Sitting of 1 July 1996

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

    Volunteering
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last met representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss volunteering [33658]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Since taking over responsibility for volunteering, I have been meeting a range of people to discuss volunteering, both in the key national voluntary organisations and in local volunteer bureaux. We have a strong tradition of volunteering in the United Kingdom. It is an enormously worthwhile activity, enabling individuals of all ages to contribute positively to the communities in which they live. I am looking forward to building on that important tradition to encourage more varied and challenging opportunities for volunteering, especially among the young.
    Mr. Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Will she join me in supporting the splendid work of the cadet movement, which brings discipline, commitment and leadership to many young people throughout the country? I welcome the fact that the national lottery has dispensed grants to 14 cadet units to enable them to improve their training centres. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice to offer other cadet units that are seeking funding in that way?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I share my hon. Friend's endorsement of the cadet movement and of the volunteers who devote so much time to bringing up the next generation and encouraging young people to take a responsible role in society. Involvement in worthwhile activities is one of the best ways of building the citizens of the next century and there is no doubt that the national lottery is making many more opportunities available.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that a great deal more drive and coherence is needed in the promotion of volunteering? Will she issue guidance to local authorities to encourage them to think strategically about the involvement of volunteers across the range of their responsibilities? Will she also do all that she can to ensure that local authorities have the resources available to them to support volunteers and to promote good practice?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Something like 23 million people—or one in two adults—are involved in volunteering each year. I believe that there is great untapped potential and I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's ideas in carrying forward my new responsibilities. I intend to chair the interministerial group on volunteering and part of its work will be to ensure that local authorities are fully committed to the use of a maximum number of volunteers where appropriate.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend inherited the commitment made by the Home Secretary that every young person who wishes it shall have an opportunity to volunteer? If she has, will she assure us that she is going flat out to make that possible? Will she also tell the House whether she is making progress in negotiations about benefit entitlements to young people which often make it difficult for them to become involved in volunteering?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There are a great number of factors involved in promoting volunteering, particularly among the young. Discussions about benefit matters and with schools must be part of that work. I was enormously impressed by Volunteers Week this year. I was delighted that 108 Members of Parliament accepted the Women's Royal Voluntary Service challenge to learn more about its work. I believe that there is further potential and we must make good the commitment to encourage young people to become involved in volunteering and to make it a habit for life.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with the bodies dispensing national lottery moneys. [33659]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have regular meetings with the chairmen of the English and United Kingdom distributing bodies.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware that she has been extremely reticent in coming to the House to explain how much money the Millennium Commission will spend in Greenwich? Will she now tell the House and the people of Greenwich and of London as a whole how much money will be spent, in what way and who will be involved in making the decisions?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to being able to come to the House to make a further statement to inform colleagues of the details of the Millennium Commission's progress. The funding packages are highly complex and I much appreciate the co-operation of the Labour party and of Greenwich borough council in ensuring that we make progress swiftly and effectively by sorting out the details. I can tell the House how much money has been spent by the national lottery in the hon. Lady's constituency: in Lewisham, 29 awards have been made, amounting to more than £3 million. The lottery is a phenomenal success.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the foremost arts festival in England, the Lichfield festival., begins at the end of this week and will last for 10 days?

    535
    Is she further aware of how grateful the festival is for the recent award of more than £68,000 for stage and display equipment?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to share my hon. Friend's endorsement the Lichfield festival and I especially commend the artistic director, Paul Spicer and the dean and chapter of Lichfield cathedral. The festival brings more people into contact with the Church and brings people together by providing an outlet for creative activities. That £68,000 is only one of 1,245 arts awards, which amount to £483 million since the start of the national lottery.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, although we support the proposed exhibition at Greenwich and we want it to succeed, we feel uncomfortable when we read regular briefings from Sir Peter Levene about the Millennium Commission' activities, but we cannot have full statements in the House? Can the Secretary of State explain why Greenwich borough council is still being excluded from the deliberations when it wants the event to be a success and to make a positive contribution to the raising of private sector funding? Is it the case, as has been suggested in the newspapers, that the life of the Millennium Commission will be extended by one year to give it an extra £250 million to cover the eventual costs of the exhibition? Finally—[Interruption.] I make no apology for asking a further question because this is the first opportunity that we have had to ask these important questions and the House is entitled to know. Is it true that funding for regional exhibitions is being reduced to vire resources to the national exhibition at Greenwich?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, wants more information about the festival at Greenwich and I hope that I shall be able to write to hon. Members in my role as chairman of the Millennium Commission before the recess. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a Labour party nominee, Michael Montague, sits on the Millennium Commission and, on all occasions, we have sought to avoid any party political issues. I recognise and accept the collaboration of the Opposition. We are seeking to stage the largest event of its sort anywhere in the world and, inevitably, the financial negotiations are highly complex. The commission took the view that £200 million was an appropriate amount for it to put into the festival. When it became clear that the business case required more funding, we sought the co-operation of the private sector.
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Sir Peter Levene have had some extremely encouraging meetings, as I have myself. Once the plans are finalised, we will be able to make firm statements. When hon. Members see the full details of the Imagination proposals—I share their impatience—they will share the sense of excitement and exhilaration that members of the commission have felt. The regional festivals are part of the proposals and the majority of flagship projects funded so far by the Millennium Commission are outside London. It is important that all parties of the country share in the millennium.
    Mrs. Lait: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that she has no intention of extending lottery funding to replace the Government's funding of education and health, which is in contrast with the report in June's edition of "Lottery Monitor" which says that the Labour party is considering doing so?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can, indeed, reassure my hon. Friend on that point. It is well understood that the Opposition's proposals would betray the principles of additionality. They would betray those who benefit from the lottery as they would increase the operating costs, and they would betray the 30,000 or so retailers who earn about £8,000 a year from their lottery outlet.

    Choirs
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support is available for choirs from (a) her Department and (b) the national lottery. [33660]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. kin Sproat): My Department's funding for the arts in England—including choir—is channelled through the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. Choirs are eligible to apply for lottery funding. So far, 13 awards totalling £373,000 have been made by the Arts Councils of England and Wales.
    Mr. Hain: My colleagues are inciting me to sing this question, but I shall resist the temptation. Is the Minister aware that Welsh choirs play an important role in their local communities and do a great deal of important charitable work? Neath is a centre of excellence for male-voice choirs and the Minister would be welcome to attend any of their performances and would be given a warm Welsh welcome. May I invite him to Cor Cochion Caerdydd's performance next Wednesday in the Jubilee Room? The fact that it is translated as the Welsh "Reds Choir" may mean that he will find himself otherwise engaged.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation. I know from our previous discussion of the close interest that he takes in the half a dozen choirs in the Neath area. The fact that the Arts Council of Wales has made some eight lottery awards to choirs shows how much it values them. Indeed, the whole country does. There are now some 100 male-voice choirs in Wales, of which it is encouraging to know that some two thirds have been started in the past 40 years.
    Sir Roger Sims: I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I were to burst into song. Does my hon. Friend accept that thousands of people throughout the country in all walks of life derive great pleasure from singing with choral societies, as I do with the Royal Choral Society? Does he recognise that, although choirs can attract audiences sufficient to meet their costs for carol concerts and performances such as the Messiah, it is much more difficult for them to put on many other wonderful choral works unless they have financial assistance from the sources that he mentioned?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend is right about the great popularity of choirs. Some 250,000 people regularly sing in choirs. On my hon. Friend's wish to give choirs more money, there are the lottery boards that I have already mentioned—five in England and eight in Wales—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly publish a document on the arts, which will make funds to amateur organisations that we wish to support even more easily come by.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister know that St. John's methodist chapel, Connah's Quay, has a very good choir, and that it is mixed to boot? Does he know how I might obtain £100,000 for the chapel, which needs to be modernised and refurbished? Will he receive a deputation, or advise how that amount of money can be obtained from the lottery?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. I remember the wonderful introduction that the hon. Gentleman gave me to the Liverpool Philharmonic a couple of years ago. If he can do as well with that chapel, I should be glad to meet any deputation that he cares to bring to me.

    Tourism
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps her Department is taking to promote tourism in the Isle of Thanet. [33661]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcomed the opportunity to visit the Isle of Thanet to reopen the Dreamland amusement park at Margate. This development is an excellent example of public and private sector partnership working to revitalise seaside resorts.
    Mr. Gale: The people of Margate were extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend found time to give up a Sunday to open the new Dreamland complex. As she is aware, new Dreamland—unlike new Labour—is a stunning reality. She has also seen the need for more investment in Margate seafront to reinstate Margate as one of the country's premier family seaside resorts. Today a submission has been made for the regeneration of Margate sea front, both to my right hon. Friend and the national heritage memorial fund. I appreciate that she cannot write a cheque this afternoon, but will she ensure that the submission gets sympathetic consideration?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend knows full well that I am a great believer in the British seaside holiday—[Interruption.] It is vital to the tourism industry which is, of course, denigrated by Labour Members, who are reckless in their attitude to the employment implications of the tourism industry. About 50 per cent. of the tourism spend in the domestic market is on seaside holidays, so the jeers and denigration of the Labour party bode ill for people in the seaside holiday industry. I will certainly give encouragement and cheers to my hon. Friend's approach of seeking further investment in a wonderful seaside town, which he represents so admirably.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that the Secretary of State will do all that she can to encourage tourism in Thanet and I hope that the English tourist board will do the same because it is important. How is it, then, that Mr. David
    538
    Quarmby, whom the right hon. Lady has just appointed as chairman of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, will work only three days a week—one and a half days on each board—for which he will get £54,000 a year? Could this be the same Mr. David Quarmby who got £900,000 from Sainsbury following the management reshuffle when he quit? I do not know what he will be able to do for tourism; no doubt he could take us on a guided tour around some interesting bank accounts.
    Mrs. Bottomley: New Labour never ceases to carp about the Government. New Labour so hates success and so hates profit that it would turn over the national lottery because it so despises the phenomenal success of Camelot. New Labour resents the fact that we have a chairman of the British Tourist Authority and of the English tourist board who is a person of authority and distinction, and who will lead the industry, which is likely to be responsible for 40 per cent. of new jobs, amounting to 1 million, in the next 10 years. Labour is interested only in the politics of envy, of misery and of denigration. Once again, that bodes ill for the tourism industry, but the industry knows that it is safe with this Government.

    Tourism
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to encourage tourism in London. [33662]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I want to improve the promotion overseas of London as a world city and as the gateway to Britain. This year, we have provided an additional £1.5 million for the "Focus London" campaign.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which London helped to host Euro 96 demonstrates that it is a first-class tourist city and underlines the strength of Britain's case for hosting the world cup in 2006? Does she also agree that the case for London has been weakened by the irresponsible action of unions on London underground who seem oblivious to the hardship they cause and the jobs that they put at risk?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I welcome the opportunity warmly to commend all those involved in Euro 96. It has been a phenomenal success and Britain has regained its reputation for being able to host world sporting events. I most certainly hope that that may lead to the World cup and many other international events coming here. I commend all those who participated, the arts events, the tourism industry and the security arrangements. Euro 96 has been a great source of joy and pleasure to many, and especially to all those who support football.
    How right my hon. Friend is to condemn the dispute on the London underground. How typical it is that the Labour party cannot bring itself to condemn that action Some 250,000 people come to Britain to have the opportunity to see Britain being prosperous and successful. For that experience to be marred by industrial disputes, as we had in the old days when the Labour party was in control, is shameful.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that we agree with what she said about Euro 96? It was a great success. However, is she aware that in the other 50 weeks of the year, what puts people off London is the flea-bitten, rat-trap hotels around King's Cross, Victoria, Paddington and other places? One of the problems is that the country has no statutory grading of small hotels or minimum standards such as many other countries have. As long as the right hon. Lady leaves the matter to the free-market economy—most of the cheaper hotels have gone over to providing accommodation for the homeless—she will display massive neglect in terms of doing something about health and hygiene standards, and prices, at small hotels in London.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of value for money and good standards in hotels in London in particular, and across the country. That is why so much work has gone into the preparation of the crown scheme in collaboration with the motoring industry's validation system. Work is also under way to encourage planning permission for hotels, particularly in London, and it is important that local authorities grant those permissions. A welcome number of new hotels have started in London and there has been a great deal more investment, but I am pleased to have Labour's support in driving up standards in the hotel sector. The excellent Mr. David Quarmby is certainly making that a priority as he takes on his new responsibilities.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would not tourism in London be encouraged if far greater use were made of the River Thames, not only by tourists visiting London, but in future, by tourists visiting the millennium site in Greenwich and, above all, the historic town of Gravesend?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The opportunity for tourists to visit not only the centre of London, which is the gateway to Britain, but other parts of the country, including Gravesend, will undoubtedly be most welcome. However, I must take the opportunity to focus our minds on the phenomenal investment on the banks of Thames as a result of the national lottery. They include the developments at Bankside, the £50 million new Tate gallery, the Globe theatre, the Maritime hall at the Maritime museum and many other projects. There is now an unprecedented level of investment in London's cultural infrastructure.
    Dr. John Cunningham: For the record, let me remind the Secretary of State that we welcome the appointment of Mr. David Quarmby to the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. She was quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Is she aware that, far from feeling safe in the Government's hands, the tourism industry feels ignored and neglected by her Department? As she has complimented the Football Association on the success of Euro 96, may I join her in extending those compliments and plaudits on behalf of the Opposition? Can we take it that the Government will support the FA's intention to bid for the world cup soccer championships to be held in London? Will the Government support that bid?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the Government will support that in every possible way. There have been most constructive and productive relationships in respect of
    540
    Euro 96. The different agencies, local authorities, the Football Association, the security services, the arts organisations and the tourism industry worked together with a great deal of planning and wonderful results, and it would be a great triumph and a great day for Britain if we were to host the world cup.
    I am delighted to hear that new Labour supports Mr. David Quarmby. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is rather difficult for Conservative Members to know which Labour spokesman to take seriously. When old Labour, new Labour, and middling Labour can synchronise their voices, we shall be able to follow the script more carefully.

    National Lottery
    Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in (a) Milton Keynes and (b) Buckinghamshire. [33663]
    Mr. Sproat: Nineteen national lottery awards, totalling more than £20.6 million, have been awarded to projects in Milton Keynes. Forty-nine projects in Buckinghamshire have received lottery funds totalling more than £23.3 million.
    Mr. Butler: That shows a proper sense of priority between Milton Keynes and the rest of Buckinghamshire. May I particularly welcome the grant of something over £19 million in capital grant to build the new theatre in Milton Keynes, which has been planned for many years and for which there is a great demand? It represents a clear answer to those who say that all the money goes to London. Most of us live outside London and enjoy facilities outside London. The sums available are a testament to the work of Camelot, which I congratulate on behalf of the citizens of Milton Keynes on running the lottery to such good effect.
    Mr. Sproat: I entirely share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the leisure centre going to Milton Keynes, and I shall ensure that his comments about Camelot are passed on to it.

    Popular Music
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in the promotion of the British popular music industry. [33664]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The British music industry is enormously successful, nationally and world wide, adding to the enjoyment of music of all types. I meet representatives of the industry regularly.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain leads the world in the pop music industry, which generates more than £1 billion of export earnings every year without a penny of Government subsidy? Does she agree that, although it is too often dismissed by music snobs, it is a great British success story?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. The industry is extremely successful. It employs about 50,000 people and, as he says, is a major export earner. The net surplus on overseas trade in 1993 was £571 million—similar to the net overseas earnings of the steel industry. Its success is widely recognised. How pleased we all were that George Martin received a knighthood in the recent honours list.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the best ways to encourage popular music is to ensure the continuation of the BBC's Radio 1, which encourages new talent and plays live popular music unlike any other radio station in the country? Will she therefore make it absolutely clear that she will always refuse any attempt to privatise Radio 1?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman's question because, of course, since the Conservative party has been in power, Radio 5 has been launched to join Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4. I am a little taken aback by his comments but delighted to endorse Radio 1's role, which, as he rightly said, is significant in promoting the pop industry, especially by offering opportunities to new performers.

