalf of all the interests. Whether or not my solution is adopted, the problem has to be addressed by this House and by the Government.
I come to the cricket World Cup, which I mentioned earlier, which is to take place soon in Pakistan and India. The BBC was approached by Sky to televise the highlights and asked if it would agree to do so. Sky started to negotiate with the cricket authorities. The BBC agreed at a fee of over £1 million for the highlights of that world cup which will take place in a few weeks' time. The deal was done by Sky with the cricket authorities, whereupon Sky promptly ditched the BBC. Therefore—I do not think the nation understands it at all and they ought to do so, although there has been no comment about it—we now face a situation in which, at the world cricket cup in two or three weeks' time there will be no highlights available. There will be no such coverage for the whole of the nation unless they own Sky or have access to cable. That is a disgraceful situation. It highlights some of our problems and fears about the direction in which we are moving.
I do not expect the Minister to say too much tonight but I hope that he will take the issue on board and say that he and his ministerial colleagues will look at it in the interests of English viewers. We do not want another Ryder Cup situation. I hope that we do have a successful cricket team, which would be unusual—a modest phrase, but we all hope that it will be successful and wish it well. The nation as a whole is entitled to enter into such competitions and to participate through television.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Donoughue raised the issue of what I call "decoders". I have heard them given other names. At the moment News International owns them all. I do not read anything in any way subversive into that. I believe that it has come about as a result of its normal entrepreneurial activities and that should be acknowledged. But pay television, which the BBC or ITV may well wish to take up with the new opportunities that are available to them, can only be taken up if their smart card giving access to their programmes is acceptable by the black box which is totally owned by News International at the present time. The dangers are obvious. If any of those organisations wish to offer realistic money to the sports bodies—

531
I hope that they do—then, as I said last week, they will probably have to move into some areas of pay television in order to generate the income to compete with Sky Television. It would be totally unacceptable if they were not allowed to do. that because their competitor owned all the black boxes. The problem needs to be stated and taken on board by the Government and by the House.
These matters concern the national interest. There is great national interest in sport. Therefore, it follows that there is great national interest in the delivery of sport to the homes of most of our citizens by terrestrial or pay television. That has to be provided for and it would be quite wrong for the Government and Parliament not to provide for it when the opportunity is given in this Bill. If we miss the opportunity now, it may be well into the next century before it comes again and we should be creating great hardship for sport and genuine followers of sport who do not have deep pockets from which they can ensure that they can follow the sport which they traditionally champion.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, much of what I intended to say has already been said by noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont and my noble friend Lord Caldecote. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating any of it now except to say that I align myself in particular with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Caldecote.
I listened to nearly all last week's debate in your Lordships' House on the BBC's Charter and Agreement. I was tempted to speak in the gap because it seemed to me that three quite important points had not been made. I have not heard them this evening and as they seem pertinent to this debate, perhaps I may make them now. They come under the broad heading of quality and concern political bias and the ability, especially of television, to undermine our culture.
I know that bias is often in the eye of the beholder. I agree that it is the duty of free media to keep a highly critical eye on the government of the day, especially perhaps on one which has been so long in power as our Government. But I am one of those who believe that the BBC, among others, has done much to diminish our culture, which is not nearly so racist or atheistic and immoral as the BBC would like us to believe and, indeed, would encourage us to become. I cannot see that it has attempted to put anything enduring and worth while in the place of what it has often done its best to knock down.
My first point about what I see as a disturbing state of affairs may strike some noble Lords as extreme lateral thinking and perhaps even irrelevant. But, during my 10 years validating so-called academic courses in the polytechnic sector, I discovered an almost universal bias, of the kind that I described, in the media studies courses, which often are much the same thing as cultural studies. Similar bias, as I think many noble Lords will agree, toward what are termed in the jargon "issues of gender, race and class" was and I am sure still is to be found in our teacher training, social studies and much of
532
the humanities. This is not the moment to debate higher education. I shall simply comment that there does not seem to me to he any system of quality control in higher education—I say "quality control" as opposed to "quality assurance". I should expect our media studies courses today to be just as bad as, if not worse than, they were three years ago when I spent much of my time looking at them.
My point—the lateral thinking will perhaps come home to roost at this point—is that I understand that many people with a media studies degree enter the media. I feel that an examination of the area that I indicated might repay anyone interested in the quality of our television and particularly that of the BBC.
Let me give an example. I happened to be looking at the 9 o'clock news on BBC last night, in which there was a largely balanced programme on the proposal of the Government's chief schools curriculum adviser for a new moral code for the curriculum. I thought that the social affairs editor of the BBC News dealt with the programme perfectly fairly until he came to the end, when he delivered the punch-line of his presentation. He ended by saying,
"all the signs are that parents want schools to provide a strong moral lead. Yet beyond sets of worthy principles it'll be hard to identify a national consensus".
That reflected the programme fairly and I am sure that it is fair enough so far. But then he went on,
"And attitudes do change, slavery was once condoned, illegitimacy condemned. The difference then was that those in authority were better at ordering people what to do and at concealing faults in themselves".
That was the end of the programme. Whatever one may think about those in authority being better at ordering people to do what they want them to do and concealing their faults, it is a matter for us all to consider rather carefully. But the phrase I particularly object to in that summing-up punch-line is that illegitimacy used to be condemned, the inference being that it now is not.
I hold no brief for illegitimacy one way or the other. But I am sure that there must have been a lot of people watching that programme, perhaps with teenage children, who will have found that very offensive. They may not even have spotted quite why they found it offensive, but it probably did the damage that it was intended to do.
I go back to my second point and would like to remind the Government that drama has a far greater effect on our social attitudes than news or current affairs. The slanted programme which exaggerates the cuts in our health service, for instance, has far more effect on what people believe than does a boring slanging match between politicians.
My third point is that some 54 per cent. of all children under 16 now apparently have an unsupervised television in their own rooms. If that is so, the efficacy of any nine o'clock watershed must surely be in some doubt.
It is for those reasons and others on which I do not have time to dwell now that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote, that

533
the proposed BSC must he given real teeth in this Bill, and it must be obliged to use them. It is no use leaving it to our old friend self-regulation and pious hopes that the governors of the BBC and others will do their stuff. They will not, as the Bill is drafted, and we shall all he the worse for it.
I had thought to end my few remarks there until I heard the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who I regret to see is no longer in his place. I have been struck by the considerable amount of criticism that Mr. Rupert Murdoch has received this afternoon, together with his various companies. A number of noble Lords also paid tribute to the remarkable business acumen of Mr. Murdoch, but now, after the game has been won, they seem to want to move the goalposts against him in relation to the rules by which he played it.
I refer particularly to the amount of sports coverage Mr. Murdoch now offers. In that, I must declare a complete lack of interest. I do not have Sky Sports and, unfortunately for me, professional sports give me no pleasure. But, like many noble Lords, I have been sent numerous briefs on the Bill. Given the treatment which News International received this evening, I dug out one it sent to me. I have no reason to think that any of the claims in it are inaccurate. It claims that Mr. Murdoch's position in our television provides better funding for sport; greater coverage and wider choice for the viewer; improvements in quality and better access for youth and minority sports. The deals which Sky has made with football put some 10 to 15 times more money into the game than the deals of a decade ago. Sky provides over 10,000 hours of sports every year, compared with 1,500 on the BBC.
Then we come to one of the most remarkable statements in defence of the wicked Mr. Murdoch, and it is this: that we all seem to labour under a common misconception that BSkyB has increased its coverage of sporting events by taking them from terrestrial channels. In fact only 1 per cent. of current Sky sports coverage used to be shown on terrestrial channels: the rest is all new; it is additional programming. Whatever that 1 per cent. means to the channels which lost it, the rest must represent an enormous increase in overall sports coverage.
Then we come to the, question of access for youth and minority sports. It seems that over 30 per cent. of men under 25 and children under 15 live in a home with a satellite. That strength with the country's youth has been attractive to many sports bodies which wish to reach that elusive audience and to promote their sports at the grassroots. That seems to go against what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was saying when he said that he felt that our children in schools were being disadvantaged by the presence of Sky television.
That brings me back to education and to what has been going on in our schools, where—certainly in our state schools—regrettably, competitive sports have been continuously and consistently dropped over recent years. I am afraid that in many schools they have been regarded as elitist. In case your Lordships do not know what elitism is, it is in the "classist" platoon of the gender, race and class brigade.
534
I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the young are, on the whole, disadvantaged by Sky in relation to sport. I must ask also whether the costs are so tremendous. Even our poorest people make investments of a kind which could give them Sky television. I have just been offered Sky for £240 in a remote house in Scotland and understand that it will cost me £1 to watch a football match. I do not know what unit one is supposed to describe it in nowadays, but that is not a large quantity of beer.
I understand those who want to see the principle of universal reception given to everyone in this country. I do not know how we achieve it, but I must submit that it is much less important than some of the other issues that I have raised this evening.
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his lucid introduction to the Bill and pay tribute to the contributions, and stamina, of all noble Lords who have spoken today, but most of all to that of my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, whose speech I enjoyed, admired, and envied for its incisiveness. At this hour I shall do my best to emulate the spatial aspect of that incisiveness, if not aspiring to the same quality.
I shall begin by declaring a number of interests. As an investment banker I act as financial adviser to a number of UK and overseas media groups, including those holding ITV, Channel 3 and other broadcasting licences. I also have an interest as a director of, or shareholder in, independent local radio stations, an advertising agency, film and television production companies and a film exhibition business. As I have suggested to your Lordships in the past, I hope that the variety of those interests aids rather than hinders the objectivity of my views.
If your Lordships have approached this Bill in a non-partisan spirit, that in no way diminishes the complexity or difficulty of some of the issues raised. The whole area of digital broadcasting is one where, across the parties, there is a common aim of successfully introducing the next generation of broadcasting, but a shared anxiety of how best to achieve it. I join other noble Lords in suggesting that new technology should be the servant and not the master of that process; TW3 and TSR2 may both have gained notoriety in the 1960s, but we should remember that one was a successful satirical television programme and the other a commercially and economically disastrous implementation of the cutting edge of aerospace technology. We shall return to that conundrum in Committee.
Similarly, I shall not prolong your Lordships' agony in addressing other subjects such as the merger of the BCC and the BSC or the maintenance of ITV's regional quality, which have attracted broad cross-party support. Even the funding of Channel 4 attracted a high degree of consensus, acknowledging that, as in many areas, the 1990 Act missed the target with monotonous regularity.
The position on the Channel 4 safety net must be rectified fairly for all parties, which points inexorably to timing this to coincide with the earliest date for the renegotiation and extension of the Channel 3 licences.

535
In the meantime, since Channel 4's reserves have grown so much, presumably so much faster than Channel 4 and the Government had forecast, and since there is such widespread confidence that its share of terrestrial television advertising revenue will not fall below 14 per cent., it would surely not be imprudent to allow it to devote all or part of the 25 per cent. surplus designated annually for addition to its statutory reserve for investment in programming instead. We can perhaps explore this also at the Committee stage.
On sport as well, I am optimistic that the noble Lord the Minister will find the widespread concern on all sides of the House an irresistible force to propose, or accept, a judicious strengthening of the protection afforded to terrestrial coverage of major sporting events without unduly cramping the beneficial consequences of the digital revolution through massively widening choice for sports enthusiasts and enhancing the financial position of the sports being covered.
We know that all members of the Government look nervously over their shoulder for the approbation, or otherwise, of the previous Prime Minister. I would not therefore wish to put the reputation or happiness of the noble Lord the Minister in jeopardy by suggesting, at least publicly, that he was a one-nation Tory. But what your Lordships' House and the country want him to be is a five-nations Tory.
My noble friend Lord Donoughue, in addition to his excellent speech today, argued powerfully last week in the debate on the BBC Charter that the BBC's support for the performing arts must be maintained. So, too, should the independent sector's. While declaring an additional interest as a director of English National Opera, I believe that all your Lordships would share my concern at the diminishing number of broadcasts from many of the country's leading opera and other performing arts companies, while heavily sponsored recordings of the Metropolitan Opera of New York, for instance, dominate the classical music airwaves. At a time when the Arts Council grant has been cut in favour of subsidising the ownership of classic cars, I suggest to the noble Lord the Minister that the profound and productive relationship between the subsidised performing arts and the commercial broadcasting industry would justify the allocation of a small percentage of that industry's payments to the Government to make up for the acute shortfall of current funding for the arts, perhaps on a matched basis with the broadcasters. To win that modest but logical concession from the Treasury would demonstrate that there was real merit in having broadcasting and the arts fall under the same department.
Finally, I should like to address the relaxation of ownership rules, both on a cross-media basis and to allow, in some cases, further consolidation within the individual sectors. I vigorously support the noble Lord the Minister in his argument that larger and financially stronger media groups are needed in this country to exploit the opportunities opening up, to serve their customers and to expand their employment and profitability. That is one reason for allowing the principle of cross-ownership of electronic and printed media, and we can return at
536
Committee stage to debating whether every detailed clause of the Bill is yet perfectly honed to provide equal treatment to all the different industries.
But another reason for this proposed relaxation is that in many of the different sectors, printed and electronic alike, the major companies have established a level of market share—in that market—at, or close to, or even above, the limit of fair competition. Cross-media expansion provides the alternative opportunity for new growth and the productive interaction between previously separated sectors.
There remain, however, overwhelming arguments for preventing the concentration of power within specific, discrete, markets, whether for rights, subscribers or advertisers. I therefore join wholeheartedly with my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lord Howell in advocating the rigorous application of competition policy to encryption and subscription systems for satellite and digital and terrestrial broadcasting and hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give your Lordships' House the unequivocal reassurance that it is seeking.
Furthermore, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister can provide both clarification and reassurance that nothing in the Bill overrides the normal workings of the Fair Trading Act and the OFT's regulation of competition issues. Currently the three major ITV groups control, whether through licence ownership or the management of airtime sales contracts, close to 25 per cent. each of total television advertising revenue. Indeed, at the time of the last consolidation within ITV, two years ago, each of those groups gave undertakings to the OFT—lasting at least until 1999—that they would not increase their interests significantly beyond their present level without the OFT's agreement.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord the Minister can confirm, particularly in the light of the DTI's participation in the preparation of the Bill, that the Government will hold these companies to their undertakings and apply normal competition policies in respect of concentration in television advertising. If that is the case, while it may be a few years before the major ITV groups can take full advantage of the audience share limits proposed in the Bill—since the BBC's position, inter alia, substantially changes the relationship between audience and advertising share—we can be assured of a competitive and healthy market for major advertisers. If, on the other hand, the Government see the Bill's limits as overriding or pre-empting the OFT's judgments, your Lordships' House may feel that an appropriate amendment would be justified to prevent undue concentration of market power.
I hope, however, that this will not be the case and your Lordships' attention at Committee stage can focus on establishing the vital long-term framework for thriving, competitive broadcasting and media industries in these fast-changing times.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, before I begin, I cannot resist a comment on something my noble friend Lord

537
Pearson of Rannoch said. He sees the issues of race, gender and class as being subversive and, if I understand him correctly, a threat to his culture.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will give way since she has been good enough to mention something that I said. I certainly do not see the issues of race, gender and class as being necessarily subversive of our culture and I have the greatest respect for everyone of another race, including my noble friend. It is just the way these issues have been used in our education system that has been so damaging to our culture.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am sure that we are all the clearer for that. These issues are of great importance to some of us. As regards class, I am sure that there are many other noble Lords in this Chamber who are better qualified to comment on it. I only know that class is not something that one is born with: either one has it or one does not.
Perhaps I may declare an interest before I start. I am a non-executive director of Meridian Broadcasting, which is a regional television station, and I am also non-executive chairman of an independent local radio station. A great deal has been said today about regional television and most of it, I am pleased to say, has been complimentary. Therefore it is not my intention to speak fulsomely about regional television because I believe that we all understand the value of it.
Everyone knows that commercial television has a bottom line called responsibility to shareholders. I would like to give noble Lords some brief examples of what Meridian does in terms of supporting the local community and some of the issues which are of concern in the local community. I was very pleased last year to launch a booklet on racial harassment. It is extremely well produced, it is simple and easy to use. If any noble Lords are thinking of producing a booklet on a major issue and it needs to be translated into several languages, I commend to noble Lords this booklet as an example of how to do it. The languages are all together in one booklet, including English, and that helps a great deal because we know these days that people speak English and other languages arid sometimes they need both to make sense of what they need to know.
The first print run ran out long since and we are now into a second print run. There was a rather wonderful letter from the Commission for Racial Equality and I cannot resist reading it to noble Lords. It says:
"This initiative represents the best in public service broadcasting and is entirely in keeping with the Commission's own mission statement which stresses creation of a just society free from racial harassment and violence".
I make no apology for taking time to read that because, as noble Lords know, this issue is one of the closest to my heart.
There is a community liaison unit as well at Meridian which has three officers whose job it is to keep in touch with the local community and to act as a bridge on issues which are of concern. There is the Meridian Broadcasting Trust. There was also a trust when it was TVS. That trust was dependent on the telethon and with the demise of the telethon it was unable to survive in
538
the same form. The trust now takes different kinds of themes to highlight each year. They are called the "Spotlight" programmes. If noble Lords arc in the Meridian area I commend these programmes to them.
The first was a deaf awareness programme. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, was one of those who took part in it. It was called "The Sound Barrier". It was extremely successful. It was followed by fact sheets, booklets etc. which were very well received. The second programme was for the blind and sight impaired and it was called "Seeing Things Differently". Again, that programme was supported by fact sheets and various booklets. The third programme related to carers and took place last year. The fourth one planned for this year is called "Independent Living", which follows naturally from the programme called "Carers".
It is important to see these things in the context of the service that the regional television stations provide. There are other companies apart from Meridian which have initiatives that are worthy of a quick mention. I am not familiar with the details, but I know that Granada's "Challenge" programme netted about £6.5 million in investment in the north-west. That is very creditable because it is an area greatly in need of investment. Carlton has supported educational initiatives all around London. Yorkshire, Tyne Tees and Grampian take great pride in contributing to the regional culture and in trying to produce programmes reflecting the life of their own areas. Grampian has also helped in the resurgence of Gaelic as a spoken language.
That brings me to something which one cannot avoid at this moment; namely, the thorny issue of Channel 4 and the levy it has to pay to Channel 3. We have heard a great deal about Channel 4 being a public service broadcaster and BBC1 and 2 also being public service broadcasters. All the terrestrial channels are public service broadcasters. Channel 3 is a public service broadcaster. If one reads all the regulations that apply one finds that they are extremely stringent and the companies have to comply with whatever they have promised to do in their licence.
All of these channels are public service broadcasters. Channel 4, on the contrary—and I speak now as a viewer and not as a director of Meridian—provides us with a great number of American programmes and a great number of repeats, probably more than any other television channel. Noble Lords often complain about the dubious content of many of its programmes. Suddenly today Channel 4 has been elevated to something quite amazing; namely, that it is the best channel and it provides public service programmes. It is not Channel 4 which has received the most awards but Channel 3. Channel 3 is viewed more than any other terrestrial channel in this country.
On top of that, Channel 3 pays corporation tax, as noble Lords would expect, and a very heavy levy to the Treasury. Channel 4 does not pay a levy to the Treasury and does not have shareholders to placate. It is very important to remember that when we are talking about the relevant importance of these two channels. Channel 3 has calculated that it has lost £258 million in revenue since Channel 4 came on stream.

539
If the £50 million is not going to be paid to Channel 3, it will have to come from somewhere. Channel 3 will have to cut down and what will be cut will be what is expendable, which will include new programmes and community initiatives, and we do not want to see that. A level playing field will not be achieved by changing any single component in this complex formula. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that the entire issue is going to be looked at in due course because, as other noble Lords have said, that is the only way forward. If we are to compete in the world market we need to have everything set out very carefully in this Act. It is worth remembering that there is indeed one service which is not a public service broadcaster and that is Sky. That should not be forgotten.
I have a little to say about radio because I am closely involved in local independent radio. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for mentioning Star FM. I know that his daughter enjoyed being with us and we enjoyed having her. I heard my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith give as a reason for not having single local radio stations the fact that we had to compete with 24 local radio stations. That is not exactly correct. In different core areas one can receive up to 24 local radio stations. It is a very crowded area. I am talking about Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead. That one can receive these stations does not mean that it is not a core area for Star FM, which is protected. The Radio Authority sees to it that every radio station has a core area, but one cannot control the broadcast bands in such a way as to ensure that they do not move a few yards this way or a few yards that way.
Many points have been raised in this debate, including the question of ownership. I know that the Radio Authority would like to have the power to issue a code on that very difficult issue, mainly because the situation is likely to lead to litigation and long disputes. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider this as a matter of priority. The Radio Authority already has code-making powers in relation to the regulation of programming and advertising, so it would not be out of place for it to be able to issue a code on this matter. Perhaps in due course my noble friend will give us such an assurance. If not, I hope that other noble Lords will feel that it is worth supporting an amendment to that effect.
I have received a briefing note from a local newspaper organisation saying that local newspapers are frightened that national newspapers might buy up local radio stations. Independent local radio stations would not like to be owned by either local or national newspapers. We exist because there is diversity, and there would be no guarantee of diversity if we were owned by newspapers.
Finally, I refer to community radio. The idea that we should all have community radio sounds tremendously good, but I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention an amendment which the Community Radio Association would like to be brought forward. It defines community radio as:
540
"a service operated in a defined locality for the social and cultural benefit of the community, or a particular section of the community. by a non-profit distributing company or society whose membership is drawn from that locality or interest group".
Apart from the words "non-profit distributing company", that definition applies exactly to independent local radio. The CRA has described us. We see ourselves as community radio and as part of our local community. Indeed, that is part of our performance promise. We cannot depart from that.
Perhaps I may make another point for clarification. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that if two radio stations were owned by the same company they would probably be more likely to promise diversity than would two local radio stations operating separately in one area. I do not think that my noble friend can be familiar with the performance promise. He must not know how strictly the Radio Authority controls what each radio station may or may not provide in its locality.
I see that I have taken up a great deal of your Lordships' time. I hope that the House will consider local independent radio to be worthy of protection and allow it to have as good a future as in other countries.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am sorry to take issue so swiftly with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, but I do not think that the debate about Channel 4 has anything to do with whether it is the best channel, whether it is better than Channel 3 or the question of its relationship to the BBC. The reason that Channel 4 has been mentioned so often this evening, and in particular the fact that its present funding formula is out of date, is quite different. Many noble Lords referred to that funding formula. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, thought that it was unfair, unnecessary and totally out of date. I entirely agree. I shall not worry your Lordships by repeating their extremely cogent arguments on the subject, but perhaps I may add a third reason why I think that the formula should be terminated as soon as possible.
I refer to what Channel 4 might have done with the money if it had not had to contribute to ITV. Its own prediction is quite formidable—and it really does not matter whether this is exactly what Channel 4 would do in any given year. With the £57 million that Channel 4 paid to ITV last time round—that is, about a year ago—it would have been able to make 12 new films, four new drama series, three new comedy series, three new documentary series and about four major broadcasts from, say, Glyndebourne or the Royal Ballet or of any of this country's other subsidised art forms. I accept, of course, that Glyndebourne has never looked for a subsidy.
That list is pretty formidable, especially in the context of the film industry in this country which has not had much support over the past two or three decades. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, took me to task in our debate last week on the BBC Charter in which I praised the orchestras of the BBC but did not mention what it did for film. What Channel 4 has done for film is formidably useful to a film industry which receives very

541
little support from elsewhere. When we think of all the things that Channel 4 might have done with that money, that is a powerful additional reason for altering or preferably cancelling the present system.
I refer again to broadcasts from, say, Glyndebourne, the Royal Ballet or English National Opera. I took a lot of notice of what the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said about subsidies. Every time a major broadcaster picks up the work of something that has been subsidised by the Arts Council, the audience expands to such a point that the subsidy, from having been very heavy, suddenly becomes worth while. It becomes a few pounds per member of the audience instead of many thousands. Increasing an audience by a quarter of a million people, half a million people or even a million people simply by broadcasting a performance must he of value to the Arts Council, particularly given its pathetic and unnecessary recent cuts. If that could happen as a result of Channel 4 not having to give ITV that £57 million, the sooner that system stops, the better.
After all, we are talking about public broadcasting. Although it is a little unfair to take issue with a noble Lord who is not in his place, I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Chalfont because I do not agree that the phrase "public service broadcasting" is a soundbite which has become an unnecessary cliché I think that there is a better definition of the phrase than that given by my noble friend. I believe that it is not a matter of where the funding comes from initially; it is a question of what the objectives of that broadcasting organisation are. To me, a public service broadcasting organisation has as its primary aim and first priority the quality of the service that it provides for the public. It was the terror that the BBC might be diverted from such priorities that frightened everybody so much over the past few years which was, I believe, one of the reasons why your Lordships so welcomed the BBC's new Charter which we discussed last week.
If that definition of public service broadcasting is right, I believe that what Channel 4 might do if released from its burden is a serious argument for the Minister looking again at the formula and recommending to his right honourable and honourable friends in another place that the formula should not merely be altered but abolished.
8.18 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as many of your Lordships will be aware, I lean towards being a technophile rather than a technophobe. As such, I can do no other than welcome the Bill most warmly. I have no wish to get bogged down in any exposition of the technology involved. My noble friend the Minister carried out that responsibility most admirably.
However, I should like to make one general point about the technology. The consultation paper Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting—I cannot let this moment pass without commending my noble friend's department for the clarity and succinctness of the document—commented:
"The technology is being developed now. To exploit it to the full will require vision, imagination and significant investment".
542
In that sense the Bill affords us the opportunity to lead the world in digital technology. As we wrestle with the terminology of multiplex and the like in the coming weeks we will need generous helpings of that vision and imagination to ensure that this opportunity can he grasped.
I have common cause with the words that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, used last week when he remarked:
"Our aim should be to set out a framework which encourages growth in what is one of our most dynamic arid rapidly changing technological activities".—[Official Report, 9/1/96: col. 23.]
In effect, we are not only licensing for the broadcast of digital terrestrial services; we are also licensing for the development of a specific technology that could and should have substantial benefits across a very broad spectrum of our social and economic fabric—in our manufacturing and communications industries, in education, in trade, and so on.
I have no doubt that the Bill's provisions with respect to cross-media ownership and the like are something to which we will be devoting a great deal of time in the coming weeks. For myself, I am somewhat ambivalent. I am suspicious of formulae in this area that create artificial or distorted markets. Against this, I hope that I am not too much of a technophile that I cannot recognise some of the dangers inherent in the immense power that the broadcast media have to influence their audience, dangers that carry much greater risk if the power is invested in a single entity. I look forward to hearing in Committee the perspectives of those of your Lordships better versed in the matter than I.
There is a consensus that the merging of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission into the Broadcasting Standards Commission is welcome. I concur with that. So far as the BSC's functions are concerned, it is of course inevitable that some of the content of our debate on the BBC has spilled over into today's proceedings. It is also the case that a number of important issues were raised last week which, while they have a particular relevance to the BBC, are no less important to the rest of the broadcast media.
The one thing that the BSC will most assuredly be once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament is a central regulatory authority. While acceding to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, particularly in so far as they relate to the broadcast media's creative output, I find myself as attracted to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, particularly as regards the factual element. Like him, I believe that,
"there are serious defects in the section which deals with the new Broadcasting Standards Commission, especially as regards complaints about fairness and impartiality".—[Official Report, 9/1/96; col. 54.]
I cannot say that I am at all surprised that there is no mention of impartiality in Part IV of the Bill. It is at best an ephemeral beast. Nor would I seek to dispute the characterisation of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that impartiality is,
"in the eyes of different beholders".—[Official Report, 9/1/96; col. 46.]

543
When one adds the simple truth that, by its very nature, the factual material with which the broadcast media are required to work is partial one begins to see the paradox with which we are faced.
My own belief is that any attempt to, as it were, "front-end load" the concept of impartiality onto the face of legislation would be to veer dangerously close to irresponsibility. That, if I may say so, is barking up the wrong tree. I would therefore be extremely chary of amendments that sought to impose rules, guidelines or codification in this regard. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right in saying that in this sense what is required is responsible behaviour from the broadcasters themselves. How, therefore, are we to achieve that belief and trust in the impartiality of our media that is so desperately needed and required?
Many of your Lordships in our debate on the BBC made reference to the principle of accountability—accountability of the broadcaster to its consumer and paymaster. Of course, that is extremely important. Among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pursued that thread with vigour today. However, I would like to develop the logic of it a little further.
As a nation we have to be honest and mature enough to recognise and admit that the media—all the media—operate both within and without our parliamentary process. As such—and here I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—they are as much servants of the public as Parliament or the Civil Service, with all the ramifications that that has for democratic accountability. In our information age, it is simply not enough that broadcasters protest their innocence as regards any transmission of bias or distortion, however accurate or well-meaning such protestations may be. We have to think more laterally than that. In common with those in public service, the actuality of fairness and propriety must be buttressed by tangible substance that the nation—both the people and Parliament—can see.
I therefore favour the principle of the BSC being invested with a mechanism against which the public can adequately and properly measure the fair or impartial performance of broadcasters both corporately and individually and against which their performance can be seen to be transparent and open to scrutiny. My hope is that in Committee I shall be able to introduce amendments to achieve that effect.
I have already suggested that the Bill represents an opportunity to give a fillip to the nation's industry, education, economy and so on. The immense benefits that this technology can bring to so many areas of our lives, while not without problems of execution, are tantalisingly close. I conclude by saying that, above all else, the Bill represents a unique opportunity to give a fillip to our democracy, an opportunity to which I feel that we—the corporate "we", including ourselves in Parliament, the people and especially the media—should attach the greatest priority.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest in that I am deputy chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill on her excellent maiden speech and on the thoughtful contribution that she has made. She is proving to he an asset not only to the Labour Benches but to the House as a whole.
In thinking about the speeches that have been made today I am bound to conclude that politicians—we in this House must call ourselves politicians like Members of another place—have a viewing pattern that is different from the rest of the population. I suspect that we are more avid consumers of news, current affairs, documentaries and so on. To that extent, our perceptions are a little askew.
The issue with which we have been wrestling throughout the debate has been the problem of arriving at the right balance between public service broadcasting, in particular not-for-profit public service broadcasting, and the operation of market forces. That runs through virtually all parts of the Bill. Whereas none of us would argue that market forces alone should determine the future of television and radio into the next century, all of us are aware that the days when the BBC had a monopoly and there was no profit in it are long gone. We are seeking to arrive at the right balance.
It is difficult for us to come to terms with the fact that Rupert Murdoch has shown enormous entrepreneurial skill in getting into such a strong position. In a sense, he is still on the march as regards the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 managements and we are trying to deal with the consequences as regards sport. Whatever one may say about Rupert Murdoch, he has been most skilful in his entrepreneurial approach and in taking a risk with his satellite transmissions, which many people in the business did not think would be successful. We have the difficulty of establishing an effective future for public service broadcasting while allowing for diversity in our media and the forces of competition.
I believe that the advent of digital transmission represents an exciting but difficult opportunity. I understand that the BBC is on the way to developing digital processing for the editing of transmissions which will then go out on analogue.
Of course, for consumers of television, a more interesting prospect is that of having more channels, better quality pictures and radio reception and the opportunity to use digital in such a way that it becomes a more localised service with local options and variations.
A drawback which I am not sure has been mentioned very much today is that for consumers it is extremely expensive to buy a radio set which will take digital. It is likely that in the initial stages it will also be expensive to buy television sets which are wider in their screen shape in order to receive digital effectively. There is also the cost of the black boxes. I very much hope that the development of technology will be such that the cost of equipping ourselves with digital will fall to a level that