    Sport Academy
    Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for an academy of sport. [33665]
    Mr. Sproat: We announced our intention to establish a British academy of sport in the sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game" in July 1995. Following the Sports Council's recent consultation exercise, the council will shortly be issuing the prospectus for bids to establish the academy.
    Mr. Amess: In the light of the great success in every respect of Euro 96, does my hon. Friend believe that an academy of sport will ensure future sporting triumphs? What sporting events are likely to be covered by it? Will he consider very carefully Basildon, Southend and Redbridge as sites for future sporting academies?
    Mr. Sproat: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who were responsible for Euro 96. I was particularly pleased that Mr. Terry Venables and the English team received the award for fair play last night. The British academy will be more concerned with the athletes who go there, hut, of course, all sports will be able to apply to attend and I imagine that pretty well every sport will do so. I saw that Basildon and Redbridge had put forward bids and I wish them all the luck that they need in being successful.
    Mr. Grocott: Although I agree with the Minister about the success of Euro 96, is not the best possible recruitment ground for future sporting talent enabling as many young people as possible to see sport at its best, which probably means seeing it on the major television channels? Given that the key reason why Euro 96 was such a national success was the fact that 27 million people saw the semi-final on terrestrial channels, how do the Government propose to change policy so that the pattern of recent
    542
    years, in which, recurrently, coverage of major events has been built up by terrestrial channels then sold to minority channels that few people can view, is substantially reversed?
    Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman is present for the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill, which starts in the House in about half an hour, and sticks it out until the end of the day, he will no doubt hear the Government's answer to that very important question.
    Mr. John Carlisle: What progress has been made on creating an academy of cricket? Cricket, of course, is our prime summer sport, rather than what has been going on in the past few weeks. The MCC made progress under the chairmanship of Dennis Silk, but the idea was then dropped. What initiatives has my hon. Friend taken on this matter? Does he support the idea of an academy of cricket?
    Mr. Sproat: We see a three-tier structure of the academies, with the British academy of sport at its peak, a number of regional institutes of sport, and academies of individual sports, of which the academy of cricket will be one. I have had various discussions with Dennis Silk and other members of the Test and County Cricket Board about an academy for cricket, but it must be a matter for the sport itself. If such an academy were to be set up, it would receive my enthusiastic support.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that there is great relief in the sporting world that the Sports Council's consultation on the academy of sport has come to an end? He will be aware that the consultation revealed overwhelming support for the Labour party's approach—for a headquarters site with an enhanced regional network, as he just said. It is pleasing to note that, in recent weeks, the Minister has moved away from his original support for a huge one-off green-field site, as outlined in his article in The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 1995, and has come around to the opinion that we outlined. Now that the consultation has been completed, will he proceed with all speed in concert with all interested sporting bodies to ensure that our talented sports people get the academy that they richly deserve?
    Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory by reading the document of 14 July 1995, he will see half a dozen mentions of regional institutes of sport linked to the British academy. That was always my intention, and it is exactly what will happen. On his second point, we will be issuing a prospectus in the next few weeks.

    Tourism
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage tourism in the south-east of England. [33666]
    Mr. Sproat: My Department's support for tourism is channelled through the statutory British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the ETB, support is made available to the 11 non-statutory regional tourist hoards, including the South-East England tourist board.
    Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that I represent part of the Medway towns, which are steeped in history and have many tourist attractions, from Rochester's Norman castle and cathedral to the Dickens festival which is held several times a year. In Gillingham and Chatham, we have the historic dockyard and the Royal Engineers museum. All these are looking to provide additional attractions, particularly the dockyard. When the national heritage memorial fund is looking at its application for lottery funding, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that this particularly important group of ancient monuments needs more attractions to add to the already attractive prospects of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution museum, the ropery and others?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. Chatham probably has more historic buildings than any other town in Europe, and I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the appropriate distributor bodies for lottery funds so that they can consider whether to help.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the many reputable language schools that succeed in bringing hundreds of thousands of young tourists to the south-east every year? Is he also aware of their demands for regulation of the industry to prevent fly-by-night operations which often bring large and unsupervised groups of very young children into the city?
    Mr. Sproat: I am aware of the two serious points raised by the hon. Lady, and I shall draw them to the attention of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he is aware that Chatham dockyard probably has the largest number of historic buildings on one site in the south-east. Will he note that these buildings in the historic end of Chatham dockyard are all listed and that, consequently, we would not permit anybody to let them fall into disrepair? However, we shall need more money to help us to keep them up to date.
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the sites to which he refers. I know that my right hon. Friend will be doing everything she properly can to ensure that the lottery distributor of funds and the tourist boards consider his plea.

    Scratchcard Lottery
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the secretary of state for National Heritage when she last met the Director General of the National Lottery to discuss the work of the scratchcard lottery and if she will make a statement. [33667]
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon Friend last met the Director General of the National Lottery Mr. Peter Davis, on 9 May to discuss a range of issues of issues relating to the national lottery.
    Mr. O'Brien: During the discussions did the Secretary of state refer to the apparent anomalies associate with the sale of lottery tickets to under-age people? Does that apply to scratchcards? I have here a copy of national
    544
    lottery's code of conduct, which is vague about the sale of scratchcards. It is Camelot's responsibility to ensure that they are not sold to under-age children. Will the Minister impress on the Office of the National Lottery and the national lottery people that they must make it clearer how the code of conduct applies to scratchcards and that Camelot should be diligent in ensuring that scratchcards are not sold to under-age children?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point and I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of both the director general of Oflot and Camelot. Scratchcards should not be sold to under-age children and Camelot has closed down one retailer for doing so, but I will reinforce the hon. Gentleman's plea to the appropriate bodies.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on Oflot's tough action to avoid its scratchcards being sold to people who are under age. Is it not important to realise that scratchcards are not a monopoly business for the national lottery and Camelot? A large number of companies and organisations are in that business and it would be wrong to blame all the problems of scratchcards on one company.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. Sales of scratchcards have fallen from a peak of about 40 million just over a year ago to 17 million. Only about 14 per cent. of people who buy lottery tickets buy scratchcards as opposed to 60 per cent. who play the main game. My hon. Friend is right to say that the national lottery does not have a monopoly on scratchcards.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that shooting an admiral to encourage the others is not sufficient protection for the young? When he next meets the director general, will he ask him for a systematic monitoring process that can be reported on?
    Mr. Sproat: I take the matter extremely seriously, as I told the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). In the 10 months until April this year, Oflot undertook no fewer than seven inquiries into the running of scratchcards; those showed no reasons for deep concern. None the less, I agree that under-age children should not be served, and Oflot and Camelot should do everything they can to ensure that that rule is obeyed.

    Tourism
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with the British Tourist Authority about promoting Britain as a holiday destination. [33669]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I met the new chairman of the BTA shortly after his appointment, along with staff of the BTA, and discussed the current plan for promoting Britain. We are giving high priority to developing the fast-growing markets of the far east.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these small, overcrowded islands with their unique concentration of culture and historical heritage will need to look not to numbers of visitors alone but to the

    545
    high-spending, more lucrative, long-haul market? What success are we having in attracting tourists from the far east and what plans are there to increase their number?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's arguments. The recent visit that I led to Japan with 30 tourist organisations was extremely successful. In Japan, it is well understood that the amount raised from visitors to Britain is larger than that from any other sector—more than £550 million last year. Recognising the economic significance of the tourist industry is of great importance. I commended the close working of the British Council—there is enormous interest in British cultural activities overseas—with the BTA. When the three work together, there is huge potential for Britain, particularly in those markets where at present only a small fraction of the population have even a passport.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of developing tourism in the regions—the north-west and Lancashire in particular? Will her Department continue to give the support that the Minister for Sport has given to regional airports such as Manchester airport, so that people can fly directly to those airports and need not go via London airport?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some 50 per cent. of visitors do come to London first, but most—and a growing number—also want to spend time outside the capital. One of the successes of Euro 96 was the fact that many visitors were able to see the magnificent cities that we have all over the country. I shall certainly continue to press the case for more direct routes.
    I should remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that the real threat to the tourist industry comes from the Labour party's proposals. Only today, the Employment Policy Institute told us again that the tourist and hospitality industry would be hardest hit by a minimum wage, and only last week a report from BDO Hospitality Consulting said the same—as have many others. It is time that Labour listened.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Justices of the Peace
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason it is necessary to seek the voting intentions of justices of the peace, without anonymity, prior to the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [33687]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): All those who apply to be appointed justices of the peace are asked to indicate their political affiliation in order to ensure that benches are balanced in that respect. The information is confidential to advisory committees, clerks to justices and my Department. Local surveys of the political affiliation of existing justices are sometimes carried out to establish current political affiliations.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I accept the need for a bench that reflects the social and political complexion of the country. After justices are appointed, however, surely it is inappropriate and intrusive, as well as dangerous from a judicial point of view, to inquire how they intend to vote at the next general election. Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate for justices to make such declarations to clerks, and will he reconsider the practice in relation to existing justices?
    Mr. Streeter: There is no intention of reviewing the practice, which has continued for generations under Lord Chancellors and Prime Ministers of different persuasions. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that, at the last count, 31 colleagues on his own bench supported the Conservative party and 36 did not. I cannot see what his beef is all about.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if a JP reveals himself to be a member of the hang 'em, flog 'em and disembowel 'em school of politics, he should not be barred from serving as a JP?
    Mr. Streeter: The most important thing is the quality of justice dispensed by local benches, and I think that most of us feel that the quality of justice in this country is extremely high. It should come as no surprise to any Member of Parliament if the majority of JPs are Conservative supporters: after all, we know that Conservatives are actively involved in voluntary organisations up and down the country because we care about our country and our local communities.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Minister give us a lucid explanation of the correlation between voting intention and the capacity to return a fair verdict? Will similar inquiries be made about which football club magistrates support, or whether they are freemasons, Oddfellows or farmers? What other matters are now to be inquired into?
    Mr. Streeter: As I said earlier, the practice of inquiring about the potential affiliations of potential JPs has been going on for generations. What I do not know is whether it took place under the last Liberal Government. That was such a long time ago that I suspect that records are no longer kept.

    Crown Office, Edinburgh
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the mechanism for liaison between his Department and the Crown Office m Edinburgh. [33688]
    Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Office consult each other as necessary where they share an interest.
    Mr. Dalyell: I gave notice of this question to the Lord Chancellor this morning. I meant no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Mackay knows a good deal about the Scottish situation and about Lockerbie, and is a senior member of the Cabinet.

    547
    Will the Government consider the offer made at the weekend by the Foreign Affairs Minister of South Africa, Mr. Nzo, to host an inquiry into Lockerbie in South Africa?
    Mr. Streeter: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us notice of his supplementary question, which Lord Mackay shared with me this morning.
    We believe that a trial anywhere in any third country is unacceptable, for reasons well known to the hon. Gentleman. Here are two of them: it would be wrong to allow those accused of terrorist offences to dictate where and how they are tried; and it would not be right to accept the proposition that a trial in Scotland would not be fair.
    Mr. Hawkins: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether the liaison between the Crown Office in Edinburgh and his Department would be affected in any way if there were a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers? The Labour party is now in such confusion between its Front Bench, its Back Benches and all other parts of the party about the matter that it is important to know the answer to that question.
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The liaison between my office and the Crown Office in Edinburgh would clearly be confused if there were a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who tabled the question, will continue to persevere with probing his colleagues about the West Lothian question, to which we have had no satisfactory response.
    Dr. Godman: On the very serious question of Lockerbie and leaving aside party political scoring, does the Lord Chancellor agree with the oral statement made by the Prime Minister in this place three months ago in response to a question of mine that such a trial will take place in Scotland at the High Court?
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the last exchange, but he should read the question on the Order Paper: it is about consultation between my Department and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. On the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I know of no knowledge to the contrary.

    Legal Aid
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to reduce spending on the legal aid fund. [33689]
    Mr. Streeter: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor expects shortly to announce his proposals for reform of the legal aid scheme. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that announcement. We are already taking steps to control the costs of the legal aid scheme, such as measures to investigate the means of apparently wealthy applicants and the introduction of graduated fees in the Crown court. The White Paper proposals will take us further.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend share my constituents' concern that a man who was dying of cancer and had his life saved by the excellent national health service against all the odds should seek to use public funds to sue the very doctors who saved his life rather than allowing those funds to be used in the health service?
    Mr. Streeter: I share my hon. Friend's concern, as do most British taxpayers. My hon. Friend is a champion of the interests of the British taxpayer in relation to legal aid. He will be encouraged to know that under our proposals, to be issued tomorrow, we intend to take positive, radical measures to crack down on the weak and trivial cases which are making all too frequent an appearance in the local newspapers. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, when I heard about the case that he has mentioned, I asked the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to come to see me on Wednesday to explain how on earth legal aid could be made available in such a case.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were eligible for legal aid in 1979; and what is the current figure. [33690]
    Mr. Streeter: We estimate that in civil cases 74 per cent. of households qualified for legal aid in 1979. The figure for civil legal aid today is 48 per cent. There has been no reduction in the number of people eligible for criminal legal aid since 1979.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not appalling that the number of households eligible for legal aid should drop from more than three quarters in 1979 to less than half now? Is it not an incontestable fact that the only people who can get legal aid now are those on the breadline and that the income cut-off is £7,400? Is it not a case of justice denied when the only people who can get access to the courts are those whose wallets or purses are fat enough?
    Mr. Streeter: I believe that the hon. Gentleman lives on a different planet from me. Although the number of households eligible may well have fallen in the past 17 years, that is partly a reflection of rising living standards. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that acts of assistance have risen from 1.9 million to 3.5 million today. Legal aid funding has risen in the past five years to £1.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman clearly believes that that is not enough. If £1.4 billion is not enough, it is incumbent on him and his party to tell us today how much we should spend and where the money should come from.
    Mr. Congdon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, far from being concerned about restrictions on legal aid, my constituents are concerned about its generosity, particularly in civil cases? Does he share my amazement that this country should grant civil legal aid to someone deported as an illegal immigrant who wishes to pursue a civil case in the courts of this country?
    Mr. Streeter: Once again, my hon. Friend is on to a good point, which we will talk about in more detail tomorrow when the White Paper is issued. He should know that every working person in this country