545
is not much more than the present cost of equipment. But at the moment the cost must be seen as something of a deterrent.
I support totally the view of the terrestrial channels, especially the BBC, that it is important that there should he open access for all public service broadcasting through whatever digital system is developed. Otherwise, we shall have quasi-monopoly positions which will undermine the concept of public service broadcasting and, in relation to the BBC, it will undermine the concept of a compulsory licence fee. Unless there is universal access, the willingness of people to pay the licence fee—and I totally support the fact that there should be one—will be weakened.
In that context, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I have been told that Rupert Murdoch has bought all the remaining channels on the Astra satellite, including a number that are not being used, in order to prevent the BBC and perhaps the ITV companies from gaining access to it. I am not sure that I am right about that, but that has been put to me with a certain amount of conviction.
I turn to the question of sport which has been covered so ably by my noble friend Lord Howell who has outlined very clearly the difficulties for most of the population who wish to watch sport. I enjoy watching sport. It would be a very sad day indeed if, for example, test matches, the cup final and other leading football matches, rugby union internationals and the Olympic Games were no longer to be shown on terrestrial television.
I understand that Rupert Murdoch has been very skilful in persuading people to subscribe to BSkyB, but it will be a sad day if something which has become almost within our national television coverage were to be no longer available to ordinary people. I am sure that many people in the country will look to Parliament to safeguard their right to watch sport. I understand the difficulties and I realise that there is a difference between designated sporting events for the most significant national coverage and giving universal access to TV highlights and full radio commentaries; but I hope that we can make some progress in that regard, otherwise it will be a sad day for many people in this country.
I turn now to the suggested merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Because of my position on the Broadcasting Standards Council, I do not wish to say more than a few words about that. I speak personally but I certainly welcome the merger. I believe that the Broadcasting Standards Council has done much better than many of its critics suggested but we were ably led by Colin Shaw, our director—who, alas, will be retiring in the near future—and by our present chairman, Lady Howe.
I should like to say a few words about the suggestion that the new body should deal with questions of impartiality; and by that I believe we mean political impartiality. There is a world of difference between dealing with complaints about unfairness and breaches of privacy when an individual is featured in a television
546
programme, which I believe is the proper responsibility of the new body which is to succeed the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and dealing with the hot issue of political impartiality. I speak entirely personally but I should not wish the new body to he asked to become embroiled in that question. It would weaken the ability of the new body to deal with the other issues which are important. Moreover, it would require more resources. I am not sure that that is the best way to deal with such a hot issue. How on earth can we say whether there is too much Labour Party, Tory Party or Liberal Democrat Party bias on the "Today" programme or on "Newsnight"? That is a minefield and I should like the new body to be clear of it. Of course, if Parliament asks us to do that, we shall do so. But I advise noble Lords that that is not the best way forward.
Before I conclude, I should like to make two other points. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ashley covered one of them. The advent of modern technology and digital technology will enable television programmes to be made so that they are more friendly to people who are hard of hearing or who have impaired sight. I was extremely impressed when I had that explained to me by the BBC. It will be possible for people who are hard of hearing to use digital technology so that they can specify sub-titles which other people do not have to watch. It is all a matter of which buttons one presses. That represents an enormous technical opportunity: to make the sub-titling universal across all television programmes. Similarly, other developments can take place for people who have impaired sight. I welcome the opportunity that that will give to people.
Finally, I do not like to use too often the jargon expression "level playing field". I believe that that should be confined to descriptions of sports fields. However, it is important that we should move towards a level playing field as regards the financing of commercial television in the sense that Channel 4 has to make a contribution to the ITV companies; the ITV companies have had to bid for their licences; and satellite television does not have to do any of that. There is there a difficulty and an inconsistency. I suspect that there is nothing much that can be done in the immediate future about Channel 4's complaint in that the other ITV companies took account of Channel 4 income when they made their bids. But that looks increasingly like an anomaly which will have to be rectified in the fullness of time.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to take part in a debate on the Second Reading of a major Bill like the Broadcasting Bill. It has been extremely instructive to me and no doubt to many other noble Lords as regards the enormous scale of the communication systems which we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and many others who have spoken have referred to one particular, as I think he calls himself, service provider; namely, Mr. Murdoch. He seems to have revolutionised major aspects of television in this country in connection with satellite television and so on. Many of the comments

547
made about Mr. Murdoch have been in relation to the transmission of sporting programmes. I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson quoted some figures which were reasonably accurate. They demonstrated the fact that only 1 per cent. of the sporting material transmitted by Mr. Murdoch would be shown on normal terrestrial television. Having seen some of the sports programmes on satellite television, I must tell your Lordships that I reach for the "off" button fairly quickly. There is truck racing. Sumo wrestling can be quite interesting, but many of the programmes send me straight to sleep.
However, in the course of today's debate, although I have great sympathy for the terrestrial broadcasters, I have been reminded of a time about 20 years ago when England were playing cricket in Australia. After the close of play one day, the England captain happened to be walking through the stands and he spoke to one of the maintenance men. This was either at the Sydney or the Melbourne cricket ground. They began to talk. The England captain discovered that the man who was clearing up the beer cans and generally sweeping up was paid more than the captain of England was receiving as his match fee and overall earnings. After that a complete revolution in the game was brought about not by Mr. Murdoch but by one of his bitter rivals—Mr. Packer. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, may be disappointed about the results last week when I understand that matters did not go entirely England's way. But, as a result of that, we had an interesting insight into the game.
Thanks to Mr. Packer's rebel cricket tour, the financial stakes were raised and a good bit went to the players, for good or ill. I confess a particular interest as one of your Lordships' leading couch potatoes. For 51 weeks in the year I can be seen sitting before a television set muttering "They're not fit" while reaching for some liquid beverage. I am therefore a consumer as far as much of what has been discussed this afternoon is concerned.
I should like to raise one arcane point. It relates to the Broadcasting Act 1990 and what are referred to in Section 175 as "statutory licences". I understand that, when that Act was proceeding through your Lordships' House and another place, the intention was to provide in that section—which made further reference to the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988—measures to assist new broadcasters and radio stations such as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned earlier to thrive and to get under way reasonably quickly. There was also a relaxation of the quantity restrictions on what was termed needle time. Needle time related to records that some of us remember from our youth. It referred to the length of time during which recorded music and material, for which a payment would be made by the broadcaster to the owners of the copyright, could be played on radio stations.
It was difficult in 1990, as it is today, to define "broadcaster". Since the passage of the 1990 Act, a new type of broadcaster, or service provider, has emerged. Two particular effects have resulted from that. One is the multi-channel cable network, which can provide
548
through one coaxial cable anything up to 120 different channels carrying very high quality music or speech. The quality of this material in transmission is good enough for recording on to blank tapes. However, that particular problem would not necessarily be applicable to the Bill, let alone as we have it tonight.
The second effect relates to what is called "muzak", which we hear in the background in hotels and very often in retail stores and enormous do-it-yourself warehouses. One hears background music, occasionally interspersed with announcements. I understand that this particular type of transmission is a marketing aid. For my part, I am not totally lured by the music as I go between the shelves, but I am advised that certain types of background music are considered to he a valuable marketing aid in large retail and wholesale areas.
It is the service provider of this particular form of sound, be it music or announcements, who in many cases is the beneficiary of the licensing provisions of Section 175 of the 1990 Act. The provisions of that Act do not give reasonable protection, as might have been seen then, to the copyright material, which in many cases is music. It is clear that that section was intended to assist the new, sometimes small, fledgling broadcasting stations. That did not seem to be a major problem to the owners of the copyright material. But the new breed of service provider which has mushroomed intensely in the past five or six years is able to use the provisions of Section 175 to negate the normal pattern of copyright protection mentioned in the section. It is pretty large, but I think that the point will he clear to the Minister with his enormous knowledge.
I hope that this problem will he solved by examining statutory licensing and this section of the 1990 Act, as it applies, I believe, to Part III of the Bill before us tonight. Perhaps I may cast that delicate fly over my noble friend to let him know that this matter may be raised at a later stage.
I conclude by congratulating him on his enormous stamina. He has sat in the Chamber throughout this evening. I read in a very reasonable article, which perhaps was not too flattering, that my noble friend had engaged in a sporting activity over the Christmas holidays. He had been skating and did not fall through the ice of Derwent Water but survived. That is a lot more than can be said of my noble friend Lord Astor and myself, who were in the Alps.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I intend to refer only to the problems that face Teletext, not only now but well into the next century. I wrote to the noble Lord's predecessor and the former Secretary of State on the subject of Teletext on ITV and Channel 4. The ability to modernise and update this popular service, which has over 17 million viewers a week, is severely constrained by its lack of broadcasting capacity. I am often surprised by how many people believe that Teletext is part of ITV rather than an independent licensee. It has won its franchise along with the rest and contributes £8.2 million to the Exchequer every year.

549
Teletext's existing technology was invented in the 1970s and has barely changed since. It broadcasts its pages to more than half the homes in the country by the use of vertical blanking intervals, or VBI lines. Teletext Limited currently has 7½ lines on ITV and the same number of Channel 4. It is a public service that is regulated by the ITC. The BBC's service, known as Ceefax, has 12 lines for each channel. Teletext routinely exceeds the number of pages that it is obliged to broadcast under the terms of its licence but wishes to present its viewers with additional information services and to improve the look of its overall service by the use of digital technology. It believes that such a service may encourage people to take up the new digital technology. This was recognised in the Government's White Paper on digital broadcasting. The White Paper said that a super-Teletext service could increase the appeal of digital receivers to the consumer. Teletext has high aspirations for digital broadcasting.
However, under the Government's proposals for digital terrestrial television it is proposed that Teletext Limited should be allocated a guaranteed place capacity, equivalent to that employed in its existing analogue service, in order to simulcast its service via the new digital transmission medium. Teletext wants to publish photographs and offer a far speedier service as well as improve its general presentation. That will be necessary if it is to remain competitive into the next century. It is the original information on demand service but now faces potential competition from emerging media, such as on-line services and the Internet. These new media have a far more up-to-date look than Teletext.
Teletext already has more viewers than its rivals. It brings us the latest information, with up to 50,000 updates a day. Not only does it provide news, sport and financial information, as well as entertainment magazines; is also a major player in the holiday industry. It is estimated that approximately 20 per cent. of holidays are booked on the basis of information on Teletext. It is also interactive in that it encourages viewers to take part in the service. It has many other features too numerous to mention here.
Teletext has asked the Secretary of state for its guaranteed capacity to be increased to 10 per cent. of the multiplex frequency in order to develop an enhanced digital service. We know that BBC, ITV, Channel 4—and in the future Channel 5—have all had their guaranteed allocations increased. They will be able to offer new services along with their existing simulcasted services. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the request as I believe it should be able to compete on a level footing with the other public service broadcasters whose capacity is increased by the Bill.
8.50 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to give a warm welcome to this Bill. It establishes effective cross-media ownership rules while also ensuring national and regional competition, as well as protecting regional programming. It does not make sense to try totally to separate sections of the media. Old boundaries,
550
because of new technology, arc rapidly disappearing. One can now read a newspaper on a screen or have a video sent down a telephone line.
I believe the Government are quite right to have strict safeguards to prevent unacceptable concentrations of control or ownership, whether it he national or regional. This Bill will make a significant difference to the broadcasting industry. For too long governments have regarded it as a sort of cottage industry to he kept small and exclusive. It is much more important than that. It is a major industry in this country and it deserves to be treated as such. It is an industry that will have to compete with the vast European companies, and that means being able to achieve a certain size and also a certain profitability.
It must be right that ITV companies should he able to take a part of cable and satellite services. In fact, Granada Television has already announced the launch of eight channels later this year. I do not believe that this means that television is necessarily going down market, or indeed losing regional programming. The ITC, through the licence system, is well placed and will have additional powers under the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. One of the advantages of the proposals of the Bill is that broadcasters will be able to offer the consumer, whether a viewer or a listener, a wider choice.
In this country we have excellent television companies and a strong domestic production base but our television sector is vastly over-regulated. How can we expect British television companies to invest in production, build up, their libraries, and to compete internationally if they are constrained by out of date legislation? I strongly support deregulation not of television's content but of the rules governing ownership. Deregulation has strengthened other sectors of the economy and it can do the same for television. We must seek to ensure that this Bill does deregulate. A government pledged to deregulation is rather like an alcoholic pledged to give up the bottle—it always pays to keep an eye on the drinks cupboard.
I am slightly concerned, therefore, to see in the Bill a raft of regulations for the ownership of digital terrestrial services, far in excess of anything that governs cable and satellite services. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will provide a convincing explanation of these rules at Committee stage. But if we are trying to enhance competition and improve deregulation, we should think very carefully before adding to the rules and regulations currently governing the television industry. The increase in the number of channels that digital, cable and satellite will make possible will considerably enhance choice and lessen the need for regulation. We should try to ensure that it is not necessary for us, in another three or four years time, to debate yet another broadcasting Bill scrapping restrictions put in place by the current one.
There are two areas of difficulty that must be addressed. The first is that for the first time we are proposing the linking under ownership rules of the unregulated sector, newspapers, with the regulated sector, television and radio. I do not see this necessarily

551
as a problem. There is a clear difference between the two sectors, but I believe we must be on our guard not to over-extend regulation. However, although the Bill includes the ownership of newspapers, it does not include the ownership of magazines, or some of the newer products like inter-active multi-media. I do not see how in the future these can be excluded if we are to include newspapers.
The area of perhaps greater concern is the boundary between Oftel and the ITC. There is no doubt that in the past there has been confusion between the roles of the two, not only in industry but also in government.
I am not sure that the Government have got the split of responsibilities right between the two departments, the Department of National Heritage and the DTI. No department ever likes giving up responsibility to another, and turf wars are fought with a passion never normally seen in Whitehall.
The DTI yesterday finally published its proposals on conditional access and encryption for digital television. Although the proposals for digital look sensible, they are only applicable for digital satellite, cable and terrestrial services, none of which we currently have. They are not applicable for analogue, which is here, and is where the proposals need to be applied. This means that conditional access for current satellite broadcasters is ignored. It is not in the Bill, nor in the DTI proposals. I believe this is wrong. I agree very much with what the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said on the subject.
The ITC wanted to be given the responsibility. It already has the power in relation to its own licensees. The Government have chosen instead Oftel. I accept and understand their reasoning. However, it is not acceptable, if as a result Oftel then weakens the regulations which were proposed to ensure a fair market. That is what has happened.
I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that unless the Government seriously consider proposals to include analogue, satellite and cable services in the Bill, this House will have to consider amendments to the Bill at Committee stage, which will give the power needed either to the ITC, or Oftel to ensure reasonable access for analogue services. I would have to support those amendments.
I turn to a happier part of the Bill and give a welcome to some important changes. The first are the changes proposed for independent national radio. Currently a national licensee, such as Classic FM, would have at the end of its licence to go through a competitive tendering exercise, with no concession as to the quality of service that has been provided over the licence period. The Government have quite rightly listened and proposed to put the national licences on a similar basis as local radio. The three licensees will be able to roll forward their licences for a further period of eight years on condition that they take up their allocated digital slot. That is to he welcomed.
The second bit of good news is the merger between the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The new body
552
will need to be effective and have sufficient power to represent and protect the public. It will need to ensure that broadcasters, and that includes the BBC, behave in a way that does not unjustly or unfairly infringe on people's privacy. Most importantly, it will have to maintain and implement the code which is to he drawn up by the new body—the Broadcasting Standards Commission—on taste and decency, and on the portrayal of violence.
The Bill will encourage investment in digital and investment in multiplex services, and guarantee access to them. The BBC is going to be, as it were, gifted a multiplex for its services; and the Government have announced that the sale of the transmission business of the BBC will help pay for the introduction of its digital service. I have one question to ask my noble friend the Minister. Will it be possible to also use the moneys raised to subsidise the installation of set top boxes, or could these be funded by the BBC's own licence fee? This is an important question because the independent companies are going to have to pay for this themselves. Obviously we must make sure that there is fair competition.
I have spoken recently on the complex subject of Channel 4 funding and on sport so I do not intend to say much this evening on those two subjects. I shall await the Committee stage. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that as much as I respect him I profoundly disagree with what he had to say on sport. I believe that he has correctly identified some of the problems but in doing so has proposed totally the wrong conclusions to put them right. We have to be careful as regards interfering with the rights of sport. It is a business and an industry and the public have certain rights. I believe that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, go far too far and are extremely dangerous for sport and the public, but no doubt we will debate that matter at the Committee stage and throughout the Bill.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend—if I may describe him as such—for allowing me to intervene. Does he realise that millions of householders—about 40 million people—will be deprived of access to live sport by monopolies unless we protect their interests? I am sure that the noble Viscount would not want to deprive those millions of people of access to sport on television.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, nor would I wish to deprive sport of the very large revenues which the sale of broadcasting rights have brought to the game. I gave the noble Lord one example in the debate last week when he mentioned the Ryder Cup. We would never have seen the whole of the Ryder Cup if it had been on BBC. It was broadcast on satellite television. I accept that lots of people could not see it, but that is the kind of decision that sporting authorities must make. It is a subject that we shall no doubt discuss in greater detail, and I look forward to debating it with the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Bill. However, I hope that the Government will not lose sight of the longer-term goal of a simpler system for regulating the media market. That was proposed in the White Paper

553
published last year, in which I played a small part. Although the media industry could not agree on the basis of media measurement, there was agreement that it was the right direction in which to move.
I believe that it is vital that we move to a simple, flexible and coherent system of regulation. We should not try, as was done in the past, to regulate each piece of the jigsaw separately. What happens in this fast-changing world is that those with new technology come along and steal a march on the rest as existing operators cannot, by law, compete. What we must have in this country is open competition subject to fair trading and monopoly provisions.
I believe that the Bill goes a very long way to achieving that goal, and I hope that during its passage your Lordships will consider amendments to improve it.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as the last speaker from the Back Benches I have the very pleasant task of being brief. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I shall not speak on Channel 4 nor on S4C although when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recount the results of the survey on S4C and how watching television encouraged people to learn the language I thought what a happy Principality it is. In England we say that people should switch off the television so that children can learn the language whereas in Wales they switch the television on so that children can learn the language.
I want to say something about independent local radio. Happily, much of what I wanted to say has been said much better by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so I shall only make a few additional remarks. It is true that in the Bill the Government are treating radio very differently from television. I do not understand the logic. As some noble Lords pointed out, we have very good independent local radio stations. My noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill said in her excellent maiden speech that most broadcasters, in both television and radio, have a tradition of public service. As a Londoner—someone has to stand up for the region—I am pleased that Capital Radio provides many public services. It runs the Help a London Child charity and provides flatshare and jobfinding services. Local radio companies such as Capital Radio should not be prevented from having two FM stations. If television companies or newspapers can own independent local radio stations why do we have to have a rule that independent local radio companies cannot have two FM stations? That point must be emphasised.
Secondly, in terms of digital audio broadcasting I do not understand why we are repeating the same structure as applies to television. The problems are very different. There is no need to set up an extra layer of multiplex authorities to supervise the system whereby a local radio station has to get together with partners and present a bouquet of services before it can have a multiplex licence. Why not leave it to the Radio Authority or run an auction for licences subject to conditions as to what bidders may offer?
554
There is a lack of consistency of logic between the radio and television aspects of the Bill. If the logic in relation to television is correct, as I believe it is—we want strong companies which can take on competition from other strong, well-funded companies—we also want radio to have an equal chance of fielding strong players. I do not believe that we should revert to a cottage industry logic for radio having just abandoned it for television.
I was very impressed by the point that my noble friend Lord Donoughue raised concerning sports broadcasting, which has just been mentioned in the debate between the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lord Howell. I shall propose a solution to the problem. It is merely a first attempt at a solution. No doubt the Government will hire distinguished management consultants and pay them £100 million to make it slightly better. I do not think that one could do better than what I am about to propose.
There are three players. We do not want the sporting authorities, be they the Lawn Tennis Association, the FA or whatever it might be, to lose any money that they receive from the bidding process. I do not believe that that competitive bidding process should he stopped. At the same time we want almost universal live broadcasting of certain sporting events throughout the year. However, the company which wins the auction should retain some residual advantage for having won the auction.
My proposal is as follows. The bidding should proceed and once the price has been decided the broadcasters who have lost the auction but still want to transmit the sport should pay half the price of the hid to the winner. Let us suppose that Sky pays £50 million to televise the FA Cup Final. I do not know what the amount is. Having won the bid, for £25 million it will allow ITV and the BBC simultaneously to broadcast the event live, but will retain all the residual rights—repeats, video recordings and all those matters. There is some value in the repeat rights. Therefore the winner of the auction has won a bundle of rights. We are "unbundling" them.
From the public welfare point of view we are anxious about the live broadcasting of certain sporting events. But there is a price. The BBC and ITV were bidding, so they have some reservation price. So payment may perhaps be equally split. The figure could be 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.; that is a matter of detail. Your £100 million consultant will sort that out. But the principle is simple. With such an auction one will have public broadcasting of important sporting events. The winner of the auction will gain the residual rights, and the sporting authority will not lose money. My proposal preserves competition. It preserves freedom, and it preserves the public service aspect of sports broadcasting.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, we are concluding a Second Reading debate about a very innovative industry. My noble friend Lord Desai has proposed an innovative idea. Whether it is acceptable is probably another matter.

555
The Minister set the tone for the debate in his opening address when he said that this was by no means a perfect Bill—I think that we all know that—and that amendments were needed. I hope that in saying that the Minister also accepted that amendments will not necessarily all come from the Minister's side, and that there will he quite a number, as has been made clear in the debate.
I was particularly pleased today that my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill made her maiden address. It is, if you like, my maiden address at this stage of the debate at the Dispatch Box. I was particularly pleased to join her company. Her maiden address, in my view, reflected strongly how much in touch with public opinion she is and how much her views reflect two feet on the ground. Our debate today was all the better for her contribution on this important subject.
The House should know that I have no direct interest to declare, although I was previously a member of the BBC General Advisory Council and later a member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. However, I wish to indicate that my husband is associated with a company which advises in the field of broadcasting.
During the debate there has been tremendous agreement on all sides of the House. That is encouraging at this stage of a Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, stated that it was a major industry. He is so right. In television we are talking about 40,000 people, plus a further 20,000, and those figures do not include radio or the wider media that we are considering.
We are also agreed that broadcasting is a major centre of our lives. Television and radio, more than many developments in this century, have had a profound effect on the nature of our society. We all have our nostalgic memories. One of mine is as a nine year-old, crammed into the living room of our two-up, two-down house in Lancashire with what seemed like half the street watching the Coronation on a little nine-inch Rediffusion black and white television screen. Only two or three houses in a street of about 50 had a television set. How times have changed. This morning I worked on my participation in this important debate on a lap-top computer with a colour screen the same size as that television set. We no longer ask each other whether we have a television or radio but, "What did you watch last night? What are your favourite programmes?". We assume that we all have access to radio and television. That, I suggest, is because of the public policy decisions taken by legislators when broadcasting first got off the ground. It made clear the crucial importance to our community of universal access.
I accept readily that nostalgia might be good for memories. But for broadcasting to maintain its pioneering role, and to continue to be that important information, education and entertainment provider that we have all come to expect, it is essential that we provide the right framework to serve the public interest well and at the same time encourage the necessary investment and competition. Those two—investment and competition—are not incompatible with the public interest.
556
As we have heard in this debate, digital broadcasting provides tremendous opportunities for diversity, increased choice and quality of reception. I for one will be delighted if it provides better reception on FM radio than at present. Much of the Bill is to be welcomed. It will gather general support across the Chamber. For example, the decision to leave open the date on which we switch fully from analogue to digital was taken by the Government, and we welcome it. They are right to have taken the decision to review the situation within five years or when there is more than a 50 per cent. take-up of digital services. The public response to digital is not known, nor is the take-up of the multiplexers. The ability and willingness of manufacturers to respond and what levels of investment they are prepared to put in are not known. There the Government may have an important role to fulfill. In any review of the switch from analogue to digital we would expect the public interest to come first. That would include the universal availability in the UK of reception of the services.
However, despite general acceptance of much of the Bill, there are many key concerns which we will pursue in Committee. Conditional access is one; a number of Members of the House have spoken on it. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was absolutely right in what he said, as were the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. The White Paper last August covered that and referred to the EC directive on television standards. I am aware of the press release from the DTI yesterday announcing that there would be two class licence amendments. I fully accept the apology which the Minister put forward for our not receiving the document on this side of the House. We totally accept that it was not intended. The Minister has been extremely co-operative and helpful in giving information and briefing us on the Bill. It derives from the EC directive of July last year.
However, the point was made a few minutes ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we are talking about the future covered by the DTI statement. He was absolutely correct: it will not rectify the problems that we have in regard to present television availability. The EC directive requires and facilitates consumers being able to receive all digital TV through one box. It also provides that manufacturers will he obliged to incorporate an open interface socket on all TVs larger than 42 centimetres. The Government's White Paper said that it would be expensive, unpopular with consumers and inefficient for each broadcaster to have his own encryption system. We agree. Yet there is nothing in the Bill to deal with that. It is a subject to which we shall return because it is central to universal access.
There are a number of issues affecting regional broadcasting which we will want to take up at Committee stage. As the Minister said, the coverage of the multiplexers will be from 60 per cent. to 90 per cent. With universal access we would want to see that improved. It cannot be done through the Bill but it can be done with encouragement when we see how the licences are taken up by the multiplexers.

557
Regional broadcasting and the ownership provisions in the Bill are of concern to a handful of small but significant companies in regional TV. The noble Earl. Lord Arran, is a West Country-man and I also come from the West Country—not originally but I do now. I too share some of his anxieties.
S4C in Wales has been mentioned and the change in its funding from the present 3.2 per cent. of advertising revenue to the set figure in 1997 plus an RPI increase. It is worrying and I know we shall discuss it at the Committee stage of the Bill.
After much debate in this House the Broadcasting Act 1990 provided a quality threshold in the granting of licences. That quality threshold requirement has not been extended in the granting of multiplexer licences. We do not understand why. We believe that it makes sense and it should be a requirement on the ITC to take it as a central condition. It should be in the Bill.
We tend sometimes to forget radio, but it has not been forgotten in this debate I am pleased to say. There too we should he looking at a quality threshold. It is not covered by the Bill and we would like to see it covered. The issue of sport on free-to-view TV has been an interesting dimension in the debate; interesting, but not unexpected. We merely need to read the newspapers and talk to people on the street to learn of the worries that people have That has been put very vocally by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Donoughue in opening the debate. Their contributions were added to by other Members. Unbundling is a matter that needs to be addressed, as well as revisiting and reviewing the ring-fencing of events in regulations under the 1990 Act.
There is general agreement that developments in broadcasting present tremendous opportunities, not only analogue but also digital. The achievements of analogue broadcasting for people with disabilities are to be applauded. Digital broadcasting, particularly in this area, presents tremendous opportunities—to see a signer on television without too much interference with the screen; to help people with sight difficulties and those who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. That subject was covered by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It is a subject to which we shall return.
My last point concerns the merger of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, of which I was a member until last year, and the Broadcasting Standards Council. We welcome the merging of those two bodies. However, we have a number of anxieties. My noble friends Lady Jay of Paddington and Lord Dubs mentioned a number of them, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who also raised this issue last week in the debate on the BBC Charter. Our concerns are certainly very strong, and right. I have a couple more.
Previously, there was an indication that the newly merged body could conduct research over the whole area of its remit. That provision is not now in the Bill. It is not clear whether the new Broadcasting Standards Commission will have authority to conduct research on fairness, an area of individual complaints previously covered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The complaints process has been ring-fenced. It seems
558
to me that in the Bill it has been ring-fenced in a way that seems to place the chairman of the new commission in a no-go area. What is the role of the chairman? Is the Minister considering amendments in this area? If not, it certainly needs looking at.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly mentioned anxieties about the very narrow area of direct interest that is necessary before a complaint can be lodged. That needs to be addressed. What is a direct interest and what is not? Is a group a direct interest? The noble Lord was right to cover this point in his presentation. We need to debate the matter, and probably to amend the Bill.
It was rightly said time and again in this debate that digital broadcasting will present many tremendously exciting and as yet unknown opportunities. But it will bring those advantages to us as a community across a wide and diverse range only if this Bill is changed to provide the framework to ensure that.
So far, terrestrial television has been universally available. That does not mean that I am speaking against pay-for television, be it pay-to-view, subscription or single-drop charge for videos. It does not mean that we oppose those. It means that this Bill needs to end in an Act that will ensure that the high standards of quality and access, and the central role that broadcasting has come to play in our lives in Britain, remain in the developments that take place in the future.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, noble Lords who attended last week's debate on the BBC Charter and Agreement will know the breadth and range of expertise that this House is able to bring to bear on important issues. The debate this evening has confirmed that. I am sure that all who took part and listened will have seen the important role of this House underscored by our discussion. Inevitably there have been differences of opinion and emphasis. That is a reflection of the healthy plurality that this Bill seeks to achieve.
The Government will continue to listen to the arguments, as we have done throughout the Bill's preparation. The much greater scope offered to existing broadcasters on digital TV, the revised arrangements for digital Channel 4 in Wales, the removal of the two-licence limit from Channels 3 and 5, the greater freedom for local newspapers to acquire local radio licences and the provision giving the ITC new powers to protect regional programming are all examples of that. We are prepared to consider carefully the well-reasoned case for further change.
I began my speech this afternoon by setting out the four principles underlying the Bill: safeguarding and encouraging plurality and diversity; the maintenance of public service broadcasting in a time of rapid change; fostering competitiveness; and maintaining standards. Those will be the touchstone for our considerations. Striking the right balance is a difficult turn, but I believe that we have managed to do so.
Many noble Lords commented on specific aspects of our proposals. I shall now respond to some of the points raised and in so doing expand on some of the remarks I