    549
    contributes £60 a year to the legal aid fund. I think that is enough. If the Opposition do not, they should tell us how much it should be.
    Mr. Boateng: Given the ever-increasing cost of the legal aid fund to the public and the ever-reducing number of the public who are able to benefit from it, when will Conservative Members and their Government stop hitting the hard-pressed litigant, who happens to be funded by the public, and start dealing with the restrictive practices of the legal profession? Why do we hear so much about the litigant and so little about the lawyer? When will the Government tackle the restrictive practices in the legal profession, because if they do not, we will?
    Mr. Streeter: Even I think that that is a bit rich coming from someone who makes his living out of the restrictive practices of the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman has failed to tell us whether a budget of £1.4 billion is enough. He says no, so how much more should be spent, and where will it come from?
    Mr. Jessel: Does not my hon. Friend's figure of £1.4 billion suggest that litigation is one of the fastest growing industries in Britain? Is it not growing much too fast onward and upward? Surely it is self-evident that, if people want to have a divorce, they should not have it at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. We are getting much too much like the Americans and it is time that something was done about it.
    Mr. Streeter: I have a great deal of sympathy with that question. If we have a free market it is not for us to say who should or should not litigate, but we can control the extent to which the British taxpayer funds such litigation. We will bring forward legal aid reforms tomorrow to ensure that the British taxpayer gets more bang for his buck.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will arrange for legal aid to be extended to industrial tribunals. [33691]
    Mr. Streeter: We have no plans to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister understand how important industrial tribunal cases are? Does he understand that it is wrong that there are no circumstances in which any litigant in any industrial tribunal case can get legal aid, even though the Government have rightly moved wrongful dismissal cases up to £25,000 to tribunals at the request of the litigant and even though there are no upper limits on compensation for sex, race or
    550
    disability discrimination cases? Will he please have another look at the matter and consider whether those cases should not be included for proper legal aid help?
    Mr. Streeter: Thousands of cases each year come before the industrial tribunals, and I believe that most of them are informal, well run and produce the sort of justice that we want to see. Once again, an Opposition Member has stood up in the House and called for more public expenditure. It really begins to stick in the throat when Labour Members call for more public spending in the House and then rush out to the television cameras to say that under a Labour Government there would be no more spending and no more taxes. Which is it?
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was paid out of the legal aid fund in green form costs in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [33692]
    Mr. Streeter: Between 1991–92 and 1995–96, the gross cost to the legal aid fund in respect of green form advice for each year was as follows: —£100 million; £125 million; £147 million; £141 million; and £145 million. Over the same period, total legal aid payments have risen by £688 million from £1,097 million to £1,784 million.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister for such a detailed reply. May I impress on him the need to ensure that those people who do benefit from green form legal aid, advice and assistance continue to do so in any forthcoming review of legal aid? The people who bring that type of work to solicitors are very often the most needy in society, and are definitely unable to afford to pay for work privately. May I impress on the Minister the need to ensure that this core necessity remains?
    Mr. Streeter: At last a sensible and reasonable question from an Opposition Member. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There will be a radical reform of the legal aid scheme under the proposals to be announced tomorrow but, whatever we do, we will ensure that those who really need access to justice and cannot afford it will be adequately catered for under the new regime.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: How confident is my hon. Friend that the green form scheme is not being used to lure ordinary members of the public into a legal morass, more for the solicitor's benefit than for that of our constituents?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will be interested to know, as I was this morning, that the Law Society has come out against our legal aid reform plans, even though it does not yet know what they are. The Government are increasingly able to be guided by the principle that, if the Law Society is against it, it is pretty firm evidence that we are on the right track.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I inform you that, in Committee Room 11 last Wednesday, there was a meeting by the Right Now group, whose editor describes himself as "your neighbourhood Nazi"? Is it right that such vile extremist groups should be meeting in the House in this way, and is it right that the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), should have addressed that meeting, as other Conservative colleagues have addressed previous meetings of that extremist group?
Madam Speaker: I have no objection to extremist groups of the right or, for that matter, extremist groups of the left, meeting in the House, provided that the room is properly booked by a Member and that the Member remains there throughout. If Members have an objection to extremist organisations coming into the House, perhaps they would refer the matter—or, if they wish me to do so, I will do so—to the Administration Committee if they would like this matter to be looked at afresh.
I do not favour extremist groups—I find them totally objectionable—but if Members invite them into the House and accept responsibility for them, whether they are extremists of the right or the left, I think we should go ahead in the tolerant way in which we deal with things in the House.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order. I have made my views known.
Mr. Hughes: It is on an aspect of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order with me. He asked me, under a point of order, for a ruling. I have given that ruling. If the hon. Gentleman has another matter to raise, of course I will listen to it.
Mr. Hughes: I have no knowledge of that meeting, and of course I accept and agree with your ruling, Madam
552
Speaker. I was seeking to ask you to remind the hon. Members of the courtesy of telling Members if they intend to raise their names on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he had advised my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). Frankly, I found the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would be associated with an extremist group ridiculous.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important point. When calling into question another Member of the House, it is crucial that that Member be so informed. What is said may or may not be accurate. I am not aware whether it is accurate in this case or not, but I hope that—[Interruption.] Just a moment. I have not finished. I hope that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) informed the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). Did he do so?
Mr. Hain: I did not, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I reprimand the hon. Gentleman. We have all been here long enough now—the hon. Gentleman since 1992—to know the common courtesies of the House, and I think this should be carried out.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Given that you have said that you disapprove of extremist groups, Madam Speaker, how is an extremist group defined in this place?
Madam Speaker: I cannot define an extremist group, but I can tell the House that at the next election I shall be fighting Militant Tendency and the National Front. I call them both extremist groups, and I am very happy to take them on.

BROADCASTING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS] [No. 2]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of provisions about tax in connection with transfers and other disposals of property, rights or liabilities which subsist for the purposes of or in connection with or are otherwise attributable to the BBC transmission network, as defined in the Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Order of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it is unusual to query the selection of amendments and new clauses—or perhaps not so unusual. Am I right in saying that the criterion for selection is whether an amendment is in order and within the terms of the long title of a Bill? If an amendment or new clause satisfies that, there is no reason why it should not be selected. Is that right?
  Madam Speaker: That is certainly one criterion for selection, but there are a number of important other criteria, such as whether an issue has already been discussed in Committee. I take them all into consideration.
  Mr. Maxton: In that case I wonder whether you would like to compare new clause 1 with new clause 12. New clause 1 has not been selected; new clause 12 has. While not exactly the same, the contents of at least the first paragraph of each new clause are exactly the same. I should hate to think that one has been selected and the other has not because the latter was tabled by Back Benchers and the former by Opposition Front Benchers.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to give reasons for my selection or non-selection. I spent a great deal of time this morning considering both new clauses—indeed, I practically know them by heart. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the best debate possible can be held on the new clause that I have selected.
  Ordered,
  That the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], as amended, he considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, New Schedules, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 33, Schedule 1, Clauses 34 to 69, Schedule 2, Clauses 70 to 100, Schedule 3, Clauses 101 to 122, Schedule 4, Clauses 123 to 125, Schedule 5, Clauses 126 to 128, Schedule 6, Clauses 129 to 134, Schedules 7 and 8 and Clauses 135 and 136.—[Mr. Wood.]

New clause 23

  TAXATION PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
  '. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions) (which makes provision about tax in connection with transfer schemes) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Sproat.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 31—Transfer schemes: successor companies.
  New clause 17—BBC pensions—
  '—(1) The trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme shall refer to the Secretary of State, before such date as he may specify, the division and distribution of the relevant assets which is to be made for the purpose of making a transfer payment to a pension scheme established for their employees by a person or persons specified in a scheme under section 110 of the Act (the specified person): any such division and distribution of those assets and liabilities shall not be made by the trustees except—

  (a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, or

  (b) in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2).

  (2) Where any such division and distribution is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1), he may by order direct that the relevant assets shall be divided and distributed by the trustees in such a manner, and such a time, as is specified in the order; and any provision of—

  (a) the pension scheme established by the specified person referred to in subsection (1, or

  (b)any enactment relating to occupational pension schemes, including any enactment relating to transfer values,

  shall not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the division and distribution of those assets in accordance with any such order.
  (3) When making an order under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of all classes of persons who are for the time being beneficiaries under the scheme referred to in subsection (1).
  (4) In this clause, "the relevant assets" means the assets held by or on behalf of the trustees and "the trustees" means the trustees of the Scheme referred to in subsection (1).
  (5) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Government new schedule 2—Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions.
  Government new schedule 3—Transfer schemes' relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies.
  Amendment No. 51, in clause 125, page 104, line 36, at end insert—
  '(1A) Any such scheme shall make explicit provision requiring the maintaining during the 25 years following the transfer of transmission services in less populated areas of at least as good a quality as obtained at the time of the transfer.
  (1B) In subsection (1A) "less populated areas" means any counties with a population density of below half the average population density of the United Kingdom as a whole.'.
  Amendment No. 255, in clause 125, page 104, line 36, at end insert:—
  '(1A) Any such scheme shall make explicit provision to ensure equality of access to transmission services in all areas of the United Kingdom, irrespective of population density.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 10 and 141.
  Amendment No. 52, in clause 126, page 105, line 16, at end insert—
  '(3A) The Secretary of State shall not approve any transfer scheme which does not make explicit provision for the maintaining during the 25 years following the transfer of transmission services in counties with below half the average population density of the United Kingdom as a whole of at least as good a quality as obtained at the time of the transfer.'.
  Amendment No. 254, in clause 126, page 105, line 16, at end insert—
  '(3a) the Secretary of State shall withhold his consent for any scheme which does not provide for the enhancement and subsequent maintaining of transmission standards during the 25 years following the transfer in areas whose population density is below half the average density for the United Kingdom as a whole.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 139, 140 and 164.
  Mr. Sproat: There will be a number of occasions during our deliberations today when Government new clauses and Opposition amendments have quite properly been grouped together. For the convenience of the House, I propose to speak first to the Government new clauses and amendments and then to listen to what others have to say about theirs. I will then reply afterwards—
  Dr. John Cunningham: But briefly.
  Mr. Sproat: I shall do my best. I am glad that we can start by agreeing.
  The amendments fulfil the commitment that I made in Committee to table an amendment on Report to achieve broad tax neutrality in the sale of the BBC's transmission assets. Similar arrangements have been made in the past in relation to Government privatisations. While we have agreed that the proceeds arising from the sale of licence fee-funded assets should be available to the BBC rather than returned to the Exchequer, we feel that it would be wrong effectively to tax the licence fee payer in relation to the sale of these transmission assets.
  We have agreed with the BBC that the proceeds of sale will be invested in the digital technology that will be necessary for the corporation to maintain its place as the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster.
  The purpose of new clause 31 and new schedule 3 is to clarify certain technical and accounting aspects of the sale of the BBC's transmission services and to provide the BBC with greater flexibility in its structuring for sale. That will enable the BBC to achieve maximum value for the assets.
  The purpose of amendments Nos. 139 and 141 is to make it clear that the transfer scheme relating to the BBC's transmission assets can take place for a consideration, which can be shares or securities. The amendments simply provide for flexibility for the structuring of the sale so that the BBC is best able to achieve maximum value from the arrangements.
  Amendment No. 10 concerns the commitment that I gave in Committee to table an amendment, for the avoidance of doubt, so that pension rights and liabilities are capable of being transferred by the BBC in accordance with the transfer scheme established under clause 125. The amendment would add pension rights and liabilities to the list of property to which such a scheme may relate at paragraph 3 of schedule 5. Therefore, pension rights will be brought explicitly within the scope of the transfer scheme. Under clause 126, the Secretary of State's approval is needed for any transfer scheme made by the BBC which will provide an additional safeguard for BBC transmission staff.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: New clause 17 deals with the transfer of the pension rights of employees of the BBC transmission service. It has been grouped with the range of issues to which the Minister has just referred. I have no objection to any of his proposals and I do not intend to debate them any further.
  The Labour party seeks to secure fair treatment for the 850 employees who will be transferred into the private sector as a result of the proposed sale, should it go ahead.
  It appears that a regular feature of privatisation legislation is a detailed debate on pensions. Indeed, most privatisation legislation contains a sizeable schedule relating to pensions, which is carefully scrutinised and often improved—as was the case in relation to the other two privatisation Bills that I have examined in Committee: one relating to the British Technology Group in 1991–92 and the other to AEA Technology in 1994–95.
  The Bill, as it stands, contains nothing on pensions for those employees, and our new clause attempts to remedy that situation. The issue of pensions for the BBC's employees was debated in another place and in Committee. On both occasions, Ministers promised that amendments would be brought forward to safeguard the pension rights of BBC employees when they transferred to new companies.
  The Government's response to the concerns that were raised in the other place and in Committee has been to table amendment 10, which adds the words:
  "rights and liabilities of the BBC under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities,".
  to an existing section of the Bill on transfer schemes. The problem is that the existing section of the Bill—paragraph 3 of schedule 5 on page 143—is only about rights and liabilities that shall be capable of being transferred and not about those that it will be compulsory to transfer. In Committee, the Minister said:
  "the Government will introduce an amendment on Report for the avoidance of doubt along the lines of what is provided for the Broadcasting Standards Council in schedule 4(4)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 638.]
  However, schedule 4(4) is a much more positive statement than amendment No. 10. It includes a statement to the effect that service before the transfer date will count as the equivalent after the transfer date. The Government are not avoiding doubt by introducing this amendment—they are increasing doubt in the minds of the BBC's employees.
  The Labour party's new clause 17 is much the same as that which was tabled in Committee, and it was suggested to us by the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematographic Trades Union, which represents many staff in BBC transmission. The Government have claimed that the new clause is defective in that it seeks to match the provisions contained in the sale of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
  However, the important part of the new clause is the granting of powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the division of assets. The Secretary of State should have that power and should be prepared to use it so that the staff of BBC transmission get a fair deal. It should not be left to the BBC to decide what is correct or what is best for its employees. However good its intentions may be, it cannot guarantee it—only the Minister can.

  557
  The employees in this case are entitled to a fair deal, and they are not getting a fair deal from the Government's present proposals. I trust that, on reflection, the Minister will see fit to accept our new clause. It does not instruct him to do anything other than to oversee the transfer of funds—something that has been done in every previous case.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: We have heard about protecting the interests of the BBC and of pensioners—and quite rightly so. My amendments Nos. 51 and 52 and those tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) are about protecting the interests of viewers—particularly those in areas of low population density, including much of Scotland and of Wales.
  It seems peculiar that so few conditions are attached to the legislation in relation to privatising the BBC transmission network. As I understand it, the BBC will draw up a scheme that will be approved by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I assume that any approval of that sort would depend on close liaison with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. However, I do not think that that process is enough. When the railways were privatised, there were detailed provisions to protect the services and the users of those services. Those provisions were in primary, and not simply secondary, legislation. The railways privatisation included a minimum service requirement and the privatisations of British Telecom, electricity and gas followed the same pattern.
  I ask the Minister—it is not a rhetorical question; it requires an answer—what will stop a privatised transmission company deciding to run down the network in less populated areas on the grounds that they are not commercially viable or attractive? What guarantees can the Minister offer that that will not occur? We need guarantees to the effect that television reception will be provided as of right and that there will be no marginalisation or disadvantaging of peripheral regions or regions of low population density.
  Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which I have tabled, introduce minimal requirements. I look forward to hearing not only how those requirements can be guaranteed but how provision can be made for new developments. How will the privatised transmission system ensure that that occurs?
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that any scheme devised under the Bill will not be subject to formal approval or amendment by the House.
  Mr. Dafis: That is correct. Measures of that sort should receive the assent of the House and I assume that that provision should be in the legislation. They should be part of the process of placing orders or regulations, which would bring decisions back to the House. The legislation gives serious cause for concern. We shall return to the question of transmission in a later debate, but I ask the Minister to consider my questions carefully now.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: In Committee there was a useful exchange on the subject of pensions. At column 646 of the Hansard report of 11 June, the Minister agreed that accrued benefits should
  558
  not be the sole criterion and that accrued surpluses are important. He said that he would consider the points that were raised and see whether they could be embodied in legislation at Report stage. I am disappointed with Government amendment No. 10 because it fails to do that. That is regrettable, as there was constructive debate about pensions in Committee.
  There is no doubt that people face great difficulties when their pension arrangements are affected by changes of ownership. Many examples of that kind have been raised in the Chamber. It seems quite extraordinary that, when we have the opportunity to protect those people's interests, the House does not use its full powers so to do. That is why I think that hon. Members should consider carefully new clause 17 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
  Several factors must be taken into account when considering a change of ownership such as this. If it were an ordinary private sector transaction, there would be commercial considerations on both sides which I suspect that the Minister would argue would put it outside the scope of the House. No doubt he would argue that matters of commercial consideration were involved. In this case, the matters are not just of commercial consideration but are of relevance to viewers and listeners, to the employees and to the House. New clause 17 would enable the Minister to exercise common sense and control over the debate in the interests of all those parties. At the top of the list for consideration should be those people who have paid into the scheme—as we would expect if our pension fund were being discussed. The clause, as drafted at the moment, fails to take into account the interests of the employees and I urge the Minister to think carefully about the alternative in new clause 17.
  In many other cases, the Government have exercised control in a variety of ways over the disposal of pension funds that have come under their control. One approach was adopted for the sale of Amersham International and, in subsequent privatisations, a different style was adopted. I am not arguing for one version or another: I am simply saying that the adoption of new clause 17 would give the Secretary of State the power to consider all the issues from the point of view of the fund members and to exercise that control in their interests, especially in relation to any surpluses. We had this exchange in Committee, and it is not unreasonable to argue that surpluses should be divided in the interests of those people who have contributed to the fund. The Minister accepted that point in Committee, but the Bill as drafted would not give him the appropriate power. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that point. He may be able to convince the House that the Bill will provide that power, but I believe that it will not.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I endorse many of the points that have been made by Opposition Members, but I wish to speak specifically about amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which are similar in content and intent to those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
  I wish to mention especially the Glenlivet and Marypark areas of my constituency. People may know those names through the wonderful product that conies from Glenlivet and it is my pleasure to represent such a wonderful area. I have tabled amendments Nos. 254 and 255 so that I can remind the Government that the 200