559
made in opening. I cannot respond to every point and to every noble Lord by name. There is quite simply not enough time. I shall respond in writing to those points that I fail to answer. If any noble Lords feel that I have failed to do that, I hope that they will be in touch with me. I also know that a number of points raised by noble Lords were raised in order to flag them up for later in the course of the Bill.
I propose to divide my comments into groups: those relating to the digital section of the Bill and those relating to ownership matters. In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, I can confirm that the provisions that we are discussing in the cross-media ownership parts of the Bill are subordinate to competition policy matters. I also confirm that we do not seek to exclude anyone from these rules. We merely intend to ensure that diversity of voice is guaranteed.
One of the concerns most frequently expressed was anxiety about quality. That was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, in a distinguished maiden speech. For my part, I have not previously heard her speak, unlike, I imagine, many of those on the Benches opposite; but, of course, I know well and recognise the very distinguished contribution to public life made by her husband. Having heard the noble Baroness, I know that she will, in her own right, make a major contribution to your Lordships' House. From these Benches I congratulate her on a splendid speech and welcome her to this House. We look forward to further contributions from her. Finally, speaking as I do from the Dispatch Box at the Government Front Bench, I apologise for the noises-over during her speech, but I have always preferred a song with an accompaniment because it sounds so much better.
When thinking about quality, it is important to be clear that it is an essential element of our proposals that the existing public service broadcasters—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for using those words, but I use them, as I did in my opening remarks, in a strict and wide sense—should transfer to digital. That has two consequences. First, the quality criteria that define those channels' standards will come with them. Secondly, access to them will, we trust, be widely available because they will continue to be free to air. Our proposals for granting multiplex licences include measures to encourage take-up of necessary new equipment.
As I explained, the offer of guarantees to existing broadcasters, all of whom have particular quality requirements placed upon them, will ensure that public service programming of high quality will continue. But in any case the viewing public will not choose to watch rubbish. In order to ensure commercial viability, broadcasters will need to produce programmes of the appropriate quality. I do not therefore see the need to extend quality thresholds to the new programme services which will come on stream. They will be regulated in much the same way as existing cable and satellite channels—subject, that is, to the scrutiny and oversight of the ITC exercising its statutory functions.
560
With digital transmission there is not the extreme scarcity of channels which justified the specific arrangements under the existing analogue system. However, since the number of digital terrestrial channels will still be limited, we want to ensure that the increased number of channels increases diversity of choice for viewers. That is why the variety of programme services proposed is one of the criteria against which the ITC will be required to consider applications for multiplex licences.
Once licences are granted, multiplex providers and broadcasters will need to adhere to the proposals included in the multiplex providers' application, especially with regard to the nature of the programme services offered. There will be financial penalties and possible revocation of licence for failure to comply with those requirements. In addition, the ITC's general duty set down in the 1990 Act to ensure the provision of high quality services across television as a whole will apply to digital as it does to analogue.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson, raised the question of conditional access, to which point the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, returned in her concluding remarks. That, of course, is crucial to the availability and accessibility of the new broadcasting systems. As I mentioned in opening, we published a consultation document on the regulation of conditional access services for digital television. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. I had hoped and intended that she and her colleagues on the Liberal Benches would have received the document. My plans went awry; I do not know whether I am to blame, but I am certainly responsible.
As I said in my opening speech, we are determined that providers of conditional access services should not be able to abuse their position as gatekeepers. That is why the Government supported the European Community Television Standards Directive and that is why, as I mentioned, we published a paper outlining our proposals under the Telecommunications Act 1984. That will ensure across all types of digital television that broadcasters, multiplex providers and, most important of all, viewers are treated fairly by conditional access providers and by those offering subscription management services.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the question of the cost of the various pieces of equipment that may be involved in the digital revolution.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes to that, will he respond to what was said by his noble friend Lord Astor as to whether the Government have any intention of dealing now with the existing problem of conditional access with analogue, satellite and cable broadcasters?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that matter is currently being looked at by the competition authorities. It would be premature to take any steps until we have the outcome of that investigation.
To turn to the question of set-top boxes, initially it would seem that all digital television sets are likely at first to be limited to wide-screen models at four-figure

561
prices and set-top boxes may be between £300 and £500. A European standard has been drawn up with a guideline price of £375 and prices will come down as production increases, as they did for colour television, CD players and microwaves. But the Government's proposals encourage measures to reduce that cost even further. In relation to digital radio, current cost is in the region of £1,500. We believe that that will be reduced to something like the price of a top-of-the-range analogue receiver once mass production gets under way.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on a similar topic asked about the BBC and set-top boxes. The BBC will be required by the Government to contribute to both the roll-out of digital transmission and to the promotion of the take-up of digital receivers. We shall expect a contribution broadly equivalent to that required by the ITC from Channels 3 and 4. The contribution the BBC makes to encouraging take-up may be, in part at least, through promotion rather than through subsidy as such. In any event, it will be free to use resources derived from any source for that purpose.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of the relationship between Oftel and the ITC. As your Lordships will know, Oftel was set up under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and has responsibility for the monitoring and enforcing of telecommunications licences and the enforcement of competition policy legislation that affects telecommunications, while the Broadcasting Act 1990 established the ITC to licence and regulate all commercial television services. Those arrangements have worked well for both the broadcasting industry and viewers and have co-existed quite happily in practice with Oftel's related but distinct powers and concerns. The Government consider that there is a continuing need for special regulation in the broadcasting sector over and above the Telecommunications Act and general competition law.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the problems of viewers with impaired vision and hearing. I acknowledge the concern which many noble Lords expressed that the potential of digital technology be used to improve facilities for viewers with sight or hearing difficulties. We shall reflect further on that and wish to ensure that the new technology extends choice and serves worthwhile purposes. We also wish to restrict digital terrestrial broadcasters as little as possible in the difficult initial phase of launching the new service in a competitive environment.
We have spent in the order of half an hour debating sports rights this evening, which is not a matter contained in the Bill at all. I took careful note of the worries expressed about broadcasting sports rights and the need for a new framework of controls to prevent certain events being shown exclusively on subscription television services. The Government's position is that sporting bodies should, in general, be free to dispose of their broadcasting rights in the interests of sport. But we are aware of public debate on the issue and are keeping it under close review.
Perhaps I may say at this stage that we should not forget, as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch pointed out, that in addition to free market principles
562
there are a number of sound arguments in favour of retaining the status quo. For example, there has been increased coverage of sport on television. There are rights holders who are acting responsibly in ensuring the long-term well-being of sport and there have been significant benefits to sport itself. There still is a considerable amount of sport available on terrestrial television.
There have been various suggestions to extend the 1990 Act controls to subscription services, to unbundle primary and secondary rights and to extend the number of listed events. The one thing that all these ideas have in common is that they raise difficult issues of principle and practicality and they would all affect the interests of sports rights holders. The Government are keeping all options under review. While one is reviewing all the options, it hardly suggests an open-minded process to come rushing forward with all kinds of ideas before listening to the arguments, not least of all in your Lordships' House, which is what I have been doing this evening.
I was interested in the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, of a particular type of auction. But since, as I understand it, the really valuable asset is the right simultaneously to broadcast the event in question, I have a feeling that his idea may be to promote an auction where it is in one's best interests to lose.
I should now like to move on to consider a number of other topics which are related and which concern regional diversity in the United Kingdom, which obviously, in turn, is by definition an integral characteristic of our country. I shall begin with Wales, which was brought to the forefront by a number of distinguished Welsh Members of your Lordships' House.
As I have said, our proposals mean that S4C will no longer be required to show Channel 4 programmes on its digital channel but will be able to expand its Welsh language service for Welsh viewers. S4C will be required to simulcast its peak-hour Welsh language service and Channel 4 will be able to broadcast on digital its existing analogue service in full and with the same scheduling as the rest of the United Kingdom. Taken together, these advances represent a significant benefit for all Welsh viewers and I believe they represent the best solution currently available. But I should like to assure Welsh viewers that the Government will not fail to take any future opportunity to increase the capacity available to S4C and Channel 4 in Wales should a practical possibility present itself.
The change in the funding formula makes S4C's income more predictable and reliable and so will facilitate planning on a much firmer basis than is possible at present. The formula, like the existing one, allows the Secretary of State to take account of the costs of transmission. Moreover, it takes as its starting point the 1997 figure, arrived at by applying the existing formula.
I have explained the purpose of the proposals for S4C and I should just like to reassure your Lordships that, as far as concerns the funding formula, it will first take effect only in 1998. There is no intention that S4C

563
should find itself in some way beholden to the Government. We are currently in the process of dialogue with the Welsh authority about other funding streams. Indeed, I discussed the Bill's proposals with the chairman and chief executive of S4C yesterday.
It is not only the Welsh who have regional concerns, and they were vigorously articulated by a number of your Lordships, not least the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Blease, and my noble friend Lord Arran, whom, if I did not know was excluded, I would have supposed was standing for Parliament. I am pleased that your Lordships recognise the significance of Clause 63 and appreciate that it represents evidence of our commitment. I cannot fully agree with my noble friend Lord Arran that it is ownership which is the key to ensuring regional character in broadcasting. Nor, indeed, is there anything to prevent anyone from anywhere in the European Union owning a regional Channel 3 licence now. We thought it best, through Clause 63 of the Bill, to provide safeguards for the level of regional programming as currently achieved directly.
My noble friend questioned what benefits accrue from the increased concentration of ownership. We contend that allowing more concentration allows a stronger and more concentrated Channel 3 response to the substantial investment needs of new digital media competition. We want Channel 3 to have a fair chance to sustain its current good health and leading place in viewers' affections into the digital future, with the increased domestic and international competition that will imply.
Nor does concentrated ownership and access to increased funding in any way preclude the continued development of regional programming diversity within that framework, particularly when that regional element is underpinned by specific licence requirements, which I know the ITC is keen to ensure.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that subsection (5) of Clause 63 allows the ITC to introduce new licence conditions which consolidate not merely existing licensing requirements but also existing actual levels of performance by the current Channel 3 licence holder. He further suggested that the ITC's powers to specify conditions on the level of regional employment and facilities should be mandatory rather than compulsory. Our feeling was that this might undesirably tie the hands of the ITC because it is no part of the continuing health of regional programming, a goal which the Government share, to lock existing detailed means of programme delivery indefinitely in place.
I would like to mention the point raised by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there should be a "must carry, must offer" requirement. It is of course the case that it is only after an eventual switch-off of analogue that it is possible, even in theory, that households with television sets would be unable to receive the services of existing terrestrial broadcasters. That would happen only if they had access to digital cable or satellite receivers but not to digital terrestrial ones and if the cable and satellite companies chose not to carry their services. There is no indication at this stage that such a situation arises, particularly because the Government have made it clear
564
that analogue will not be switched off until the vast majority of the population has changed to digital. In addition, there is a strong possibility that by the time analogue switch-off becomes possible the industry will have developed television sets or set-top boxes able to receive all three modes of transmission. The Government will of course monitor the situation as it develops.
The noble Baroness also mentioned electronic programme guides. At present there is no conclusive evidence that extra regulation is necessary, but we are conscious of the potential importance of these guides and will research and monitor the position closely. We shall certainly take full account of any issues which arise as the nature of the systems becomes clearer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, referred to Teletext. The public service teletext licence was awarded on a competitive basis and the holder must adhere to positive programme requirements just like independent television. The Government therefore decided that Teletext should be offered an opportunity to duplicate its service on digital television. Channels 3 and 4 and S4C will be required to make capacity available on their multiplex to Teletext to provide their existing service on digital with picture quality at least equal to that currently available, and the broadcasters and Teletext will be free to come to arrangements to increase capacity and to provide an enhanced service if they wish.
I now turn to the new BSC, which I am glad is generally welcomed. Much of our thinking was indicated in the debate on the draft BBC Charter and Agreement last week, but I would like to repeat the outline of our position. I begin by saying that it is not our intention that the new BSC should be able not to have to make an adjudication/finding in respect of each matter of complaint. We believe that the Bill's wording does achieve that, but we shall look at it and check.
The responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies, the governors of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. They are independent of government and are responsible to Parliament for safeguarding the public interest. They each have a statutory duty to draw up a code of practice on impartiality and other programme matters. Similarly, the BBC's producer guidelines include guidance on achieving accuracy and the importance of avoiding prejudicial or pejorative reporting.
A major characteristic of the new Charter and Agreement is clarification of the BBC's responsibilities for impartiality, taste and decency, placing the BBC under obligations equivalent to those applying to the commercial sector. Some have argued that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council should take on this role once they have been merged, but we are not convinced that it would be appropriate for this wider role to be assumed by bodies that were set up to deal

565
with standards in relation to violence, sex, taste and decency and issues of personal privacy or injustice, which frequently in fact involve wider matters of more general impartiality.
The Government do not accept that there are gaps in the present arrangements which need to be filled. Some of the perceived gaps are intentional. For example, the Government do not consider it necessary for BSC's remit to extend to all issues relating to programme content and scheduling. Most of these, including questions of maintaining due impartiality, can he properly left to broadcasters and regulators. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, agrees with us in that regard.
The ITC licenses all commercial television services in the United Kingdom, whether delivered terrestrially or by cable or satellite. Before the ITC can award any licence it has to be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and is not disqualified from doing so. Disqualification applies to any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature. Once any licence is awarded the licensee has to comply with the ITC's published codes and guidelines which flow from the Broadcasting Act and European legislation.
There are two codes which affect this issue: the programme code, which gives guidance as to the rules to be observed, and the advertising code, which ensures that licensed services do not include certain forbidden classes of advertising. Compliance with these codes is a condition of all licences to broadcast. In order to ensure compliance, the ITC regularly monitors programmes, considers viewers' complaints, carries out audience research and seeks opinions from the ITC's 10-viewer consultative councils. The commission has a range of sanctions to enforce licence and code requirements, including issuing formal warnings, requiring on-screen apologies, imposing financial penalties or shortening or revoking licences. Broadcasting legislation therefore provides the regulator with significant powers both to refuse and to revoke licences.
In conclusion on this topic, we feel that considerable powers are available both through the Broadcasting Act and the BBC's Charter and Agreement, and we therefore see no reason to extend the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Commission which should run in parallel with the regulator, not substitute for it. It is for the regulator to punish where punishment is appropriate.
Finally, I turn to the question of Channel 4's funding formula to spell out our attitude towards it and to explain our reasons for that view. This matter was vigorously raised by my noble friends Lord Blake and Lord Stockton and by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. We commend the recent successes at Channel 4 and hope that it will go from strength to strength in the new digital era. The Government expected, when framing the 1990 Act, that Channel 4's advertising revenue would remain buoyant for a number of years after enactment. It was never envisaged that Channel 4 would need to make use of
566
the safety net provisions in the immediate wake of the 1990 Act. We want to recognise Channel 4's recent success by using powers in the Bill to alter the distribution of payments of the channel's income above the 14 per cent. threshold in Channel 4's favour.
I understand that Channel 4 wants the formula abolished, hut, as my noble friend Lady Flather pointed out, there is another side to the coin. It would he imprudent of the Government to leave a quality public service broadcaster such as Channel 4 to face an uncertain future with no safety net provision. Those advocating change base that view on a very confident analysis of a very uncertain future. Indeed, there seems to be a direct correlation between a recognition that this was got badly wrong in the past with the fact that people are very certain about what will happen in the future. The Government remain committed to public service broadcasting and we believe that it is only right to retain Channel 4's safety net as a guarantee of its future. I emphasise that we do not expect there to be annual negotiations such as those described by one or two contributors to the debate.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned proposals for changing the rules on radio ownership in relation to analogue. They asked whether it would be possible to have more than one FM licence. We do not want the most commercially attractive frequencies to be seized by the most profitable and aggressive broadcasters. That would be a case where market dominance—even where, as in London, there is a choice of other stations—can serve to inhibit plurality and competition, so I remain unpersuaded of the case for change.
As I said at the outset, this is a complicated and important Bill which will have far-reaching consequences for the future of broadcasting in this country. As I also said, digital radio broadcasting has just begun and the era of digital television is fast approaching. The proposals that we have debated today will give the United Kingdom a world lead in the development of digital broadcasting technology and services. They will free the industry of unnecessary controls to enable it to compete most effectively with the best in an expanding global media market. They will ensure that the new freedoms do not damage the essential qualities which have contributed to the success of our broadcasters—diversity and plurality reflecting national and regional characteristics. The Bill will ensure that the power of broadcasting is always exercised with responsibility. Broadcasting standards will be maintained.
I have no doubt that the debate that we have started this evening will continue both within the Palace of Westminster and among all those who care about broadcasting in Britain. I look forward to playing my part constructively in that debate while taking the Bill forward in your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Chechnya
9.50 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, together with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organisations, to end the conflict in Chechnya.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, tonight, like the rest of the world who have had a front-seat view on their television sets, our thoughts and our sympathy will be with the people of Pervomaiskoye who, through no fault of their own, have become involved in the terrifying maelstrom of military violence of the past few days. Despite our condemnation of hostage-taking, it is now clear that the Russians and not the Chechens are killing the hostages. Most people will be amazed at the skilled and stubborn resistance of the Chechen fighters in the face of such overwhelming fire power. They are still holding out, even tonight, though I suppose they must lose in the end. Most will die, as will many hostages. However, they will have achieved one objective; that is, of astonishing the whole world by their unshakable determination to achieve independence for their country, which is rather smaller than Wales with a population of about 1 million.
A few days ago the Guardian mistakenly translated words on the headband worn by Salman Raduyev, leader of the Chechen fighters, as reading "kamikaze fighter". The next day an Arabic-speaking reader of the newspaper politely wrote to say that the actual translation of the headband was, "There is but one Allah and Mohammed is his prophet". There is no doubt that whatever many Chechens feel about Dzhokhar Dudayev, they are now involved in a genuine popular national liberation movement with a strong religious faith behind them.
It is not, as some authorities in Russia have said, a fundamentalist faith; it is Sufi Islam, which is a more moderate form of the faith. I can assure your Lordships that those whom President Yeltsin called bandits are regarded as heroes at home. The Russian behaviour at Pervomaiskoye is, on a smaller scale, similar to the way in which they have handled Chechnya as a whole during the past 13 months. Just over a year ago they unleashed on Grozny the heaviest bombardment of high explosives seen since the Gulf War. It was many times more intense than the attack on Sarajevo, although that sporadically continued for a longer time.
However vivid are the pictures on the small screen, the experience of seeing the devastated city at first hand is overwhelming. Your Lordships will be aware that at the request of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group I was able to visit Chechnya in the first week of December, six weeks ago. Through interpreters I was able to speak to ordinary Chechen people who had suffered during the conflict, to General Asian Maskhadov, who is the chief of staff of the Chechen forces, to close advisers of President Dudayev, to human rights workers and to members of the OSCE assistance group based in Grozny.
Large swathes of the city of Grozny have been damaged beyond repair and are being demolished, leaving a surreal Hiroshima-like landscape. It is a macabre, nightmare scene. Other human rights violations have occurred. I will touch on those shortly but the wanton destruction of Grozny, which was once a handsome city with tree-lined streets, is an atrocity in itself. Gudermes, the second Chechen city, was recently recaptured from the resistance after they had taken it virtually undamaged. The Russians have there again adopted the bulldozer approach and virtually destroyed the centre of the town. As in Pervomaiskoye, Chechens and non-Chechens have been killed. In Grozny, many Russians died, all of whom were non-combatants. That is a flagrant breach of the 1949 Geneva Convention which forbids the use of unnecessary force and the killing of civilians.
Many of the bands of fighters now surrounded at Pervomaiskoye will have lost close family members and they are very, very angry men. Salman Raduyev, who led the Budennovsk raid last summer, had lost 27 members of his, extended family.
The total of deaths in the war is not known exactly but 20,000 is a very conservative estimate. Of those, some 5,000 are military personnel, more Russian than Chechen, and there are 15,000—that is, three quarters of the total—civilians. If that figure among the 1 million Chechens were to be applied to the population of the United Kingdom of 56 million, the total number of deaths would reach more than 1 million. In World War Two we lost 60,000 civilians and 300,000 servicemen; in all, proportionally only a third as many as have died in the past 13 months in Chechnya.
I did not start by giving a historic background to the conflict but that can be found in Hansard of 18th April 1995 in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who I am pleased to see is to speak this evening. However, it is important to point out that the current conflict is merely a continuation of a 250 year-old struggle between Russia and the peoples of the North Caucasus. The Chechens have always been the fiercest fighters among them. Like Poland, which has been ruled on and off by Russia for the past 200 years, they have never agreed voluntarily to be part of Russia. In fact, there is a strong fellow feeling between Poles and Chechens, despite their religious difference. Of course, the Poles are strong Catholics but they can sympathise with an Islamic nation.
Of the former federal republics of the Soviet Union which gained independence in 1991—some would say were decolonised—none had a longer history of confrontation with Russia than Chechnya. However, all the North Caucasian autonomous regions were retained within the Russian Federation itself.
The citizens of Chechnya elected Dudayev as president in 1991 on a clear independence ticket. Their neighbours, the Ingush, even though they had also been transported en masse to Kazakstan in 1944 with a loss of something like one-third of their numbers, took a more cautious line because the Russians had promised to get

569
their ancient lands hack from Ossetia, which had stolen them during their absence between 1944 and 1957 in Kazakstan.
Instead of waiting to see if Dudayev would win another election which was due, as many noble Lords will know, on 17th December and which took place in most of Russia on that date last year, to test the Chechen people's adherence to Dudayev's independence policy, Boris Yeltsin launched a military assault a year earlier than that with the devastating results that I have described.
Last year, after the Russians finally captured Grozny, sporadic fighting continued. One of the successes of the past year has been the establishment, with Russian agreement, of an OSCE assistance group in Grozny. It was a particular success because it was within the boundaries of the Russian Federation. It had a mandate to establish a ceasefire and monitor allegations of human rights abuses. After negotiations, which lasted nearly 40 days, a ceasefire agreement was finally reached in July of last year, and until recently the scale of the fighting had considerably decreased, though it rumbled on sporadically.
The work of the OSCE mission has not been easy, but it is potentially of very great value. I was told that only a small proportion of the complaints brought to it could be followed up. This applied to both ceasefire violations and allegations of human rights abuses. This arises in part from the lack of vehicles and staff—over 1,300 complaints have reached the mission—and in part from Russian obstruction. The French OSCE Chef de Mission seemed very reluctant to complain about it as he felt that technically he was in Russia and was therefore their guest. He has been replaced by a new Swiss head of mission; he has inherited that post at an incredibly difficult time. The assistance group left Grozny at the time of the 17th December elections because of an expectation of a flare up of violence. Incidentally, the OSCE strongly advised that those elections should be postponed and that the security situation was so bad that it was completely inappropriate to hold elections at that time. The mission has now returned.
Early last year a rocket-propelled grenade hit the roof of the mission, and its personnel were withdrawn until the Russians improved security around it. When they did the mission under its then Hungarian leader returned, but the British member of the group did not, to the disappointment of the others. I hope that the noble Baroness is listening. He was a valuable member of the group. On my return from Chechnya I asked in a Written Question whether the British member would return to Grozny or be replaced. In her reply the noble Baroness said that he had returned to his unit. I understood that to mean that he had gone back to Grozny. However, in a chance meeting with Foreign Office officials yesterday I found out that "returned to his unit" meant his military unit, not his OSCE unit in Grozny. We still have no representative there. I must complain to the noble Baroness that the wording of her reply was very misleading. She did not even answer my Question, which asked whether he would return to
570
Grozny or he replaced. I hope she will say why we are not playing our part in the mission when other nations are able to send their representatives.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this is a time-limited debate. Each speaker is allocated 12 minutes. Fourteen minutes have expired, which means that the amount of time available to others to speak in the debate is reduced.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is my understanding that the Peer who asks the Question has at least 15 minutes, and I have arranged to speak for 18 minutes.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is a time-limited debate. Twelve minutes are allocated to each person. If the noble Lord speaks for longer than that it will reduce the amount of time available to others.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I can help the noble Lord by saying that I have no intention to speak for anything like 12 minutes.
Lord Rea: My Lords, this is a brutal war. Some may have seen television pictures of the weeping women of Samashki when 260 defenceless older men, and women and children, were killed in April last year. This was a "My Lai" style massacre. I heard testimony of mass graves and of "filtration" camps where beatings, torture and death took place.
My noble friend Lord Judd received a letter the other day from a Russian girl living in this country aged 12 who had recently been in Russia for a holiday. She wrote:
"I learned about a place in Grozny where people are taken to be tortured to death. Most people that are killed there are not soldiers, they are Chechen children or people who were taken to that place without reason".
That may sound fanciful but it is true.
We heard of a child of nine who was in detention. He was in detention because he had seen his mother and two children killed in front of his eyes and had then picked up a Kalashnikov and killed the five soldiers who had been involved.
I should like to have asked the noble Baroness many more questions, particularly with regard to whether Russia should be admitted to the Council of Europe at next week's meeting. I very much hope she will advise that at the moment that is not appropriate. There are many more comments I could make but because of the time factor I shall now sit down.
10.6 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the only good thing about the terrible events in Chechnya which began in December 1994 is that the world knows they are happening and the Russian media are playing a brave part in making them public. Otherwise there is little difference—with some honourable individual exceptions such as Sergey Kovalev, the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, and perhaps Anatoly Volskyz, and, in the previous hostage situation, Mr. Chernomyrdin—between the way Russian power is being used today and the way it was used in the Soviet

571
time. Then the OMON forces, the KGB's strong-arm men, killed without restraint in Nagorno-Karabakh, and in 1990 in the Baltic States, and in the streets of Tbilisi. Now they and the MVD's own dear thugs, the ALPHA group, are the Speznaz forces who are to the fore in Chechnya.
Operations ever since December 1994 have been principally carried out by the KGB and the MVD's troops under their own generals; at present the MVD General Kulikov, whom his army colleagues fear—he is, after all, now Minister of the Interior—and Mikhail Barsukov, head of the new KGB, the Federal Security Bureau. I have gone into that detail because, unfortunately, the Chechnya conflict is yet another indication, if not proof, that the leopard has not changed his spots and the KGB and the party are still running Russia. One of Dudayev's commanders, speaking about the recent projected agreement on special status for Chechnya, said that peace would never be established there,
"until Russia finds common ground with the legitimate authorities".
But Russia has preferred to put in her own Moscow-backed man, Doku Zavgayev, who—surprise, surprise—received 99 per cent. of the vote of the Russian military in Chechnya, and subsequently claimed that, of the 68 per cent. of the electorate (another official figure was 87.6 per cent.) who voted, 98 per cent. cast their votes for him as candidate.
As the OSCE team, who knew all the personalities, left Chechnya during the period of the election, and as throughout Russia 700,000 Interior Ministry officers, of whom some were presumably in Chechnya, were detailed to "monitor" the elections, and as the percentages have the familiar ring of the old Soviet statistics, it is perhaps not surprising that the Chechens can put little faith in the political process. Sergey Kovalev warned well before the elections that they would lead to renewed fighting as,
"in spite of bloodshed, and by hook or by crook, somebody wants to appoint his man in Chechnya as the boss".
The conditions were not, he warned, in lodging a complaint to the Supreme Court, in any way suitable for elections, given restrictions on movement, curfews and the presence of both illegal armed formations and Russian military units.
I hold no brief for Dudayev, but who among the Chechens could believe that the Russian state has ever seriously contemplated any solution but the use of force? A Radio Russia poll in December showed that 92 per cent. of those polled in Moscow and St. Petersburg wanted a peaceful settlement, but that view is not heard in what are known as the "power ministries".
Grozny is in ruins, although some money is now being spent on the all important oil installations. Gudermes, the second largest city, has been shelled by heavy artillery continuously so that the damage, including schools, hospitals and over 33,000 houses, is reckoned at 1,600 billion roubles. So far there are 15,000 to 20,000 refugees from the town, some of whom have been killed on the road as they tried to flee. According to the federal migration service there are now
572
290,000 refugees in Dagestan and in Ingushetia, many of them ethnic Russians, and there are 25,000 such refugees living in the 68 holding units scattered through the north Caucasus.
So long as the operations in Chechnya are carried out by the KGB and MVD forces we can, I fear, be sure that the safety of hostages and of the civilian population will he the last thing in their minds. It is not part of their culture.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party, after the Russian elections, is the largest single group in the Duma and its avowed policy is to restore the Soviet Union. That will not encourage the Chechens, if they have any trust left, to trust Moscow. Meanwhile, too, the CIS at its January summit will be discussing a statute on collective peacekeeping and drafting a document on the prevention and settlement of conflicts in the territory of the CIS. The UN, which has allowed the Russians to describe themselves as UN peacekeepers in Abkhazia, just down the road in the Caucasus, will no doubt be solemnly investing those peacekeepers, too, with UN status.
And what of the OSCE, which was so conspicuously not there, it seems, when the Chechen elections took place, despite having been there to mediate for nearly a year? Naturally, I bow to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about the good work of the OSCE, but it has not been especially effective in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Russians, of course, love it all the more for its well-meaning ineptitude. It poses no problems; it embarrasses no one.
The Chechen problem is an internal problem, and the difficulties are great for any central government in dealing with determined and well-armed guerrilla action in guerrilla country—and in country where the central government ardently wish to protect and develop their oil pipelines (especially now that Kabardino-Balkaria, Chechnya's neighbour, is becoming an oil producer). However, we are surely free to refuse to regard Russia as a fit member of any European security or political organisation while her present disregard for human rights continues. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us what the OSCE has put on the public record about all this and what it proposes to do.
We should not go on for ever considering whether we should refrain from comment for fear of endangering the present administration. That is something against which Sakharov warned us in the past. We can do them no harm by openly expressing our deep concern. We shall, on the other hand, damage democracy within Russia—and it is there—far more by failing to follow the courageous lead of such people as their own human rights commissioner.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this matter at such a timely moment. I salute his courage and commitment in visiting the scene of action. I thought that he was particularly modest in the way he underplayed his role as an eyewitness.