  559
  people who live in that community are denied equality of access to television. Most houses in the area—this fact may surprise many people—get only fuzzy reception of BBC1 and Grampian, and Channel 4 and BBC2 are blacked out. I accept that communications in that area are difficult, but it seems ludicrous that more consideration and encouragement has not been given over the years to ensure that our people—in an area that provides so much money for the Treasury—have equal access to television channels.
  The lack of reception affects everyone in the community. It affects the elderly population, some of whom are housebound, and it affects the young. Indeed, the local head teacher at Inveravon primary school has to ensure that educational tapes are made elsewhere for him to show to the young children in his care. This is a strong moral argument and I wish to hear what the Minister has to say on it. I have raised the problem with the Department of National Heritage and others over several years. The community council has been in touch with the Department and was appalled by the response that the people should resolve their problems by plugging into cable, which would entail running 80 miles of wire up to the nearest outlet in Aberdeen. The people regard that as ludicrous.
  The Department's response to me of 21 March said:
  "I was sorry to hear about the reception problems that some of your constituents have been having."
  That was hardly a positive response. It went on to say that, because of the 200 people involved and the nature of the landscape,
  "it … appears unlikely that a further transmitter will be built."
  It then sent advice in the context of self-help television. Our people should not be asked to deal with the problem. They have a national right to have their television reception dealt with.
  The only positive response that I received was from the Independent Television Commission. Mr. Brian Marjoribanks, the officer for Scotland, said in his letter of 7 March:
  "should the Government announce an extension to the relay building programme beyond 1996, we will undertake to commission National Transcommunications Limited to conduct a new survey in the Glenlivet area in the hope that a solution may be found."
  Will the Government extend that relay building programme or can the people of Glenlivet, Marypark and Inveravon expect to be in the same position many years hence?
  Mr. Sproat: In tabling the new clause, hon. Members have highlighted concerns about the pension rights of the BBC transmission staff following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission services. Similar amendments were tabled on Third Reading in another place and in Committee. My noble Friend Lord Inglewood agreed to consider the matter further. I, in turn, undertook to introduce an amendment on Report to make it clear that the transfer scheme for which the Bill provides could include pensions arrangements. I have done so.
  Let me explain briefly why the amendment is inappropriate. It seeks to apply to the sale of the BBC transmission assets provisions drawn from the 1990 Act in relation to the sale of the IBA transmission assets.
  560
  When the IBA's transmission network was sold, the whole of the IBA's business was divided up and the transmission network was sold by the Government.
  The BBC's position is different. The BBC itself is handling the sale and the bulk of its business will continue. The BBC pension fund will remain in existence to meet its continuing liability to some 44,000 beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. The two situations are therefore not analogous.
  None the less, we recognise that pensions are of critical concern to the staff of BBC Transmission, which is why we have introduced the amendment to which I referred earlier. The precise arrangements will depend on the identity of the purchaser, but the BBC has agreed with the trustees of the BBC pension fund that, should employees wish to transfer their accrued benefits to an appropriate scheme operated by the purchaser of Transmission, the transferred value will be a full and fair valuation of their pension rights. The BBC has stated that it will use its best endeavours to have a buyer who operates a final salary scheme, as the BBC's is. It is right that the BBC should negotiate the arrangements with staff and their representatives, as it has with other such transfers of work. The BBC will offer independent financial advice to all those affected.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sproat: I am about to discuss accrued surpluses. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask about something else?
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister confirm that he said that the transfer will include employees' pension rights? In that context, does he mean the benefits that they have accrued under the rules thus far, or their share of the pension fund?
  Mr. Sproat: It means the former. We are talking about accrued benefits. If the scheme is a final salary scheme, the employees will get what they would have got if they had retired at the age at which they are moving to the new transmitter service.
  We discussed accrued surpluses in Committee. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) looks at clause 126, he will see that it says that the Secretary of State has to approve any transfer scheme. I hope that that will give him the reassurance he seeks that the BBC cannot transfer the scheme without parliamentary approval. Clause 126 specifically states, for once in words that are understandable by someone who is not a lawyer, that the Secretary of State has to agree to the transfer. If she does not agree, the transfer cannot go ahead in its existing form.
  4 pm
  It is true that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised the matter of accrued surpluses in Committee. I said then and I repeat today that it is an important matter. I went back to my officials and we discussed whether it would be appropriate in this case to transfer accrued surpluses; the answer I received was that it would not be. As I have said, we agreed in Committee that accrued surpluses were an important consideration.

  561
  However, I now understand that the BBC scheme is a defined benefits scheme. Employees pay 4.5 per cent. of their salary for defined pension benefits, related to final salary; the BBC meets the rest of the cost.
  Mr. Miller indicated assent.
  Mr. Sproat: I did not know when I began all this that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was something of an expert in these matters. Anyway, the BBC meets the rest of the cost. Any surplus or deficit is a BBC responsibility and it therefore remains with the main scheme. I hope that although the hon. Gentleman is clearly unlikely to agree with me, he will understand why we decided that it would not be proper for the 850-odd staff who were being transferred to the new organisation to get a share of the accrued surplus.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am trying to follow what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that the contributions made by employees would not be part of that surplus?
  Mr. Sproat: I am saying three things. First, any employee who is transferred to the new undertaking will have the option of taking the accrued benefit to the new undertaking. Secondly, the employee will have the option of leaving the accrued benefit in the BBC scheme, knowing that it will be uprated by RPI every year up to a limit of 10 per cent. a year. Thirdly, the employee can transfer the accrued benefit to a private scheme. I was saying to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that it would not be appropriate to divide up any part of the accrued surplus and to hand that over.
  Mr. Forsythe: Who will estimate the total value of the pension fund? Which actuaries will be involved? Will there be actuaries representing the BBC, will there be actuaries representing the new firm and will Government actuaries be involved in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion?
  Mr. Sproat: That is a very fair question. The answer is that the BBC will take the advice of its actuaries; no doubt the new undertaking that purchases the transmission service will have its own actuaries. In addition, under clause 126, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to approve the transfer of the scheme and she will agree to a transfer only if she is convinced by the Government actuaries that it is a fair way in which to do things.
  Mr. Miller: Am I right in assuming, therefore, that if there was, say, a £1 million surplus attributable to the past contributions of the people transferred into the new company, the BBC could take a £1 million pension holiday? That would be much to the advantage of the licence payer, but clearly to the detriment of the 850 employees.
  Mr. Sproat: What will happen is quite clear. I can see that I shall not convince the hon. Gentleman that it is not just clear but right. I believe that our proposal is right. I looked at the matter carefully after the hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee. The accrued surplus will remain with the BBC; it will remain for the pension fund that
  562
  will service the 44,000 other BBC employees who will remain in it rather than for the 850. The 850 over 44,000 share will not be transferred because keeping a surplus is the responsibility of the BBC pension fund. The BBC provides the fund and it must maintain it for the benefit of the 44,000. However, I understand that under the proposed scheme, the three options that I set out to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) will be available and the BBC will give every possible financial advice to those employees transferred as to which of the three options is best for them.
  Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), seek to ensure that the quality of transmission services in less populated areas will be maintained for 25 years following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network. The hon. Gentleman's concern is understandable, but I hope to convince him—in this case, at least—that it is unnecessary.
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the BBC, the ITC and the BBC are responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards of quality, coverage and reliability of the four main terrestrial channels. That did not change when the IBA's transmission network was privatised in 1991 and it will not change with the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know from our previous discussions, the ITC and the BBC have achieved 99.4 per cent. coverage for their services in the United Kingdom and 98.3 per cent. in Wales. That impressive level of service will be maintained following privatisation.
  The Government have already pledged that analogue transmissions will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided by digital terrestrial television. That will ensure that the interests of all viewers—including those in sparsely populated areas—are protected.
  I hope that hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network will in no way disadvantage people in less populated areas of the country and withdraw his amendment.
  I now turn to amendments Nos. 254 and 255, tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Having had the honour to represent her part of the country, I well understand the strong feelings of people there. The amendments seek to ensure equality of access to transmission services for those living in less populated areas, following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission services. The amendments would provide for the quality of transmission services in such areas to be enhanced and then maintained for 25 years following privatisation.
  Let me first reassure the hon. Lady and the House that the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network will in no way disadvantage people in less populated areas. I explained why a few moments ago in answer to hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. It is a long-standing principle of Government policy that broadcasters are not required to provide a television service to every potential viewer because of the cost and the technical difficulty of reaching small and scattered communities. That followed the recommendation of the

  563
  Annan committee in 1977 that there should be no obligation on the broadcasting authorities to provide satisfactory coverage to communities of fewer than 500.
  Mrs. Ewing: People in those areas are required to pay the same licence fees as everyone else, but they do not receive the same level of service. Could there be some adaptation in the light of that?
  Mr. Sproat: Again, I know from personal experience that that irritates many people in those areas, but alas the television licence is no guarantee of the quality of reception; it simply gives permission to receive reception. I hope that some of the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned will be addressed and improved when we get digital television. In the meantime, I can say only that the Annan committee made that recommendation in 1977 and successive Labour Governments—for a few months, anyway—and Tory Governments have stuck to that principle.
  The Government have pledged that analogue transmissions will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided by digital terrestrial television. That will ensure that the interests of all viewers—including those in sparsely populated areas—are protected, so I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment in light of that assurance.
  Mr. Dafis rose—
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this group of amendments, so I am afraid that I cannot allow him to do so again. I must put the Question.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 31

  TRANSFER SCHEMES: SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
  '. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies) (which makes provision about the accounts etc. of wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BBC to which any property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme) shall have effecr.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 25

  LOCAL LICENCES
  '.After section 106 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
  "Variation of local licence following change of control
  106A.—(1) Any local licence granted to a body corporate before the commencement of this section shall be taken to include—

  (a) a condition requiring the body to give the Authority advance notice of any proposals known to the body that may give rise to a relevant change of control, and

  (b) a condition requiring the body to provide the Authority, in such manner and at such times as they may reasonably require, with such information as they may require for the purposes of exercising their functions under subsection (3).

  (2) Subsection (3) applies in relation to any local licence which—

  (a) was granted before the commencement of this section,

  (b) is held by a body corporate, and

  (c) has not previously been varied under that subsection.

  (3) Where, in relation to any local licence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) the Authority receive notice, in pursuance of a condition imposed under subsection (1) or section 88(2)(d), of any proposals that may give rise to a relevant change of control, or

  (b) a relevant change of control takes place (whether or not that change has been previously notified to the Authority),

  the Authority may vary the licence, by a notice served on the licence holder, so as to include in the licence such conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the character of the local service is maintained after the relevant change of control.
  (4) Subject to subsection (5), any new or varied condition imposed under subsection (3) in relation to any matter may be more onerous than any existing condition imposed under section 106(1) in relation to that matter; and in this subsection "existing condition" means a condition of the licence as it has effect, or had effect, before the relevant change of control.
  (5) The Authority may not under subsection (3) include any new or varied condition in a licence unless the new condition or the condition as varied is one which (with any necessary modifications) would have been satisfied by the licence holder—

  (a) during the three months immediately before the relevant date, or

  (b) if the Authority consider that the performance of the licence holder during that period is not typical of its performance during the twelve months before the relevant date, during such other period of three months during those twelve months as they may notify in writing to the licence holder;

  and for the purposes of this subsection "the relevant date" is the date of the relevant change of control or, if earlier, the date on which the Authority exercise their powers under subsection (3).
  (6) The Authority shall not serve a notice on any body under subsection (3) unless they have given it a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the variation.
  (7) Where, in any case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (3), a notice under that subsection is served before the change to which it relates takes place, the variation shall not take effect until the change to which it relates takes place.
  (8) The power in subsection (1) of section 106 to vary conditions imposed under that subsection includes power to vary conditions imposed under subsection (3).
  (9) In this section "relevant change of control" means a change in the persons having control over the body holding the licence." '—[Mr. Sprout.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause arises from the commitment that I gave in Committee on 21 May to discuss with the Radio Authority what further safeguards might be necessary following our liberalisation of the ownership of local radio licences.
  A number of hon. Members expressed concern that our liberalisation could lead to predators purchasing existing licensees simply to use that licence to transfer an existing

  565
  AM service on to digital. We are confident that the promises of performance attached to licences can be rigorously enforced to prevent that, and I point to the Radio Authority's recent imposing of fines on a number of stations that failed to remain within the terms of their promises as evidence.
  However, the Radio Authority expressed concern that many of the existing promises of performance were drafted in general terms when there were tighter limits on the ownership of more than one station in a local area. The authority pointed out that such promises might not be a sufficient safeguard against the concerns that hon. Members had raised. The new clause will therefore enable the authority to revise local licences upon a change of control in order to write tighter promises of performance that accurately reflect the character of the station's output immediately before the change of control.
  I stress that the new clause contains the minimum powers necessary for the authority to update promises of performance in the light of the more liberal ownership regime introduced by the Bill. The authority's power applies only to licences issued before the ownership liberalisation takes place and licences can be varied only on one occasion. The new clause, which the authority has welcomed, balances strengthening licences drafted in a tighter ownership regime with the Bill's deregulatory spirit.
  Dr. Moonie: We welcome the Government's new clause. A very long list of amendments has been made, and it is interesting how often the Government have taken account of comments made by hon. Members of all parties. Like the Minister, I commend the new clause to my hon. Friends.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  THE QUALIFYING TELETEXT SERVICE
  '.—(1) If the public teletext provider has notified the Commission under section 2(4A) of his intention to provide a teletext service for broadcasting in digital form as a qualifying service, he shall submit to the Commission his proposals for providing that service in compliance with the requirements specified in subsection (3).
  (2) The Commission shall give their consent to the provision of the service unless it appears to them that the proposed service would not comply with the requirements specified in subsection (3).
  (3) The requirements referred to in subsections (I) and (2) are—

  (a) that the service includes a sufficient amount of news items which are of high quality and deal with both national and international matters,

  (b) that the service includes a sufficient amount of information which is of particular interest to persons living within different areas for which the service is provided, and

  (c) that (taken as whole) the service includes a sufficient amount of information (other than news) which is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.