573
I feel very strongly that it is up to all of us to emphasise strongly tonight the extent of the violence, the deaths, the injuries and the damage that have been inflicted in the past year or more. All concerned have suffered. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, drew a striking parallel between the appearance of Grozny now and that of Hiroshima in years gone by. He also gave the casualty figures or the best estimates so far made.
The water supply of Grozny, I understand, has been severely damaged. Proposals have been put forward by a British non-governmental organisation for its repair and restoration. One hopes that that will happen one day. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have at least expressed some desire to help. The consequences have been the total impoverishment of a very large section of the population which previously was at least some little way above the poverty line.
I encourage the noble Baroness who will reply for the Government to say something tonight, if she can, about displaced people. Perhaps she can include those who suffer through being displaced by earlier Caucasian conflicts.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, touched upon the history of the country. I would only add that after a very difficult 19th century, when Chechen resistance lasted for some 30 years, there were continuous uprisings during the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet period. We need to be aware of the fact that even Stalin's deportations of almost the entire population during the Second World War failed to break the Chechen national spirit and consciousness. It is also worth noting that for 35 years, from 1943 to 1978, all Chechen mosques were totally closed and abolished, but such measures failed to uproot the Islam and Sufi brotherhoods. With that kind of history, it is not surprising that any degree of trust by the Chechen people towards the Russian leadership and Russian military forces is almost entirely lacking.
We have also to be very aware of the location of the country. Its position is highly strategic. It straddles the oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan where large new reserves will fairly soon be brought into production. Those will he reinforced and enlarged by further production possibilities in Kazakhstan on the east side of the Caspian. Chechnya has borders with Ossetia, Georgia and the Russian Federation, which again make it a strategic place.
We also need to be well aware of the susceptibilities and interests of Russia. There is a strong degree of fear within Russia that any recognition of Chechen independence could pave the way to a break-up of the Russian Federation. The very difficult historical background and the various attempted but unfortunately failed negotiations that have taken place since 1991 further complicate the issue. In addition, there are the interests of the Russian element in the population which is quite considerable. Against that we have to remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned, the marvellous efforts of Mr. Kovalyovs and others who take his point of view. Nor should we forget the impact on Russian thinking which the mothers of servicemen had at an earlier stage and possibly will continue to have.
574
What I suppose we are all looking for, hoping for and longing to see come about is a degree of moderation on the part of all those involved in this conflict, whether Russian or Chechen. If that could begin—I fear that it may not be all that likely—then there may indeed he a clear role for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It is the only international, intergovernmental body that is in any way acceptable to the Russians. It also happens to be the only intergovernmental organisation that has a special brief to look after the interests of minorities. Therefore, it seems to me that it is particularly well suited for the task in hand. It is possible that there may he a slight window of opportunity for it, given that the duma elections are now over and that the Russian presidential elections will not happen until next summer.
Therefore there may possibly be scope for the organisation to try to achieve a new cease-lire to he followed by demilitarisation and disarmament, as was previously proposed and semi-agreed, followed in turn by negotiations on the future status of Chechnya. Whatever that future status may be, I feel that it is likely to require guarantees from outside countries or bodies to ensure at least a start on a nevi status. Equally important, in my view, will be the planning of reconstruction, technical aid and supervision of the use of any funds that may perhaps be internationally contributed. That constitutes a far larger and more important task than has been undertaken by any previous OSCE peace mission; for example, in the Baltic states, Kosovo or Moldova. I hope that if such an enlarged mission can be put in place, it will concentrate very much on both community development and conflict resolution.
Such a major opportunity will depend very much on the political will of the members of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. If that is lacking, I cannot see such an initiative starting. I wish to ask the Government to do their maximum to try to inspire the other members of the organisation to be far more positive about such a venture than they have been up to now.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Rea for raising this subject and having been to the country. I wish to put in a word of praise also for the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, which plays an enormous role and has done so over the years in getting Members of both Houses of Parliament to places where the balloon has gone up, in order to bring back realistic reports of what is going on. We can be particularly pleased that its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will speak in the debate from the Liberal Benches.
It seems to me that various crises are going on at different levels. The most obvious is the bloodshed, to which I shall come in a minute, but there is also the crisis of Russian democracy. That democracy is extremely young. It has by now roundly outlived the first attempt at democracy in 1917, hut it is not at all home and dry yet. The Russians are making a rather

575
poor fist of it. That can hardly be surprising, given that they were sent off to an entirely false start by an invasion of Western ideologues and profiteers who wholly distorted the natural development of what could have been a more fortunate new democracy.
Therefore, the Russian Government are entitled to all forbearance from the West. Such forbearance has to be limited, but the first presumption must be to try not to kick them too hard; they have bigger problems than we can dream of. It is my guess that there are concurrently 17 problems bigger than we can dream of, of which Chechnya is only for the moment the gravest.
It is also necessary to balance that consideration by remembering that Russia has no better right to rule the peoples of the North Caucasus, or indeed other non-Russian peoples, than we should have in this day and age to rule the Indians and Africans, rule over whom we gave up 30 and 40 years ago. The Russians acquired dominion over the North Caucasus between 1780 and 1820, soon after Warren Hastings but long before the Indian Mutiny and the Macaulay reforms in India. It is a big, outstanding historical anomaly that there should still be, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a thumping great white European empire in Asia. Bits of it will rebel; bits of it are rebelling. The natural course in the long run is for the imperial power—Russia—to do what all 11 European imperial powers have done; namely, to retire as peacefully as possible and build up good relations with new, independent states.
I want to ask the noble Baroness certain questions: the situation is so complicated that it is easy to be baffled by it, and Foreign Office Ministers have a head start in this sort of thing. If she can throw any light into the darkness, I think the House will be grateful.
The Chechens are fighting with modern weapons. Where do those weapons come from? The Chechens themselves tend to say: "We captured them from the Russians because we are such brilliant fighters". But other pictures can be traced if one has one's ear to the ground. Through what channels are they getting the weapons? In whose interest is it to arm them? I do not see why we should not speak fairly bluntly about this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will speak fairly bluntly; I cannot, because I do not have the least idea.
What is the situation in regard to the pipeline? Who owns that pipeline? How many pipelines are there? I hope that the noble Baroness will find time to sketch that in. It could be quickly said. Few in this country have much notion. We probably know more about arrangements on the east coast of the Caspian than on the west—but there again, that could be just my ignorance.
What is British national interest there? The oil is an obvious interest. How big is our interest in the oil compared with that of other Western countries? That would be interesting to know, too. Do we have any other national interest there, beyond the obvious and always deserving one of the restoration of peace and the saving of life?
576
Lastly, can the Government sec any point in thinking of an arrangement—it might even he a federal arrangement—for some sort of bloc or association of Moslem states down the West Coast of the Caspian: Dagestan, Chechnya, Ossetia, the Ingush and others? Would they live at peace among themselves if they were liberated? If they did not, would the consequent wars be soon over, or is it possible to think of a series of completely independent countries there? All those things look far beyond the immediate humanitarian imperatives and far beyond immediate diplomatic possibilities. But, after all, what is this House for, if not to air such matters?
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he agree that, if a political solution could be achieved and friendly relationships established between the peoples of the North Caucasus and Russia, it is much more likely that the oil would flow along those pipelines than if conflict continues, with the likelihood that those pipelines will constantly be blown up in guerrilla warfare?
Lord Kennet: Yes, my Lords, I most heartily agree with that. But it is always possible that there might be non-Russian and non-Caucasian interests who would think it worth risking a little bloodshed in order to make sure that they got a bigger slice of the final oil arrangement, whatever it is. We cannot—at least, I cannot—tell.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the whole House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this very important subject. As other noble Lords have said, he has shown great courage in going himself to Chechnya and thus has been able to give your Lordships a report at first hand and, if I may say so, not at too great length. It is not often that an Unstarred Question—which it is difficult enough for Back-Benchers to get on to the Order Paper, at any rate—has been so well timed.
In fact, events are moving very fast and I do not intend to make more than a passing reference to what is now happening, except to say that, from what we have seen and heard over the past two days, 150 Chechen fighters are taking on the whole might of the Russian army. It is an astonishing feat, whatever else one may make of it.
On 18th April last, I gave your Lordships a brief history of Chechnya. I shall not go into all that again. It is enough to say, as other noble Lords have said, that the Chechens are not Russians. They have never in their history wanted to be Russian and they do not even look like Russians. It is a very small nation and a very small country, but they want their independence and believe that their country belongs to them. I do not find that unreasonable. However, on the evidence so far, Her Majesty's Government do seem to find it somewhat unreasonable.

577
In the debate on the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their member states and the Russian Federation which preceded my Unstarred Question on the 18th April, my noble friend Lady Chalker said that:
"a political agreement must be worked out which will allow the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the Russian Federation".—[Official Report, 18/4/95; col. 401.]
Later, on the same day. my noble friend Lord Inglewood said exactly the same in exactly the same words.
The words:
"within the framework of the Russian Federation",
are what all this is about. The Chechens do not wish to remain within the framework of the Russian Federation, for excellent reasons. Their history over the past 200 to 300 years has been one of continuous resistance to Russia in its various guises as Russian Empire, Soviet Union or present Russian Federation. So great was their wish to be outside the federation that they declared independence as soon as they could do so.
The Russian answer was, unfortunately, to subject Chechnya to a trade embargo, to attempt to subvert the country's institutions and even to try to murder its president. There were also negotiations, and in the course of the negotiations, in August 1994, President Yeltsin said:
"An armed intervention in Chechnya is out of the question. We in Russia have uniquely succeeded in avoiding inter-ethnic conflicts because we refuse to use force. Should we violate this principle in Chechnya, there will be a general uprising in the Caucasus. There will be so much chaos and bloodshed that no one will forgive us".
I quoted that in last April's debate, but I do not apologise for quoting it again. President Yeltsin is strangely inconsistent in some of his statements. He also said in 1992 to President Walesa of Poland that Russia had no objection to Poland joining NATO. He reversed that statement about three months later. In fact, it is hard to know who, if anyone, is making the decisions in Moscow. But at any rate, it is a fact that only four months after President Yeltsin's statement about not using force in Chechnya, the Russian army did just that and invaded Chechnya with a display of brutal incompetence which most of the world was able to watch on their television screens.
I will not dilate on the destruction of Grozny and the surrounding villages; they have already been described by other noble Lords. However, I should like to refer to an incident described in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—if he will forgive me—last April; that is, that on 7th April 1995 the village of Samashki was subjected to a night of bombardment by planes and artillery. After that, Russian troops moved in and, using flame-throwers and grenades, massacred the inhabitants where they were hiding in the cellars beneath their houses. Those Russian soldiers are the men whom we now have as allies in Bosnia. One can only hope that the peacekeeping methods they applied in Chechnya will not be used in Bosnia.
The last sentence of President Yeltsin's strange pronouncement on Chechnya—that if Russia uses force,
"there will he so much chaos and bloodshed that no-one will forgive us"—
578
has already proved almost baseless. Of course the West has forgiven them. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of our Foreign Office and the foreign offices of the EC could have told the president that.
President Yeltsin said yesterday, if I understood the television report correctly, that all the bandits in Chechnya would now be wiped out and punished. Here I pause to reflect that successive Russian and Soviet governments have always referred to those who stand up to them as "bandits". The Poles in the Warsaw uprising were also "bandits", even though they were supposed to be Russia's allies. I do not consider that people who are fighting for the independence of their country are bandits, gunmen or however else one chooses to describe them. Our media describe them as gunmen and so forth and ought not to do so.
I regret the recent hostage-taking, but the Chechens may well feel that, unless they do something spectacular, no one will take any notice of them. It is also a fact that, if we are talking about banditry, the Russian army is a past master of the most brutal forms of banditry, as the destruction of Grozny and Samashki demonstrate.
As Chechen resistance continues in the face of what appears to be overwhelming force, and looks as though it will continue indefinitely, there will be a temptation for the Kremlin to revert to the policies of General Yermolov in the early 19th century and of Stalin in this century, and to propose wiping the nation out—in modern parlance, "genocide". If that happens, Her Majesty's Government and our allied governments will react very strongly. After all, it could quite reasonably be said that the West is financing the Chechen war. The amount of the recent IMF loan is estimated to be about the cost of the war so far. In fact, I imagine that most of the loans and subventions to Russia over the past few years will go to the maintaining of the military and defence establishment, which still forms the largest part of the Russian budget, in spite of the bankruptcy of a great deal of the country.
I should like briefly to refer to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, if only to ask my noble friend Lady Chalker to take a great deal of notice of what she says. She spoke in the debate on the Address and today, and her knowledge of the subject is well worth listening to, particularly by Her Majesty's Ministers.
I conclude by saying that we are faced with an extremely menacing situation in Chechnya. The repercussions will be felt not just in that small country, but throughout the world. The resurgence of Russian militarism and Russian imperial dreams is a real danger today, and at the very least we ought not to pay their bills. We ought also to do something about our own defence and Armed Forces, which have been so savagely cut over the past few years. We may need our fighting men sooner than Whitehall imagines.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the hazardous mission he undertook in Chechnya at a time when military operations were being conducted there. He went into areas which were liable to be under military threat; he spoke to people

579
who had suffered from the military operations undertaken by the Russians; and he has brought us back a vivid picture of the immense sufferings of the people and the huge destruction that has been wrought in the fabric of Chechnya, particularly of Grozny.
We have seen the pictures of Grozny. One particularly vivid one will resound down the years in the same way as the picture of the little girl in Vietnam crossing a bridge with all her clothes blown off by the military operations that were going on. The images of Grozny, the stark, bare walls rearing up out of the landscape, so like, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, Hiroshima after the atom bomb, have made us think carefully, if we had not done so already, about what kind of political solutions there can be to this appalling military conflict. The visit of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and his colleagues could not have been more timely and this debate is even more so.
In passing, it must be said that it is a great pity that your Lordships do not have a mechanism for enabling our Members and those of another place to study human rights and humanitarian problems on site in the way the noble Lord has done. Our procedures do not allow those who undertake missions of this kind on their own initiative to be given time to inform your Lordships of their findings. At one point I suggested to the Leader of the House that we should have a Select Committee on human rights so that first-hand evidence of the kind the noble Lord has presented could be collected on a more systematic basis and made available to Parliament and the public. Perhaps the Minister will be sympathetic to that concept because she is one of the most widely travelled Members of your Lordships' House. I know that she has just returned from Freetown, Abidjan and Dakar.
Many important issues have been raised during the debate and I should like to highlight some of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, gave the figures of the number of people displaced and particularly the huge number who are refugees in Dagestan and in Ossetia and who presumably, because they are technically still within the boundaries of Russia, do not count as refugees within the meaning of the convention. I should like to ask whether any suggestion has been made that the UN rapporteur on internally displaced people should be invited to examine the problem in Dagestan and Ossetia and see what resources the United Nations might make available.
In the context of the United Nations role, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said about incipient genocide. We have not reached that stage and we hope to God that it will not happen and that the Russians will draw back from the brink. But at what stage would the United Nations become involved and at what stage would we take preventive action to stop the threat of genocide? After all, everyone approved the United Nations Secretary-General's agenda for peace some 18 months ago in which he placed enormous emphasis on preventive diplomacy. There could hardly be a time when preventive diplomacy was more necessary than in the case of the conflict in Chechnya today.
580
In 1992 Mort Halperin and David Scheffer of the Carnegie Endowment identified 115 self-determination movements worldwide. Five of them were in the Russian Federation. Some demands were for total independence and that is how the Chechen rebels' claims are articulated, as we saw from their London representative's appearance on television last night and heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, this evening. However, as many experts, notably Professor Hurst Hannum, have pointed out, there are creative intra-state solutions that recognise the value of diversity without mandating or encouraging division. Those are more likely to achieve the desired results in many cases than the creation of separate states. The Russians did succeed in reaching an accommodation with Tatarstan and although many of the people there felt that the agreement was not far-reaching enough it did at least avoid the violence and destruction we have seen in Chechnya.
It is possible that in the end Russia's 19th century conquests will all have to be relinquished. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that that was the case and that Russia will have to give up its empire just as Britain, France and Holland did in the decolonisation years of the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that Russia annexed the lands belonging to its immediate neighbours while the maritime powers developed what were called "salt-sea" empires makes no difference to the relationship between master and subject.
In the western empires except, I believe, in the case of the Belgians and the Portuguese, there was a gradual and progressive development of self-governing institutions buttressed by an infrastructure of political parties, trade unions, a relatively free press and the rule of law, whereas in Russia there is an attempt to telescope the process into a few months. As I understand it, the aim is a set of agreements between the centre and the regions, including territories which are not ethnically distinct such as Kaliningrad and Sverdlovsk, giving as much sovereignty as possible to the regions. But the cost of retaining Chechnya within a framework of that sort could he very high.
I very much deplore the violations of the laws of war, of which we have heard this evening and of which, it has to be said, both sides are guilty in the Chechnya conflict. The indiscriminate bombardment of Grozny, the deliberate targeting of civilians by certain Russian commanders, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, reminded us yet again this evening, and the taking of hostages by the armed opposition are all breaches of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which applies to,
"an armed conflict of a non-international character".
The article expressly prohibits,
"violence to life and person [against] persons taking no active part in the hostilities",
as well as the taking of hostages.
So it has to be said that the conduct of Mr. Salman Raduyev is a crime under international law, as well as under the domestic laws of Russia. If he and any of his followers survive the assault on Pervomaiskoye, which does not seem to be an unqualified success as the fighting is still going on this evening, presumably they