  (4) Where the Commission have given their consent under subsection (2), they shall vary the relevant licence held by the public teletext provider so as to include such conditions as appear to them to be appropriate—

  (a) for imposing on the public teletext provider, in specified circumstances, an obligation to provide the qualifying teletext service, and

  566

  (b) for securing that the qualifying teletext service, if provided, accords with the proposals submitted under subsection (1);

  and they may include those conditions in any other licence under which the analogue service is subsequently provided.
  (5) Sections 6 to 12 of the 1990 Act (general provisions relating to services licensed under Part I of that Act) shall apply in relation to the qualifying teletext service as they apply in relation to the analogue service, but as if the reference in section 12(1)(6) of the 1990 Act to the Commission's functions under Chapter II of Part I of that Act included a reference to their functions under this Part.
  (6) In this section—

  "the analogue service" means the service referred to in section 49(2) of the 1990 Act,

  "the relevant licence" means the additional services licence (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) under which the analogue service is provided.'. — [Mr. Sprout.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 56 to 66.
  Mr. Sproat: The new clause and the consequential amendments fulfil a commitment made to the public service teletext licence holder, Teletext Ltd., that there should be no requirement to simulcast its existing analogue service on the capacity on the channel 3/Channel 4 multiplex reserved for it. That would be unnecessarily restrictive, and would deny Teletext the opportunity to use the new technology to its fullest potential.
  The new clause therefore allows Teletext to propose to the ITC a new service to be broadcast on the reserve capacity. That service must meet the same general quality threshold required of the existing analogue service, but Teletext is free to suggest new ways in which to do that, rather than having to meet specific minimum requirements for numbers of pages on certain subjects, as it had to do to obtain its analogue licence.
  If the ITC is content with Teletext's proposals, the existing licence will be varied accordingly to allow a new digital service to be broadcast. There will be no change in the licence conditions covering the analogue service.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 26

  DIGITAL BROADCASTING OF GAELIC PROGRAMMES
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the Commission to include in any multiplex licence granted in respect of one frequency to which section 26 applies such conditions relating to the broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic for reception wholly or mainly in Scotland as may be specified in, or determined by them under, the order.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by order require the holder of a multiplex licence ("the holder"), in complying with any such conditions, to broadcast programmes in Gaelic supplied by each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4) ("the suppliers") amounting to such minimum number of hours (if any) of transmission time per year as may be specified in the order in relation to that supplier.
  (3) For the purpose of enabling the holder to comply with any such conditions and any obligation imposed by virtue of subsection (2), it shall be the duty of each supplier to provide the holder, free of charge, with such programmes in Gaelic which have been broadcast by the supplier as the holder may request.
  (4) The suppliers are—

  (a) the BBC,

  (b) the Channel Four Television Corporation,

  (c) any holder of a Channel 3 licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) for reception wholly in Scotland, and

  (d) such other persons providing television broadcasting services as may be specified by order by the Secretary of State.

  (5) Subsection (3) shall not apply in relation to any programme first broadcast by the supplier concerned—

  (a) before I January 1993, or

  (b) in the period beginning on 1 January 1993 and ending on 31 March 1997, if the supplier has no right to broadcast it again or has such a right but is not entitled to transfer it to the holder.

  (6) The holder may broadcast any programme supplied by virtue of subsection (3) on one occasion only.
  (7) The holder shall consult Comataidh Craolaidh Gaidhlig and the suppliers about—

  (a) the quantity of programmes likely to be requested by the holder from each supplier by virtue of subsection (3), and

  (b) the schedules proposed for the broadcast by the holder of programmes supplied by virtue of that subsection.

  and shall have regard to any comments made as a result of such consultation.
  (8) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (9) In this section "Gaelic" means the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Sproat.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 39—Financing of programmes in Gaelic out of Gaelic Television Fund—
  '(1) Section 183 of the 1990 Act (financing of television programmes in Gaelic out of Gaelic Broadcasting Fund) is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
  (2) In subsection (6) there is inserted after the second 'Committee', "for broadcast on an analogue service".
  (3) After subsection (6) there is inserted:—
  "(6A) The Committee shall seek to coordinate the provision of Gaelic television programmes broadcast in Scotland using digital capacity on a multiplex service; and may do this by applying for a digital additional service licence under section 22 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, either:

  (a) on its own, or

  (b) in association with other interested bodies.".'.

  Mr. Sproat: The new clause will increase the amount of Gaelic television programmes broadcast at peak time in Scotland. As I stated in Committee, the Government intend to place an obligation on the ITC to ensure that the operator of the third digital multiplex service includes in Scotland a minimum of half an hour of Gaelic programmes in peak time every day as part of its service. The clause also places an obligation on existing broadcasters of Gaelic programmes to make available free of charge Gaelic programmes that they have previously broadcast for retransmission as part of the digital multiplex service.
  568
  I must make clear that the Government intend that any additional costs should be met entirely by the broadcasters and not by the Gaelic Television Committee. To this end, we will be asking the ITC to monitor the costs of committee-funded programmes closely to ensure that the broadcasters do not pass on additional costs to the committee. Taken together, the new measures will significantly increase the amount of Gaelic programming available at peak times in Scotland, and I hope that they will be warmly welcomed by the Gaelic-speaking community.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the measure contained in new clause 26, which will help to put in place the mechanism to allow the proposed half hour of Gaelic programmes to be broadcast on one of the new digital.multiplexes. While the measure is broadly acceptable, will the Minister clarify what he understands to be the purpose and effect of subsection (4)(d)? If the Gaelic Television Committee were to become a broadcaster in its own right, will that subsection enable it to provide programmes directly to the multiplex holder?
  I commend to the Minister and to the House new clause 39, standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The Gaelic Televison Committee welcomed the Government's announcement in Committee on 9 May that a minimum of half an hour per day would be allocated for Gaelic broadcasts on one of the new digital terrestrial channels. This has been seen as a definite step in the right direction, but there is concern that the committee will still be unable to operate as a broadcaster. The Gaelic Television Committee may still be held to ransom by broadcasters to subsidise what they decide are the Gaelic programmes that they ought to put out.
  There may be some conflict of interest between the 68,000 Gaelic speakers, to whom the Minister referred, and the wider community that has been targeted by the makers of Gaelic programmes—with some considerable success—in Scotland. The Gaelic Television Committee is anxious that the interests of the Gaels should not be overlooked.
  Mr. Dafis: Does the hon. Gentleman look forward to the day when similar provision as is made for Gaelic speakers in Scotland and Welsh speakers in Wales is made for speakers of the Irish language in Northern Ireland? Would he welcome the establishment of an Irish language television fund or committee that could provide programmes to be shown on the new Irish language television channel, Teilifis Na Gaelige, emanating from the Irish Republic?
  Mr. Maclennan: I should be interested to see such a development if it stemmed from Northern Ireland. Most British Governments would be interested to hear such proposals, but it is not for me to put Erse words into the mouths of broadcasters in Northern Ireland. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that interesting possible development.
  I am anxious to ensure that the most cost-effective means of providing Gaelic services on the third multiplex is achieved. I believe that it could be, if provision were made for the committee to co-ordinate the feed of Gaelic

  569
  programming into the third digital multiplex and for that committee or its agent to be licensed by the Independent Television Commission to provide the programme service to the multiplex operator. That is the purpose behind new clause 39.
  There is concern that there is an imbalance between the power of the broadcasters and the duty of the committee, which is essentially a funder—in some cases, funding up to 100 per cent.—and is operating without a great deal of influence over the content of the programmes that it is funding. That situation requires statutory rectification. I hope that the Government will look with favour on that proposal.
  The Gaelic Television Committee is a representative body and it has shown considerable expertise. It would discharge the role of broadcaster well. It would be in line with what would seem to be the Government's intentions—stepping up the provision of Gaelic—if they accepted the new clause.
  Sir Hector Monro: As one of the instigators of the early-day motion that was signed by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House suggesting that we give additional support to the Gaelic Television Committee, I think that the Government have reacted, bearing in mind what a success Gaelic broadcasting has been. I have visited the studio in Stornoway and met those involved. There has been warm acceptance throughout Scotland of the number of hours of Gaelic television shown. Indeed, a great many people who cannot speak Gaelic enjoy watching the programmes with subtitles. I am glad about the Government's reaction, and I welcome the new clause.
  Mr. Sproat: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for the tremendous work he did when he was at the Scottish Office to ensure that there was such an increase in Gaelic broadcasting. I am sure that the Gaelic-speaking community will be grateful to him for all he did.
  I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his explanation of his new clause. He wants to create out of the Gaelic Television Committee a body quite different from that set up under the Broadcasting Act 1990. As I explained in Committee, the statutory powers of the Gaelic Television Committee are confined to the payment of grants. It is exercising those powers to good effect, as shown by its figures for the number of hours of Gaelic programmes being transmitted.
  The committee's structure, which was devised to take into account the scale of the Gaelic-speaking community and the nature of the broadcasting industry, remains valid at this stage in the evolution from the analogue to the digital age. Moreover, the Government have provided for the multiplex provider to consult the committee on the nature and scheduling of the programmes to be broadcast.
  In response to the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I emphasise, however, that I do not see a role for that committee as a broadcaster. It is a grant-giving and advisory body, and it is not our intention that it should be a broadcaster. Potential applicants for the third digital multiplex—
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister will know that the intention is to open up the supply of
  570
  programmes into the digital field. Can he clarify subsection (4)(d) of new clause 26, and say whether the Gaelic Television Committee could be one of the suppliers mentioned in that subsection, because that would go a long way to meeting the concerns of the committee about being able to provide a supply of programmes when the digital field comes on stream?
  Mr. Sproat: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That is what I was trying to tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The Gaelic Television Committee is an extremely important body, both in the grants and advice that it gives and the part it has played in the success of increasing the number of Gaelic programmes in Scotland. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, many people who do not speak Gaelic enjoy watching the programmes with subtitles.
  Having said that, I must add that we do not envisage an expansion of the role of the Gaelic Television Committee into the kind of supplier referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I emphasise, however, that the extra 30 minutes each day in peak time in Scotland, and the free giving of programmes that have already been transmitted by the BBC, STV or Grampian, constitute a major increase for the Gaelic-speaking community. For the moment, we are leaving it there.
  Mr. Macdonald: Who are the
  "other persons providing television broadcasting services"
  mentioned in subsection (4)(d)? Does that specifically rule out the Gaelic Television Committee, or does it leave open a question that might be decided at a future stage?
  Mr. Sproat: The persons referred to in the subsection are any other persons that the multiplex operator decides should provide services. It could mean Channel 5, or it could be a group that the committee helped to put together. There is no reason why that should not happen, but the committee itself cannot be a broadcaster in the strict and proper sense of the term.
  Potential applicants for the digital multiplex can expect the Independent Television Commission to give careful consideration to their proposals for consulting the Gaelic community in general, and the Gaelic Television Committee in particular. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that he should not press new clause 39.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 32

  POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO CODE ABOUT PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
  '(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) amend subsection (1B) of section 20 by substituting for any percentage specified there a percentage specified in the order, and

  (b) require the Commission to include in the code maintained under that section the requirement that in each week, at least a percentage specified in the order of so much of any digital programme service or qualifying service as consists of programmes which are not

  excluded programmes for the purposes of that section in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language is to be so presented or translated.

  (2) In subsection (1) "qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.

  (3) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.

  (4) No order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 33—Compliance with code about provision for deaf and visually impaired.
  Government amendments Nos. 165 to 171.
  Mrs. Bottomley: As the House will be aware, the Commons Committee voted to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on signing, subtitling and audio-description. The effect of those amendments was to introduce a requirement on multiplex providers to ensure that, by 10 years from the commencement of digital terrestrial television, 95 per cent. of all programme hours should be subtitled, 10 per cent. should be presented in sign language and 50 per cent. should be accompanied by audio-description for blind and partially sighted people.
  The Government fully appreciate the importance of television to people with sensory disabilities, as a source of information, education and entertainment and as a vital link to the outside world. I share my hon. Friend's concern that we should do everything possible to make television more accessible, and congratulate him on the splendid way in which he has conducted a very effective campaign to achieve his ends—although it was somewhat bruising at times.
  This is a matter on which we have a good record. The proportion of programmes subtitled on analogue terrestrial television has risen steadily in line with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, for which I commend my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). That proportion continues to rise, and will be replicated on digital terrestrial television as part of the existing broadcasters' simulcasts. This is a point on which there has been some misunderstanding, so let me be unequivocally clear. The subtitling requirements on the existing terrestrial broadcasters will apply to their digital simulcasts, and will continue after analogue switch-off.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed us on these issues in order to secure further concessions. As he will know, my noble Friend Lord Inglewood explained the position admirably in another place, as did my hon. Friend the Minister of State—to whom I shall pay tribute on many occasions, both on Report and on Third Reading—in Committee. While we remain genuinely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's cause, we believe that the existing provision in the Bill would severely, and perhaps fatally, damage digital terrestrial
  572
  television's prospects, with a consequent loss of services for all viewers. That concern has been shared by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and the ITC.
  The television companies and the ITC made three essential points. First, the target quotas are set at an impracticably high level. A requirement to subtitle 95 per cent. of programming would be virtually unworkable. Some programmes—for example, some live studio debates—are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to subtitle at the moment.
  4.30 pm
  For sign language interpretation, the technology which would enable viewers with a home personal computer to trigger an animated signer from subtitles is not yet available. Without it, sign interpretation requires a significant amount of digital capacity, thus reducing the amount available for programmes. Research into the possibilities for audio-description is at an early stage. The limitations of the technology and its application are largely unexplored.
  The second point of concern is that the current provisions do not take account of the nature of the programmes to be broadcast. In the digital era, many channels will be themed, showing a narrow range of programmes appealing to specific audiences or special interest groups. For some of these—for example, movie channels—subtitling will not pose any great technical difficulties, but other channels will have real problems.
  Placing a 95 per cent. subtitling requirement on a live sport or live studio discussion channel is unrealistic at the present time, and would effectively disbar such programmes from appearing on digital terrestrial television, which would mean a loss of services for all viewers.
  Thirdly, the cost of implementing the targets constitutes a serious threat to the competitiveness of digital terrestrial broadcasting, and so a significant disincentive to investment.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Secretary of State explain how she arrives at the costs that she estimates? Has she based her assessment on the current technology used for providing such services, or on those which are under development in a wide range of research laboratories?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that some of the costs will fall, but at the moment subtitling requires a great deal of work by highly trained staff, using sophisticated and expensive video and computer equipment. My information is that it takes a year to train a subtitler, who can then subtitle about 30 minutes of screen time in a working day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed on me the case for subtitling on many occasions. I understand that, in 1995–96—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is right that there has been progress since then—the BBC subtitled approximately a third of its network schedules. That cost it £4.7 million. The ITV Association estimates subtitling costs at £570 per programme hour. Costs of that order would be prohibitive for small companies, and would effectively bar new broadcasters from the market—the very broadcasters whom we hope will introduce a fresh diversity of new and innovative programming services into the digital arena.

  573
  At the heart of this matter is the need to find a solution which improves access for those with sensory disabilities, without imposing impracticable requirements on broadcasters which could jeopardise the viability of digital terrestrial broadcasting and the advantages that it will bring to all viewers. The aim of the Government's new clause and amendments is therefore to establish targets set at a realistic level and apply them, through the ITC code, to programme rather than multiplex providers.
  Amendment No. 168 provides that, by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by the ITC, and that not less than 10 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio-description.
  These target percentages are amendable by order. I will have the power to increase them to reflect future technological advances. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. So not only is what we propose the first rung on the ladder, but there is a clear and convenient mechanism for adding further rungs in response to improved technology, without the need for further primary legislation.
  Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but will she explain why no obligation should be placed on the multiplex operators? In Committee, it was discovered that multiplex operators would be involved in quality of programming and a host of other issues related to programmes. Surely there should also be some obligation on the multiplex operators.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The secret is to have an arrangement which delivers the results in the most effective way possible. The issue is the responsibility and work of the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator.
  We want to avoid everyone at every level taking on an additional element of involvement. We want the right body to deliver the results. As my hon. Friend the Minister explained most persuasively in Committee, that right body is more appropriately the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator. I believe that that is a pragmatic approach, based on which body will deliver the results most effectively. As with virtually every other part of the Bill, we have been at pains to listen to the regulators about what would deliver the result most effectively, as well as to listen to the views of hon. Members and other experts.
  The targets will be specified in the Bill as matters that must be included in the ITC's code. Adherence to that code will be a licence condition for all broadcasters. So we believe that we have the proper mechanisms in place to deliver the improvements that the House is seeking.
  In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target in the Bill for sign language presentation. New clause 32, however, contains a power for me to set such a target by order, after consultation with the ITC, as soon as the technology permits.
  Since finalising the new clause, I have talked further with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West and others, and I have reconsidered the position in the light of the strength of the arguments that they have put to me. I have
  574
  therefore decided, after the necessary consultation with the ITC, to introduce by order a 5 per cent. target for sign language. I have been convinced that that will give the spur needed to broadcasters to make positive efforts in that area, without imposing unachievable targets upon them.
  I recognise that that target will be demanding for broadcasters, but I am sufficiently satisfied that it was the introduction of a numerical target in the Broadcasting. Act 1990 that caused the substantial changes that we have seen. We should replicate that experience.
  Amendment No. 168 provides that the ITC may exclude certain types of programmes from the targets set in the Bill. The ITC will identify, in consultation with broadcasters and, most importantly, organisations representing the interests of those with sensory impairments—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was right to press for that—which types of programme should be excluded. In so doing, the ITC will draw on its expertise in this area to determine the types of programme for which it would not be practicable to require the levels of assistance set out in the Bill, or in the order.
  But let me emphasise, and make it unequivocally clear, that we expect those exclusions to be the exception rather than the rule: the vast majority of programme services will be subject to the targets set out in the Bill. Also, exclusion does not mean complete exemption. It simply means that lower targets than those appearing in the Bill should be applied. I am writing today to Sir George Russell to emphasise those points, and I can make that letter available.
  There can be no doubt that the proposals represent real gains for viewers with sensory disabilities. The existing broadcasters will continue to meet the subtitling target set under the 1990 Act on analogue; those requirements will read across to digital as part of those broadcasters' simulcasts, and will remain in place after analogue switch-off. Furthermore, in addition to maintaining existing broadcasters' subtitling responsibilities, the proposals will also ensure that a similar proportion of new digital programming will be subtitled. By any calculation, that represents a considerable increase in the overall amount of programming that will be available with subtitles.
  Our proposals also provide that, for the first time, a firm target of 10 per cent. is set for audio-description for existing and new broadcasters. I have also now made it clear that there will be a 5 per cent. target for sign language. Again, that will apply to the simulcast services as well as to the new channels.
  Our proposals also recognise that many different types of programme service are likely to be broadcast on digital television, and provision of subtitling, signing or audio-description at the same level will be extremely difficult for some of those programme types.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I simply want to ask whether the 5 per cent. target for sign language represents 5 per cent. of all programmes that are broadcast or 5 per cent. of those after the excluded programmes have been removed? Can the right hon. Lady clarify that?
  Mrs. Bottomley: As I have explained, there is room for exemptions for all the numerical targets, but they will be a minority. Programmers will be set the 5 per cent. target, but they may be allowed some exemptions. As the letter to Sir George Russell makes clear, however, those exemptions must be a minority and dealt with exceptionally.
  Mrs. Campbell: That was not the point I was making. I asked whether 5 per cent. was 5 per cent. of all programmes broadcast or 5 per cent. of those remaining after the excluded ones had been taken out.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is 5 per cent. when the excluded ones have been taken out, but the key is that there must be the strictest interpretation of the exclusions.
  Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State have any calculation of what the percentage of the total would be?
  Mrs. Bottomley: What I made clear was that I expect the exemptions to be an absolute minimum, so I expect broadcasters to achieve their targets as set out on the face of the Bill.
  The change is very significant. The credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for his persistence and vigorous championing of this cause. People with sensory disabilities have every reason to appreciate all that he has done.
  I very much hope that the House will accept the new clauses.
  Ms Angela Eagle: One of the highlights in Committee was holding a debate on this extremely important issue and making some progress—in fact, defeating the Government when we tabled the original amendment, which the amendments before us water down considerably. Argument raged around the idea that audio-description, subtitling and sign language would grow of their own accord. Those of us who voted for the amendment in Committee knew that, on the contrary, a quota was needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that, but I am extremely disappointed by the low levels of quota that seem to be being accepted.
  We are talking about a quota of only 5 per cent. for sign language, but that is 5 per cent. of an already lower total, because exclusions will be allowed. The Secretary of State has refused to estimate what that 5 per cent. may be as a percentage of total programmes broadcast; it is a pity that she did not feel able to do so.
  When she replies, will the Secretary of State tell us why programmes will be allowed to be excluded? All three different ways of communicating with people with sensory deprivations are extremely sophisticated in their own right. Anyone who has seen someone signing a song knows that it is the most incredible experience to see how effectively sign language can communicate. I wonder why any programmes should be excluded. By doing so, we are saying that people who have these disabilities can be excluded from a whole section of programme making. I can think of no reason why there should be exclusions.
  I am disappointed by the low percentages of coverage of the targets to which new clauses 32 and 33 refer. I do not see why we could not have tried to do better for the many millions of people who suffer from sensory
  576
  deprivations, to try to include them in the digital revolution at a time when the technology has finally allowed extra space in the spectrum to enable us to broadcast these extra visual helps to those with sensory deprivations, without interfering directly with mainstream channels.
  There is no need for the terrible box at the side in which one must watch the signer; these services could be broadcast on a completely different channel. The watering down that has resulted in new clauses 32 and 33 has denied us a real opportunity to include in the digital revolution millions of our fellow citizens who suffer from these disabilities.
  I welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle that a quota is the way to progress. I am bitterly disappointed that the Secretary of State could not have ensured that the percentages for coverage with these new services for those with sensory deprivations were much higher than the 5 or 10 per cent. of a total that, because of her issue about excluded programmes, is already lower than what our original amendment, tabled in Committee, would have allowed.
  Millions of people with disabilities will be bitterly disappointed by the very modest targets that the Secretary of State has set herself, and by the fact that the chance seems to have passed her by to include millions of our fellow men and women with sensory deprivations in the digital terrestrial broadcasting revolution.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mark several significant steps forward for people who are profoundly deaf and for the blind. On the face of it, the three amendments that I forced through in Committee—admittedly, with the help of the Opposition parties—set very high thresholds, and made a very significant move forward. I shall seek to explain why the House should accept this compromise.
  Ms Eagle: It is too modest.
  Mr. Hughes: I will come to that, if the hon. Lady stops seeking to interrupt.
  I am very grateful to all those people who helped me to put pressure on for those things—not only people in the lobbying organisations, but Members on both sides of the House. Specifically, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the former Secretary of State, was very influential, and I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eltham.
  Mr. Hughes: I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was influential in these matters as well.
  The Bill provided a one-off opportunity. We had to achieve a very specific agenda for the profoundly deaf and for the blind—to get thresholds on to the face of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, had we not had the specific and escalating threshold for subtitles in the Broadcasting Act 1990, we should not have been in the position we are in now.

  577
  My right hon. Friend adopted a slightly different approach, but she has set in train the same thing. We have the 10 per cent. threshold for subtitling, which is the same as before; we have the 10 per cent. threshold for audio-description; and now, by order, we shall have the 5 per cent. threshold for the in-vision signing.
  Provided that the House adopts my right hon. Friend's new clauses, their structure enables my right hon. Friend or any other Secretary of State of any party to increase those thresholds by order at any time that appears sensible. My right hon. Friend has sought to produce a compromise, holding the ring between the interests of the profoundly deaf and the blind and those of the industry trying to expand into this new digital era.
  The broadcasters' arguments were over-egged. In private, they would tell one, "Well, of course we said that this would make digital television unaffordable, but perhaps we were laying it on a bit thick, and, yes, we could afford these things, although we would prefer to spend a bit less on them." One should bear that attitude in mind when being lectured by their documentaries about what the Government or Opposition or anyone else should do.
  In achieving that balance, my right hon. Friend allows anyone to monitor what is going on, and allows a future Secretary of State to say, "There has been so much progress technically that I can now increase this threshold or double that one, and I can put pressure on the broadcasters." Therefore, the facilities available to the profoundly deaf and to the blind will escalate.
  Mr. Maclennan: I admire the trenchant way in which the hon. Gentleman moved his amendments in Committee. I recognise too that politics is the art of the possible. But does he accept that the order-making power to which he refers could be used in either direction—to lower as well as increase the targets? That is the risk of the approach that we may be urged to adopt.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I certainly considered that. I think it extremely unlikely that a Secretary of State would lower the targets, or be able to get that through the House. I had many dealings in government with the private Members' Bills on disability of a couple of years ago, so I know what strong feelings are generated on both sides of the House when it comes to this important subject. I therefore believe that the movement will be upward.
  The list of excluded programmes worried me a lot. They were an invention by the Department. The consultation document issued by my right hon. Friend included a wide range of programmes that would be excluded, some of which were already subtitled and enjoyed by profoundly deaf people. For instance, "Top of the Pops" has a large audience of deaf people. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has already mentioned deaf signing for songs, which can be a moving spectacle. I myself have heard a number of deaf choirs sing in churches.
  All this is well understood, so it was quite wrong to include such programmes in the list of exclusions. The same goes for sports programmes; in general, they should not be excluded, either. Euro 96 has been subtitled and enjoyed by many deaf people. The point that the industry has strongly made, to me and my right hon. Friend, is that there is scope, with the new digital services, for experimental programmes—mostly live services—that
  578
  might cost almost as much as the original programmes' budgets. It was therefore right to allow programme makers to negotiate lower targets with the ITC, so as to get the services under way.
  As my right hon. Friend said in her letter to Sir George Russell,
  "programmes to which different targets apply are likely to be those which are predominantly live, though this might change as technology develops."
  Certainly, technology is changing all the time, and in-vision signing and subtitling will be generated automatically, at least on some programmes, to a standard acceptable for those sorts of programme. Other programmes, however, will always need more detailed subtitling work.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman has negotiated in detail with the Government on this matter. Is he happy that no obligation is to be placed on multiplex operators?
  Mr. Hughes: I did discuss that with my right hon. Friend. As she said a few minutes ago, it is a matter of pragmatic judgment. I thought the same as the hon. Gentleman when I framed the amendments to which we agreed in Committee. But my right hon. Friend's officials believe that the matter is best left to the programme makers. It is difficult to argue with that. It was indeed my view that the multiplex route was better, but that was only a personal view. What really matters is whether the services are going to be provided. Since they are, I will not argue about whether the obligation should be on the multiplexes or the programme providers.
  This change will mean a great deal to the profoundly deaf and the blind: it is a great step forward for them. It provides them with access to entertainment that was beyond their grasp before. The new clauses will give them increasing access to the programmes they want to watch.
  I know that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to whose officials I spoke earlier this morning, regards the move as a significant step forward, and believes that it should speed up in years ahead. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, of course, would like more audio-description. What is proposed in that area is relatively modest, and I trust that my right hon. Friend and her successors will continue to see what is possible. I think that this service could be increased more quickly than some of the others.
  A constituent of mine, Phyllis Knowles, who has been profoundly deaf from birth, first interested me in deaf choirs, and so on, when I became a Member of this place in 1987. She invited me to be the president of the Harrow deaf club, a position I still hold. I am sure that she, who lobbied for many years for a fair deal for deaf people, would endorse what my right hon. Friend has done today.
  Unfortunately, however, I attended her funeral last Thursday; just two weeks ago she was tragically killed in a car accident. She was a brave lady who never gave way, and who always believed that another step in the right direction could be taken. I believe that she, like others who are profoundly deaf or blind, would have welcomed what we are doing today.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Historically, the broadcasters always resist advances for people with sensory disabilities. That is a well-known fact. When considering

  579
  the amendments agreed to in Committee, the Secretary of State has obviously come down on the side of the broadcasters at the expense of people with disabilities. The proposals represent a retrenchment of the position we agreed in Committee.
  I heard the Minister say, in the context of an earlier amendment, that a very large number of people would like Gaelic programmes with subtitles. I must inform him that there is a much larger group of people, nationwide, who would like to watch all programmes with subtitles—there are millions more of them. That is the target on which he should be concentrating; he should be thinking of the many who are deaf or hearing impaired.
  The Government have been too negative in their approach throughout. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), a Back Bencher, and note that it is only because of his persistence—with the support of all the Opposition parties—that these provisions found their way into the Bill at all. Why was nothing included in the legislation at the outset? That is surely the acid test of whether the Government wanted anything done for people with disabilities. But there was nothing of this type in the Bill until the hon. Gentleman had the courage and persistence—supported by my hon. Friends and members of the minority parties—to move his amendments in Committee.
  The Government are embarking on a new form of broadcasting. There has been a great deal of hype about the revolutionary nature of the technology. One of the big selling points of digital television has been the development of the highly successful multi-media industries. These are multi-million-pound businesses, not impoverished little organisations. The other big selling points are better pictures and sound, and more choice of channels.
  It is rather misleading to claim more choice for people with sensory disabilities, however. There will be no more choice for them as a result of this technological innovation and expansion unless significant advances of the kind envisaged by the Committee are made on their behalf. If they are not, one of the Government's central claims for the introduction of this legislation will be denied.
  One of the advantages of digital television is that it should be possible to add subtitles, sign language and audio description much more easily than at present. We currently have the capacity and the technology, but the willingness to use it more generously on behalf of people with disabilities is absent.
  I listened carefully to the speeches of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Harrow, West—I wanted to hear what he had to say before I spoke in the debate. The Secretary of State referred to cost—we are talking about highly profitable companies that are looking to expand their activities as a result of the legislation. The Secretary of State mentioned a figure of a few million pounds. If she is thinking about the cost. she should take the number of households that have one member with some impairment and then multiply that number of households by the amount of the BBC licensing fee. She will see that the licensing fee received from those households alone is much higher than the cost to which she referred. I do not accept her argument—nor will the millions of people about whom we are talking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to the movement of technology. I expect that voice recognition packages for technology will be
  580
  commonly available in the period envisaged in the original amendments discussed in Committee. As my hon. Friend said, they are already available in some circumstances. I believe that they will be commonly and cheaply available in the future. With the rapid advances of technology, there is no reason to suppose that this will not be significant in reducing the cost.
  5 pm
  Contrary to what the Secretary of State claimed, the Government have a bad record, not a good one on support for people with disabilities—as we have seen repeatedly in the Chamber, over the years, in our attempts to give disabled people the rights that others enjoy. The Government do not come out of this well. The right hon. Lady has said that she is responding positively to what the Committee decided and to what her hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West wants. However, she is responding at a level that is much lower than that envisaged by the Committee when it decided to make the changes.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about the compromise. He urged hon. Members to accept the compromise—as he is apparently doing—because the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about it. However, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is less happy about the compromise. The hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the British Deaf Association or about the Deaf Broadcasting Council. Will he tell the House whether they are happy about the compromise? The Deaf Broadcasting Council wrote to all Members of Parliament on 26 June, and stated:
  "The RNIB, RNID, British Deaf Association, and Deaf Broadcasting Council do not consider that these steps come near to adequately meeting the needs of the people we represent. Therefore we urge you to resist any efforts to remove or weaken these amendments in next week's debate. An attempt to this end is almost certain to happen."
  The council knew very well that such an attempt would come from the Government.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point. Naturally, all the organisations that he mentioned—they lobbied collectively—would be happiest with the highest possible thresholds. However, they have always understood that the important thing was to get thresholds into the Bill and the mechanisms within it, so that future Secretaries of State could increase them. That is the context in which I said what I did.
  Dr. Cunningham: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that not all the organisations that represent people with sensory disabilities are happy about or supportive of the Secretary of State's position—I put it no more strongly than that.
  Ms Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) seems to be saying that, now that we have the mechanisms in the Bill, it is for future Governments to do a much better job than his Government have done?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I was coming to that point. The warning bell was rung by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he said that giving Secretaries of State discretionary powers is often a