581
will he brought before a court of law and tried for those offences; similarly, if they are caught, the Chechens responsible for two further instances of hostage-taking which have occurred in the past 24 hours—the abduction of the power station workers in Grozny and this evening, as we heard on the Nine O'Clock News, the taking over of a vessel in the Turkish port of Trabzon. The rebels have taken hostage 165 passengers and have persuaded the Turks to allow them to sail into the Black Sea, threatening to kill Russian passengers at intervals of 10 minutes if their demands are not met.
The Russians are also committing very serious crimes. According to a Chechen spokesman on Ekho Koskvy radio, a Russian artillery attack on the village of Tsentoroy, in Chechnya's Shali district, yesterday killed 42 people, mostly women and children. In the Pervomaiskoye operation one saw on the news this evening that artillery, armoured vehicles and helicopters were still being used although I understand that the commander of the Russian forces had ordered that only small arms were to be employed in an attempt to prevent the loss of innocent lives.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the role of the OSCE. Like every other OSCE state the Russians are hound by the declaration of December 1994, which provides:
"If recourse to force cannot be avoided in performing internal security missions, each participating State will ensure that its use must be commensurate with the needs for enforcement. The armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property".
The difficulty for any observer who wants to see the OSCE's conflict prevention mechanisms working more effectively is that the OSCE does not believe in the principle of transparency. In its annual report it publishes brief accounts under the heading, "Early Warning, Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management", which give some indication of the scale of the problems in the region. However, there are only three paragraphs on the situation in Chechnya and the establishment of the assistance group already mentioned. What is the assistance group doing now that the conflict has erupted with such great force?
Ministers were pleased with the progress made in the OSCE's conflict resolution mechanisms at Budapest; yet in Chechnya their weakness has been exposed. The involvement of the international community in the solution of internal conflicts has been recognised and accepted, and there is a provision for these matters to be put on the agenda of the Council of Ministers without the consent of the state concerned. But if the informal assistance of the chairman-in-office is not accepted, it is unlikely that the ministerial Council will do any better.
Britain could play a bigger role in trying to ensure that the rule of law operates in the proceedings of the OSCE and that in the Russian Federation, with its weak and vacillating leadership, military force is used as a last resort. The Chechens are a proud and determined people, who could not be eradicated by the Tsars, nor by Stalin, and certainly not by Mr. Yeltsin, with all his rockets and tanks. Let us appeal for a cease-fire and for an intensified diplomatic initiative by the OSCE to get the parties to return to the conference table.
10.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, like those who have spoken before me, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his extremely timely debate this evening on Chechnya. We are also grateful to him for his courageous visit. Many of us who go to places where there is conflict know just how important it is to get first-hand information, but it is also important to try to see the whole picture and, regrettably, it is difficult to do that, particularly in this conflict.
The increasing conflict in Chechnya is of grave concern to the whole international community. I believe that the conflict is an absolute tragedy. It has brought untold and wanton devastation to the people and the republic and has already cost thousands of lives, including those of very many innocent civilians. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just told us, there has been further hostage-taking tonight outside Chechnya in Turkish waters. Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes and daily the conflict continues to claim innocent lives.
All that is despite the military agreement which was reached in July 1995. The fighting and the civilian casualties continue, recently in Gudermes, Chechnya's second city. In Kizlyar, in the neighbouring republic of Dagestan, and in Pervomayskoye, the past few days have seen repeated incidents not only of hostage-taking but of wanton killing by Chechen gunmen. We very much regret that it has not been possible yet to resolve this crisis peacefully because day after day innocent civilian lives are at risk, and many are taken.
Since the Russian intervention in Chechnya over a year ago, we, our EU partners and the international community as a whole have pressed for an early and lasting settlement. There needs to be an effective way of enabling the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the constitution of the Russian Federation. I know that my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton does not like that phrase. It is crucial that a way is found to allow these people to have their own identity working within that framework. I shall return to the reasons for that.
Two elements are crucial to reaching that particular goal. First, and for sound reasons expressed by all speakers tonight, the fighting must stop as soon as possible. There is no justification for the loss of life, whoever takes it, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury said. There is provision for a ceasefire in the military agreement reached in July. That is why it is right that the international community should urge all parties to abide by it. However, that requires restraint not only on the part of the federal authorities but also on the part of the Chechen authorities.
The second reason that it is crucial to reach the goal of peace is that there has been little or no progress to restart the stalled talks to implement the military agreement. Without that there can be no expectation of conditions being built up to maintain a long-term settlement. That is why we have urged all sides unconditionally to return to the negotiating table.

583
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the role of the OSCE in ending the conflict, as did my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and other speakers. The OSCE, through Switzerland, its chairman in office, and through the assistance group in Grozny, continues to play an active and constructive role in efforts to promote a peaceful settlement. That includes a full investigation of the human rights abuses, which is a crucial part of its overall job.
I can tell your Lordships that Switzerland and the assistance group enjoy our full support in this. We continue to urge all sides to give the assistance group the freedom to carry out its mandate fully and in safety. That must be made to work.
I wish to try to respond to some of the points that have been made tonight. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, felt that in my Answer on 9th January to his Written Question I misled him. Certainly, there was no intention on my part to mislead. When one talks of a soldier returning to his unit one talks of him returning to the military unit to which he belongs. I do not believe that the second paragraph denies that we were continuing to look at the whole question of replacement when I said:
"We will keep the question of British participation in the Assistance Group under review and will keep in touch with the Swiss incoming chairman in office on the issue."—[Official Report, 9/1/96; col. WA1.]
I take the noble Lord's point that he did not follow it and only when he was in touch with officials in the Foreign Office yesterday did he realise the implication of the Answer. Perhaps I may continue on the point of the UK member who was withdrawn last year.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention and I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she indicate how considerations relating to a replacement for Flight Sergeant Kelly are going? Why is it that the British are the only members of the assistance group who have not returned its members? Does that not indicate that we are not taking seriously the OSCE assistance group in Bosnia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the House that we are taking the membership of the assistance group extremely seriously. The UK member was withdrawn last year when the security situation deteriorated and when we could no longer rely on the maintenance of the security of that group.
In principle, we are willing to second somebody to the assistance group. That is why we are in close touch with the new Swiss chairman in office, not only on that but on all other aspects of the assistance group's activities which have been referred to this evening. We want to see the OSCE group working to the best possible outcome. The group, under the new Swiss head of mission, Tim Guldimann, has a very important responsibility to get on with this job. He has only just begun. I hope that there will be some further news for the noble Lord before very long. Certainly, the withdrawal of the previous head of mission was unfortunate but it was after a serious and very genuine car accident.
584
I assure my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton that I do regard the words of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth as very wise. My noble friend Lady Park had a very realistic scepticism about what the Russians are up to. In addition, she asked about the assistance group. It has a very difficult job to do. The first reports from Mr. Guldimann give us some confidence that there will be increased activity, and we must help with that. We are certainly very confident that he will prove an effective leader of the group.
His objective is plainly to be in touch not only with the Russians but also with the Chechens and Mr. Dudayev as well as with the elected leader, Mr. Zavgaev, about whose election I will say little more than that I note the figures. What more can one say? The figures and the non-viable opposition to him speak for themselves.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right to say that we must do as much as possible to persuade the OSCE to be far more positive. That is why I welcomed very much the appointment of the new Swiss head, who I believe will give fresh inspiration. But let us not in any way expect a miracle because this is one of the most difficult situations to be faced for a very long while.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she agree that the scale of effort and the scale of operation needed to make any real difference in this situation is far greater than anything else that the OSCE has so far attempted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to make comparisons. One thinks of all the problems in Azerbaijan and the situation in Stepanakert. I should not like to make comparisons. In some cases the only answer to a continuing conflict is the activities of an OSCE mission. Each mission believes that its difficulties are the greatest. But I agree that this is a difficult problem for the very reasons outlined by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth; namely, the whole changing political situation in Moscow and throughout the former Soviet Union.
We have heard President Yeltsin's welcome assurances that he is committed to a negotiated settlement. We know also that he signed up to the ceasefire, which is patently not succeeding at present. But one of the difficulties had been the internal Russian fighting. We must remember that the initial success of the peace negotiations, which were started by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, were undermined by a series of terrorist attacks on senior Russian figures including Lobov, President Yeltsin's envoy, on General Romanov, the commander of the Russian forces, and on Zavgaev, the leader of the Russian-backed Chechen Government. That is what led the Russians to break off the negotiations and it is why I believe that it will be quite difficult to get them back.
Since that time there has been a steady escalation in violence. We are deeply concerned at the reports that Russian troops have used excessive force, whether in the recapture of Gudermes or in the current fighting. Equally, we are concerned at the reports of excesses by Chechen fighters, and most recently the terrorist actions not only in Kizlyar and Grozny but tonight on board a

585
ship in Turkish waters. We appeal for restraint on both sides and for a cessation of the actions which exacerbate the conflict and hinder the search for a negotiated peace. That is of crucial importance.
The concern of many about the OSCE and the assistance group is that they have not yet used their full mandate, which includes the investigation of allegations of human rights abuses and to find a way to resolve the situation. We support them in all that work. They also have a mandate to assist in the holding and monitoring of elections, but I do not believe that that subject will come up again for some time. Your Lordships will remember that we and our European partners raised very severe doubts about the wisdom of holding the elections last December. They did not monitor the elections because of concerns for the safety of the mission, which answers the question asked by my noble friend Lady Park. Now that the OSCE mission is back, it has our full support. I believe that it has a better chance than it had before.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and others asked about the Council of Europe and the possible accession of Russia to the Parliamentary Assembly. There is a meeting on 25 January in Strasbourg. Some argue that the conflict in Chechnya is evidence of Russia's unsuitability for membership. Earlier today I spoke to David Atkinson, a Member in another place. He had himself been involved in the debate a few days ago in another place. On the basis of his experience of the denial of human rights ill many parts of Russia, I discussed with him whether he felt that it would be better to have the pressure of the Council of Europe on Russia as a member or to keep Russia out of the Council at the present. I share his view that to bring Russia into the European family of democracies through the Council of Europe will give us an additional opportunity to reinforce the need for respect for human rights, for minorities and for the rule of law. But I believe that this issue will be thoroughly debated in Strasbourg. There are some very strong contrary views. The important point is to improve their behaviour overall as regards human rights.
The security of the OSCE mission has been mentioned on several occasions. I believe that that is paramount. We have to rely on the Russian authorities for the protection of the mission. There are Russian guards on their compound. There is no real alternative to that. The situation must be kept under review. Unless there is adequate security, the mission will not be able to do its work. That is a crucial part of the overall problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about Chechen weapons, where they came from and who was arming them. He also asked about the pipeline situation in the area. I will give what answers I can provide now, but I may need to write to him with further details when I have had a chance to look a little further into the matter. The evidence we have about the weapons used by the Chechens is that they come mainly from supplies left behind by the Russian forces after Dudayev came to
586
power in 1991. There are reports of smuggling from a variety of sources but all in that general area of the world. As far as the pipeline is concerned—
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I hope I may add a small amount of information on weapons. It was our information that it was quite easy for the Chechens to buy weapons from the Russian forces at quite cheap rates, down to the ridiculous level of getting five boxes of 50 rounds of ammunition or a Kalashnikov for a chicken.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the black market works in a black way, and that is the situation that the noble Lord has just described. I am quite certain that whether they bought them from someone who had stolen them or picked them up, acquiring them was not as difficult as even that description might have implied.
As regards the pipeline, I understand that an international consortium, of which British Petroleum is a member, hopes to export most of the early oil from the concession which was signed with Azerbaijan out through that pipeline, but agreement for the use of the pipeline has not yet been signed with Russia and presumably until it is there will be no production going out.
As regards the noble Lord's question about British interests in Chechnya, we hope to see an end to the conflict in Chechnya. I cannot take him any further on his hypothetical question about a federation of Moslem states down the west coast of the Caspian Sea. That is a hypothetical question and I do not have time tonight to debate such interesting issues.
The most important thing I should say to the House is that we are determined to help bring an end to this. We hold no brief for anyone who takes hostages. We understand that there are some real difficulties for the Russian Government, but the reporting to date seems to suggest that excessive force has been used in the attempt to free the hostages, and indeed in the general fighting. We are communicating our concerns to the Russian Government and we shall make sure that we use all the opportunities we have to make those views known hut also to try to work out ways in which the situation could be resolved.
I come back to the problem that my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton mentioned. The OSCE principle which works throughout the countries signed up to it is that frontiers are inviolable but they can be changed peacefully and by agreement. The examples of peacefully agreed frontier changes obviously include German unification, the establishment of separate Czech and Slovak republics and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Chechnya is internationally recognised as part of the Russian Federation. That is why we say that we are looking for a solution within the framework of the Russian Federation. Any cessation from membership of the Russian Federation has to be mutually agreed, and it has been a longstanding part not only of British policy but certainly of other OSCE countries too that the right to self-determination does not equate automatically with the right to cessation.

587
There may be a way of finding a solution for Chechnya which is known as the Tatarstan solution. That provides for maximum autonomy short of outright independence. I gather that that is negotiable. I hope that that clear message may emerge from the forthcoming debate of the Council of Europe—that it should seek to try to work out a Tatarstan solution.
This has been a valuable debate, as so often in this House, and the experience, knowledge and thoughtful reflection of all of your Lordships have featured in it. I understand the deep concern about the consequences of the continued fighting. We have not lost sight of the suffering which Chechnya's civilian population continues to endure as a result of the conflict. The international agencies have mobilised their resources. They are to he praised for their efforts, so often in dangerous conditions. We were particularly saddened to hear of the tragic death of a Finnish worker and the decision to withdraw international staff temporarily.
We shall maintain our efforts to assist the victims of the conflict. We have already given substantial aid. We wish to see the conflict stopped, not to have to go in and patch up the situation. We have committed nearly
588
£2.5 million in bilateral aid and a further £1.8 million as the UK's share of European Union aid. We have given over £500,000 for transport, shelter, food and sanitation projects. We are continuing to look at other projects, and we shall pay special attention to the water needs which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Our long-term goal is to see peace. It is clear that the conditions for a settlement acceptable to both sides are still some way off. The search for peace will he hard won, but it is the OSCE which must be the vehicle for re-establishing an element of trust and confidence between the sides. It must encourage contacts at all levels to pave the way for a more substantive and constructive dialogue.
We shall continue to take every opportunity, both bilaterally and with others, to press home the need for the fighting to stop and for negotiations to resume. That is the only way to build a safe future for the Chechen population which expresses their distinct identity within the Russian Federation.
I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for giving us the opportunity for this debate at such an opportune time.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Hanish Islands
  Hanish Islands
  NHS Ambulances
  NHS Ambulances
  Mental Incapacity: Law Commission Report
  Mental Incapacity: Law Commission Report
  Domicile: Law Commission Report
  Domicile: Law Commission Report
  Pensions after Divorce: Revenue Costs of Splitting
  Pensions after Divorce: Revenue Costs of Splitting
  Terrorism: Review of Legislation
  Terrorism: Review of Legislation