  581
  double-edged sword, because they can use them in many different ways—sometimes generously and benignly, and sometimes negatively and unhelpfully. We have yet to see the draft order, and it may be couched in terms that will allow only increases rather than decreases. That would be a hopeful sign.
  There has been much comment about programme exclusions. Hon. Members should not seek to list programme exclusions—I believe that this is what the hon. Member for Harrow, West sought to do originally, and what the Committee agreed to do—but should seek to include as many people with disabilities as possible in the broadcasts of programmes and events that those of us who are fortunate enough not to suffer any of these disabilities enjoy regularly and as a matter of course in our everyday lives. I believe that that is the positive way in which legislation should approach these problems—and I shall wait for the Secretary of State's response. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to resist the changes set out in the amendment.
  Mr. Roger Gale: It is a great sadness that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate and seek to—
  Dr. Cunningham: Just for the record—as the hon. Gentleman always begins his speeches with these sorts of comments—I have come to the debate at the exact same time, and on the same occasion, as the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Gale: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished my first sentence, he might have taken it in context. It is a great sadness that he has come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate, apparently for the specific purpose of denigrating the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The Westcliffe house Royal National for Institute for the Blind home and the Royal School for Deaf Children are in my constituency. I take a particular interest in matters affecting the community. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for putting his case. However, I felt unable to support his measure—he knows this, we have discussed it—in Committee. As someone who has been involved in broadcasting for almost 30 years, I believe that what he proposes is practically and technically impossible—certainly not realisable within the context of the transfer from analogue to digital broadcasting and in the context of the investment that is necessary in digital broadcasting.
  It does not surprise me in the slightest that Labour Members choose to pay no account whatever to cost. Cost is a consideration which must be taken into account, particularly by small television companies. It is blindingly obvious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot possibly put forward any quota of programmes that might be discounted by the Independent Television Commission. That power has been given to the ITC, and it has been made clear to the House that that power will be used sparingly.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I understand that this is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has chosen graciously to accept the Government amendments—has taken the sentiments expressed on both sides of the Committee and translated
  582
  them into something practicable, not something that is blue sky, pie in the sky, unrealisable and, therefore, unfair to the people whose hopes we might have raised.
  Mr. Miller: I thought that you understood the technology.
  Mr. Gale: I do understand the technology and. as a result, I recognise the financial constraints placed on small companies by a blanket coverage of the kind suggested in Committee. Today we have proposed a workable step forward which has been recognised as such by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the RNIB. This morning, I received a letter from two constituents, Mary McCann and Peter Gallagher, who are pupils at the Royal School for Deaf Children. They say:
  "As deaf people the provision of Sign Language interpreting and subtitles is very important because both facilities help us to access the information.
  We do not want subtitling reduced. Without it we cannot understand the programmes and are denied information.
  We understand that interpreting can be distracting and therefore could not be offered on many programmes. However, we hope that the Breakfast News will still be subtitled.
  Please will you put our feelings forward to Parliament".
  My right hon. Friend has met their concerns. She made it plain this afternoon that the existing subtitling that is available on analogue television will be transferred to simulcast when digital and analogue are simulcast and will then be rolled over into digital when analogue is taken off air.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents—who correctly make the point that sign language interpreting and subtitling improve their understanding of television programmes—that, if that provision is available on the new digital services, viewers who are not hard of hearing will be able to turn off the services and therefore not be distracted by them? I hope that that is understood.
  Mr. Gale: That is not the point that my constituents were making: they want the existing service to continue. My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely plain that the existing service will be not only continued but enhanced. The Secretary of State said—to those who bothered to listen—that she would go down the path that was first trodden by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in 1990. Those of us who served on the Committee that examined that legislation will remember clearly the way in which he introduced. a measure of subtitling that was realisable and achievable. It was a significant move forward in the provision of facilities for our constituents who suffer aural or visual disabilities. The Secretary of State has taken that a step further this afternoon—and she has done so in a measured and a realisable manner.
  That is the sensible way forward. The Government's proposals are workable and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West understands that and is prepared to accept them. I hope that the rest of the House will do likewise.
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come forward with some proposals. The 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation is

  583
  welcome, but I still do not believe that the amendments go far enough. I know that many blind and visually impaired people and many deaf and hard-of-hearing people will not feel that the Government amendments address the real problems.
  For instance, I gather that subtitling exemptions will be increased from what was passed in Committee. Again, I do not honestly think that that is acceptable. That will mean that programmes that could have been seen by a large number of disabled people will not be able to be accessed. We must protect the provisions that were passed in Committee. Deaf and visually impaired people are excluded enough—there are 8.7 million deaf, hard-of-hearing or visually impaired people in the United Kingdom. On average, hearing people can listen to 672 hours of television a week. At present, only two hours of that is in sign language.
  These people pay their television licence fee. There is a £1.25 reduction for blind people—that is an absolute disgrace. People are paying to be able to access all programmes. Although, as I said, it is welcome that the Secretary of State has moved to a certain extent, I believe that many people throughout the country will be deeply disappointed in the Government again. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for his work in getting the Government to move this far. It is a small step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is only a small step and we will have to vote against the amendments.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I sympathised with the amendments moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—although his arguments might have been more persuasive to sympathisers like me if, in sending out extracts from the Committee transcript, he had supplied copies of the Minister's speech as well as his own. That might have given us a clearer idea of the scale of his requests.
  I came to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today—given my sympathies with my hon. Friend's argument—not least because one of my grandfathers was deaf and one of my grandmothers was blind. Although I understand that only one of those conditions is potentially hereditary, I lived through the experience of those disabilities in my immediate family and I sympathise with those who suffer from them.
  I am not prone to disloyalty to the Government—as the Whips may be reassured to hear—and I am conscious that I have exhausted my personal quota of disloyalty to my right hon. Friend in another capacity. However, it is not merely chivalry that causes me to say that I shall support the Government this evening. My right hon. Friend has listened to the debate, responded fairly to the points put to her and been flexible. In those circumstances, I shall support her—not least on the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West.
  I am happy to be enlisted in any future guerrilla force that chooses to harry both the Government and the broadcasters as soon as economics and technology allow so that further resources might be made available to those with disabilities. However, on the strength of the speech
  584
  by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) today, I shall not enlist in a force that is led by him. I have as little confidence in his grasp of the economics and the technology of this industry as I have in his understanding of the profit motive in the working of the national lottery—an issue which I suspect will haunt the Opposition in a wider context in future.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I shall not detain the House long, but I must make two or three points that have not been raised before.
  I refer first to the Secretary of State's point about the 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation and to the exempted programmes, which is a new concept in the Bill. I am worried that, if 10 per cent. of programmes are exempted or excluded, 5 per cent. of the remaining 90 per cent. is only a 4.5 per cent. sign language target. If 20 per cent. of programmes are excluded, the target becomes only 4 per cent. Therefore, the 5 per cent. target is already being whittled away: we are talking about not 5 per cent. but 4.5 or 4 per cent. All hon. Members must understand that point.
  Much has been said on both sides of the House about the economics of the debate. The real problem is that we do not know what new technology will be available in a few years and how cheap or expensive it will be. We also do not know the other side of the equation. For instance, we know that 7 million people are hard of hearing, but we do not know how many of them do not believe that it is worth buying a television licence as they cannot understand the programmes that they watch. If the service can be improved, some of those people may decide to buy licences and subscribe, which will alter the economic balance.
  I wish to make a further point.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is wrong. The balance of the equation is not altered, because the licence fee goes to the BBC and many of the companies about which we are talking get no benefit.
  Mrs. Campbell: I understand that the BBC objected to the higher limits that were introduced in Committee because of the economics. My question is whether the BBC has taken the other side of the equation into account. [Interruption.] I do not understand the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has made from a sedentary position, but I hope that the BBC will take into account the other side of the equation when it considers the economics.
  There is a higher percentage of hard-of-hearing people among the elderly and those with other frailties. They need access to broadcasting, because it is one of the few means of communication that they can enjoy. On those grounds, we should seek to include them in a way that technology is at last beginning to make possible.
  Mr. Miller: The House will know that I am keen to ensure that the Bill will give the broadcasting industry the best opportunity to be at the forefront of the new technologies. We should recognize—it is interesting that no Conservative Member has made this point—that we have a leading role in the technology involved in subtitling film media, including translation from foreign languages, general teletext provision and single channel provision.

  585
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage was previously Secretary of State for Health and she should know that the technologies are developing quickly. She will remember, I hope, the work undertaken by IBM, with some of our finest surgeons, to develop voice recognition technology. Rapid progress has been made, thanks to British scientists working with the national health service. It is extraordinary that the Government have failed to recognise that we have more than a fledgling industry in that area. In fact, we have a massive potential industry which the Secretary of State is ignoring. [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister of State is giving some advice to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will recognise that my point is valid.
  The quality of work in subtitling cannot be underestimated and we have a massive potential business opportunity in the United Kingdom and outside, if we allow the industry to flourish. The restrictions that the Secretary of State would place on the development of the technology—by not accepting the amendments made in Committee—will undermine that potential.
  Some hon. Members have referred to cost. Of course, a cost would be incurred, but no one has been able to define the level of cost of today's technology or of the emergent technologies to which I have referred. It would be ludicrous for the Secretary of State to water down the Committee's work on the basis of cost, but not to give us any real figures. She cannot give us the figures because she does not understand the potential of the technology. I urge the House to resist the Government's attempts to water down the amendments made in Committee.
  Mr. Maclennan: I greatly admire the role that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has played in extracting an important concession. Unlike the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the hon. Member for Harrow, West did not engage in guerrilla tactics: he went over the top at a time when his party are in government rather than putting his cause to one side and waiting for a change of government, although I am sure that he will want to continue his attack when that happens. The hon. Gentleman's campaign did not need guerrilla tactics: it needed a frontal assault and he recognised that. We supported him to the hilt and the changes that were made in Committee were an example of the effectiveness of cross-party co-operation. As I said earlier, Conservative Members eventually feel bound to accept the inevitable and I do not think any the less of the hon. Member for doing so.
  Opposition Members are freer to speak their minds and I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if the House were to accept the Secretary of State's view we would not go far enough. Many organisations have lobbied to increase provision for the sensorily deprived. I doubt whether the order-making power, which the Secretary of State has said that she intends to use to guarantee 5 per cent. in-vision signing, will be used to ratchet up that provision. I think that we shall see a sliding scale, which could slide down as well as up under pressure from the programme providers.
  The Secretary of State was on the defensive today, as she was bound to be, because the Committee expressed its views strongly. All hon. Members will know that once the primary legislation has been debated it is much more difficult to return to the issues and to ensure that they are constantly under consideration. I hope that the many people who have followed this debate will monitor the
  586
  technology and cost implications of their suggestions on a yearly basis and will keep informed those of us who are concerned about the predicament of the sensorily deprived. I hope that people outside will press us to return to the issue regularly and frequently.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have had an interesting and illustrative debate about these enormously important matters. We have heard, once again, the mean-spirited and grudging attitude of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has achieved a singular step forward for people with sensory disabilities and they have every reason to pay tribute to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a great knowledge of these matters because the Royal School for Deaf Children is in his constituency, gave a realistic appraisal of some of the issues involved for the industry. He said, frankly and helpfully, that the provisions would impose great pressures on the industry, especially on small start-up businesses. The Labour party will wallow in the luxury of opposition in perpetuity because it is not prepared to face the economic realities of starting up a business and of job and wealth creation.
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the innovation and success of the film and broadcasting industry. The new technology is developing because for the past 17 years the industry has worked with a Government who recognise that endlessly burdening industry with regulations, rules, interference and bureaucracy merely smothers and destroys all opportunity to provide services which were previously inconceivable.
  In discussing these matters, I have been well aware of the need to promote the industry and to encourage innovation in the digital era, not just the big boys that we are used to, but some of the new players. Moreover, as a result of my previous responsibilities, I have been all too aware of the difference that new technology and communications mean to people with disabilities. That is why I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for persisting. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet was right to say that the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) influenced me greatly in pressing further than may have been reasonable the interests of those with disabilities.
  I wish to make a number of issues absolutely clear. 'The Bill as originally drafted contained a code for those matters, so they were part of the original Bill although they did not appear on the face of the Bill. That is the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was so enthusiastic. On exclusions, when hon. Members read carefully the letter to George Russell they will see that I expect exclusions to be an absolute minimum. Programmes in the excluded category should be subject to other targets, which should be achievable. They should not be excluded from targets altogether. Moreover, I expect them to be improved and ratcheted up as time goes by. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spoke for many when he said that he will press the Independent Television Commission and the Government to ensure that those targets are raised.
  5.30 pm
  We want digital television to have a good start. Through the steps achieved by hon. Friend the Member

  587
  for Harrow, West, those with sensory disabilities will be at the heart of the new work from the start. It then seems right to ensure that standards improve as time goes by. My hon. Friend paid tribute to his constituent, Phyllis Knowles. We all share his sympathy in her tragic death. However, people with disabilities are so often an example in their persistence, courage and determination to achieve change. Through my hon. Friend's work, that has certainly been the case here.
  I hope that the House will support these substantial improvements. They will be difficult for the industry, but they will be of profound long-term benefit to all those with sensory disabilities.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Secretary of State was less convincing the second time around than she was the first, not least because she wants the House to accept that the amendments promise more when in reality they deliver less. We shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 166 at the appropriate time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 33

  COMPLIANCE WITH CODE ABOUT PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
  '(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code maintained by them under section 20 are observed in the provision of digital programme services and qualifying services.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a digital programme licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for requiring the holder of the licence, on entering into any such agreement as is mentioned in section 19(3)(a), to submit to the Commission proposals for ensuring that the code is complied with in relation to the provision of the digital programme service.
  (3) Where the holder of a digital programme licence has submitted proposals to the Commission in accordance with a condition included in the licence by virtue of subsection (2) or has failed to comply with such a condition, the Commission shall, after consulting him, vary the licence so as to include in the licence such further conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the code in the provision of the digital programme service in question.'—[Mr. Sproat.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 28

  UNAUTHORISED DECODERS.
  '.—(1) In section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (unauthorised decoders), for subsection (1) there is substituted—
  "(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

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

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both."

  (2) The amendment made by subsection (1) shall not apply to any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new clause 29—Apparatus & for unauthorised reception of transmissions.
  Mr. Taylor: This is my debut at the Dispatch Box in the proceedings on this Bill and I pay tribute to the burden that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, took on his shoulders in Committee. The proceedings on the Floor of the House are the interesting bit, and I am delighted that he has given me a chance to take some of the amendments and new clauses that are before the House.
  New clauses 28 and 29 fulfil the commitment that my hon. Friend made in Committee on 18 June, when he agreed to consider carefully the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the then new clause 73 in relation to decoder piracy. Protection against unauthorised decoders—piracy of pay television—is considerably in advance of that in many other countries. However, some difficulties have been encountered in enforcement due to the lack of restraint on advertising unauthorised decoders for sale.
  The new clauses should go a long way towards alleviating those problems. Advertising unauthorised decoders will become a criminal offence. The sale of such decoders is already an offence. The provision will also be added to those activities to which civil remedies can be applied directly by any broadcaster affected. A maximum new penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment should provide a significant deterrent against those involved in the theft of pay television services.
  The new clauses will be welcomed by those in the industry and I commend them to the House.
  Dr. Moonie: I welcome the Minister to our proceedings, and I welcome the new clauses that he proposes.
  This matter was discussed at length in Committee and it was clear that both sides felt that something needed to be done. On behalf of the Opposition, I wholeheartedly welcome this much-strengthened provision. I trust that it will be effectively applied in combating fraud.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 29

  APPARATUS &C FOR UNAUTHORISED RECEPTION OF TRANSMISSIONS
  '. In section 298 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (apparatus &c for unauthorised reception of transmissions), in subsection (2)(a). after "hire" there is inserted ", offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire,"—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

  MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 IN ITS APPLICATION TO AGREEMENTS RELATING TO CHANNEL 3 NEWS PROVISION
  '.—(1) After section 194 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
  "Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in its application to agreements relating to Channel 3 news provision
  194A.—(1) In this section a "relevant agreement" means an agreement—

  (a) which is made between all holders of regional Channel 3 licences for securing the appointment by them, in accordance with conditions included in their licences by virtue of section 31A(a), of a single body corporate to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2), or

  (b) which is made between them and the body corporate appointed to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2) for purposes connected with the appointment.

  (2) If a relevant agreement is registered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act"), the Director General of Fair Trading shall report to the Secretary of State as to whether it appears to the Director that the agreement falls within subsection (4).
  (3) If, on receiving a report under subsection (2), it appears to the Secretary of State that the agreement falls within subsection (4), he may give a direction to the Director requiring him not to make an application to the Restrictive Practices Court under Part I of the 1976 Act in respect of the relevant agreement.
  (4) A relevant agreement falls within this subsection if—

  (a) those provisions of the agreement by virtue of which the 1976 Act applies to the agreement do not have, and are not intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition, or

  (b) all or any of those provisions have, or are intended or likely to have, that effect to a significant extent, but that the effect is not greater than is necessary—

  (i) in the case of a relevant agreement falling within subsection (1)(a), for securing the appointment by holders of regional Channel 3 licences of a single body corporate to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2), or

  (ii) in the case of a relevant agreement falling within subsection (1)(b), for compliance by them with conditions included in their licences by virtue of section 31(1) and (2).

  (5) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke any direction given under subsection (3) above if he satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances such that—

  (a) the grounds for the direction have ceased to exist, or

  (b) there are grounds for giving a different direction; and where the Secretary of State so varies or revokes any direction, he shall give notice of the variation or revocation to the Director.

  (6) In this section—

  (a) "agreement" and "Director" have the same meaning as in the 1976 Act, and

  (b) "regional Channel 3 licence" has the same meaning as in Part I."

  (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to any agreement (within the meaning of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) made for the purposes of the provision of news programmes by a nominated news provider under section 31(2) of the 1990 Act as originally enacted.'—[Mr. Sprout.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.
  Mr. Sproat: In Committee on 13 June, when introducing the new clauses that now form clauses 70 to 72 of the Bill relating to the provision of a single channel 3 news provider, I said that the Government were still considering the implications of those new clauses in relation to competition law. New clause 9 and amendment No. 91 are the products of that careful consideration.
  The provisions of sections 31 and 31A of the 1990 Act, as amended by the Bill, will require the regional channel 3 companies to select one news provider from a pool of nominees deemed by the Independent Television Commission to be of an acceptable standard. We are concerned that the agreements between individual ITV companies to secure a single news provider, or agreements between the channel 3 companies collectively and the single news provider on the terms of the contract might be registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. We are particularly aware that an agreement between the channel 3 licence holders to appoint a news provider would be a registrable agreement under the terms of the RTPA and might be referred to the restrictive practices court. That possibility arises as a consequence of the fact that the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty, subject to certain provisions of the Act, to take proceedings before the restrictive practices court.
  The Government do not want to risk those agreements being referred to the restrictive practices court as a direct result of channel 3 companies complying with Government policy. However, we consider that the significance of any restrictions accepted in the agreements should be tested against the policy in the 1976 Act. The amendments are designed to bring about that result.
  The provisions of new clause 9 give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the power, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to direct the DGFT not to refer to the restrictive practices court any registrable agreement relating to the provision of a single news provider for the regional channel 3 network. The Secretary of State can so direct the DGFT only if, having received a report from the DGFT, it appears to him that the restrictions in the agreement which make it registrable do not significantly restrict, distort or prevent competition, or that any such restriction is not greater than is necessary for securing the appointment of a single news provider by the regional channel 3 companies. The last point is very important.
  The Government's intention is to lift the threat of a referral of the agreements in question to the restrictive practices court where the restrictions are justified against the test that I have described. It is not our intention to give the channel 3 companies a free rein to make anti-competitive agreements generally in respect of the provision of news to the network. Such practices would remain subject to general competition law. Restrictions that the Secretary of State deemed greater than necessary for securing the appointment of a single news provider

  591
  could still be referred by the DGFT to the restrictive practices court, which would then decide whether they were against the public interest.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27
`PART VIA

  COPYRIGHT AND RELATED MATTERS
  .—(1) Any provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to prohibit or restrict relevant dealing with a broadcast or cable programme in any circumstances where by virtue of section 30(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events) copyright in the broadcast or cable programme is not infringed.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) "relevant dealing", in relation to a broadcast or cable programme, means dealing by including visual images taken from it in another broadcast or cable programme, and

  (b) "broadcast" and "cable programme" have the same meaning as in Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.'—[Mr. Sproat.)

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause give effect to my commitment in Committee to table an amendment to safeguard news access to sporting and other events. The new clause provides that any provision in a contract is void in so far as it prevents the use of visual images from another programme for the purposes of news reporting, in circumstances in which the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would apply. Any decisions as to what constitutes fair dealing would remain for the courts to take, based on the specific circumstances of the case in question.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 30

  COPYRIGHT LICENSING
  '.—(1) After section 135G of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is inserted—
  "Power to amend sections 135A to 135G
  135H.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order, subject to such transitional provision as appears to him to be appropriate. amend sections 135A to 135G so as—

  (a) to include in any reference to sound recordings any works of a description specified in the order; or

  (b) to exclude from any reference to a broadcast or cable programme service any broadcast or cable programme service of a description so specified.

  (2) An order shall be made by statutory instrument; and no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
  (2) After section 151 of that Act there is inserted—
  "Award of interest
  151A.—(1) Any of the following, namely—

  (a) a direction under section 123(3) so far as relating to a licence for broadcasting a work or including a work in a cable programme service;

  (b) a direction under section 128(3) so far as so relating;

  (c) an order under section 135D(1); and

  (d) an order under section 135F confirming or varying an order under section 135D(1),

  may award simple interest at such rate and for such period, beginning not earlier than the relevant date and ending not later than the date of the order, as the Copyright Tribunal thinks reasonable in the circumstances.
  (2) In this section "the relevant date" means—

  (a) in relation to a direction under section 123(3), the date on which the reference was made;

  (b) in relation to a direction under section 128(3), the date on which the reference or application was made;

  (c) in relation to an order section 135D(1), the date on which the first payment under section 135C(2) became due; and

  (b) in relation to an order under section I35F, the date on which the application was made."

  (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in any case where the reference or application to the Copyright Tribunal was or is made before the commencement of this section.'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause gives effect to the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, in Committee when possible changes to the scope of the statutory licence were discussed. He explained that the Government did not feel that it was appropriate to go ahead with any changes at present, but the new clause will allow an order to be made in future to vary the application of the statutory licence. That will include restricting the categories of broadcast or cable programme service to which the statutory licence applies. The Government have in mind in particular the possible removal of on-demand services from the statutory licence.
  The new clause will also give the copyright tribunal the discretion to add an element of interest to awards that it makes when resolving disputes, for example, under the statutory licence. This will include a back-dated payment or repayment to compensate any party financially disadvantaged by the unreasonable behaviour of another. Because of the scope of the Bill, the new clause has been limited to cases involving broadcasting and cable programmes, but when a suitable legislative opportunity arises the Government intend to apply the change to all disputes that can be heard by the tribunal.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I welcome the new clause on behalf of the Opposition. It has been tabled in response to an amendment tabled by Opposition Members in Committee and it will allow the Government to respond flexibly and sensibly to perceived difficulties in the music industry, in particular, as a result of the development of new on-demand services. We welcome this response to changing technology and we hope that the Government will look at suggestions made by the music industry to deal with what it believes are considerable difficulties in

  593
  the present arrangements as a result of technological changes. We are grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clause and we shall support it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 34

  AMENDMENTS OF COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1988 RELATING TO CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
  'Schedule (Amendments of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to cable programme services) (which contains amendments of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to broadcasts included in cable programme services) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ian Taylor.)
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new schedule 4—Amendments of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to cable programme services.
  Mr. Taylor: The new clause and new schedule are immensely complicated, but the purposes are relatively straightforward and simple. They adjust the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to take account of the introduction of the new must-carry requirements for cable operators under clause 86. As many hon. Members will know, the must-carry amendments were introduced following debates in the Lords in which Baroness O'Cathain played a leading and most constructive role, and I give her due credit.
  Clearly, cable operators should not be liable for copyright infringement merely by fulfilling their obligations under clause 86 to carry public service broadcasts. The new clause and new schedule ensure that that is the case, while also providing for copyright owners to obtain additional payments from broadcasters where a broadcast is carried by cable outside the area for which it is made.
  Cable operators not subject to the must-carry requirement will also be able to carry all the public service broadcasts within the area covered by the broadcast without infringing the copyright. The new clause also includes an order-making power to change the list of broadcasts to which this copyright exemption applies if, for example, any free-to-air digital services were to achieve a high level of penetration.
  5.45 pm
  Where other broadcasts are to be carried, the cable operators will need to obtain copyright clearance from the broadcaster but, as is the case at present, there will be no copyright infringement in underlying works. Broadcasters will have already paid a royalty to rights owners for the area covered by the broadcast. An additional royalty for cable coverage of the same area would therefore amount to a double payment.
  We expect and hope, however, that in future there will be many new broadcasts as a result of digital technology. The new clause therefore includes an order-making power
  594
  allowing the Government to limit the exemption from copyright infringement should there be evidence that copyright owners are not getting their due as a result of these developments.
  Mr. Hoon: The Opposition have no substantial objection to the new clause. However, in response to the Minister's comment about the complexity of the proposals, I make the observation that it is somewhat unfortunate at this late stage in the passage of the Bill—which has completed its stages in the other place and has gone through a long and detailed Committee stage in this House—for us to be presented with complex amendments which have not been considered in detail in Committee. That is regrettable.
  I wonder whether the presence of a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry at this late stage indicates that there has been further thinking in different Government Departments about the way in which the Bill has developed. Such thinking might have been done better in co-ordination with the Department of National Heritage. It would have helped everyone to see that co-operation rather earlier in the proceedings so that we could have responded to the proposals in Committee.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Government, as we know, is a seamless web. However, when a complex piece of legislation goes through we sometimes need to table new clauses, amendments and new schedules. I apologise to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) for leaving the new clause until late in the day, but I think that he will agree that it is better late than never.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 41

  STANDARDS FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
  '(1) The Independent Television Commission (in this section referred to as "the Commission") shall do all that they can to secure that every licensed service uses a transmission system complying with Article 2 of Council Directive 95/47/EC on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals ("the Directive").

  (2) In this section "Community digital standard" means any of the alternatives permitted within the mandatory parts of the standards to be met by a transmission system for the purpose of complying with Article 2(c) of the Directive (which relates to television services that are fully digital).

  (3) The Commission may, after consultation with the persons specified in subsection (6), specify particular Community digital standards to be met in the provision of licensed services which are fully digital.

  (4) In deciding whether, and if so how, to exercise their powers under subsection (3), the Commission shall, in particular—

  (a) have regard to the desirability of promoting—

  (i) mutual technical compatibility between digital television services, and

  (ii) the development of digital television broadcasting, and

  (b) consider whether it would be reasonably practicable for persons providing licensed services which are fully digital to use transmission systems meeting the Community digital standards in question.

  (5) Where the Commission have exercised their powers under subsection (3), they shall—

  (a) publish notice of their determination in such manner as they think fit, and

  595

  (b) do all that they can to secure that any licensed service which is fully digital uses a transmission system meeting the Community digital standards specified under that subsection.

  (6) The persons referred to in subsection (3) are—

  (a) every person providing a licensed service,

  (b) the BBC,

  (c) the Welsh Authority,

  (d) the Secretary of State,

  (e) the Director General of Telecommunications,

  (f) the Director General of Fair Trading,

  (g) such persons appearing to them to represent manufacturers of television broadcasting or receiving equipment as they think fit,

  (h) such persons appearing to them to represent viewers as they think fit, and

  (j) such other persons as they think fit.

  (7) In this section—
  "licensed service" means any service licensed by the Commission under Part I of this Act or Part I or II of the 1990 Act or provided under a relevant cable licence, but does not include any service which is only broadcast or transmitted for reception outside the European Economic Area;
  "relevant cable licence" means a relevant licence within the meaning of Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act (transitional provisions relating to existing cable services).'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 16—Common technical standards for digital television—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for additional powers for the Independent Television Commission ("the Commission") to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services as he may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of those services.
  (2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a digital television service;

  (b) every independent analogue broadcaster as defined in section 2(1) of this Act providing a qualifying service as defined in section 2(2) of this Act;

  (c) such other providers and potential providers of digital television services as he thinks fit;

  (d) such bodies or persons appearing to him to represent manufacturers and producers of equipment used for receiving digital television services as he thinks fit;

  (e) such other bodies or persons who are concerned with technical licensing requirements for digital television services as he thinks fit.

  (3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
  New clause 43—Power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services—
  `.—(1) After section 2 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
  "2A. (1) The Commission may adopt such technical licensing requirements for digital television services as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of those services.
  (2) Before the Commission adopt any such licensing requirements as are referred to in subsection (1), they shall consult—

  (a) every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a digital television service;

  (b) every independent analogue broadcaster as defined in section 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 providing a qualifying service as defined in section 2(2) of that Act;

  (c) such other providers and potential providers of digital television services as the Commission think fit;

  (d) such bodies or persons appearing to the Commission to represent manufacturers and producers of equipment used for receiving digital television services as the Commission think fit;

  (e) such other bodies or persons who are concerned with technical licensing requirements for digital television services as the Commission think fit.

  (3) Each of the following is a digital television service for the purposes of this Part and of Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996—

  (a) A multiplex service, as defined in section 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1996;

  (b) A digital programme service, as defined in section 1(4) of that Act;

  (c) A qualifying service, as defined in section 2(2) of that Act;

  (d) A digital additional service, as defined in section 21(1) of that Act;

  (e) An ancillary service, as defined in section 21(2) of that Act;

  (f) An electronic programme guide service, that is to say the service of providing, whether in conjunction with a television programme service or otherwise and whether directly or indirectly, television programme information by broadcasting, transmitting or otherwise conveying that information (whether by wireless telegraphy, by means of a telecommunications system or otherwise) to equipment which is capable of receiving and/or processing the information, where that service is provided in digital form;

  (g) A domestic satellite service transmitted in digital form;

  (h) A non-domestic satellite service transmitted in digital form;

  (i) A licensable programme service provided in digital form;

  (j) A local delivery service, as defined in section 72, where that service or any of the programmes comprised in it is delivered in digital form;

  (k) A diffusion service (within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984), whether prescribed or otherwise, which falls to be regulated by the Commission under section 134 of, and Schedule 12 to, this Act and which is provided in digital form.'.".

  New clause 44—Amendment of section 6(1) of 1990 Act (Technical licensing requirements)—
  `After subsection (1)(e) of section 6 of the 1990 Act (general requirements as to licensed services) there is inserted—
  "(f) where the licensed service is a digital television service, that it complies with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A.".'.
  New clause 45—Amendment of section 73(3) of 1990 Act (Licensing of local delivery services)—
  (1) Section 73 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
  "(3) Subject to subsection (4), sections 3, 4, 5 and 6(I)(f) shall apply to local delivery licences as they apply to licences granted by the Commission under Part I of this Act."
  (3) After subsection 4(c) there is inserted—
  "(d) the reference in section 6(1)(0 to 'every licensed service' shall be construed as including a reference to licensed local delivery services.".'.
  New clause 46—Amendment of Schedule 12 to 1990 Act (Cable services)—
  'After paragraph 2(1) of Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act there is inserted—
  "(1A) In discharging their functions under this Schedule as respects the licensing of diffusion services, the Commission shall do all that they can to secure that any diffusion services which are provided in digital form comply with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of this Act; and a relevant licence may include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for securing that the diffusion services authorised to be provided under that licence comply with any such licensing requirements.".'.
  Amendment No. 228, in clause 7, page 8, line 3, leave out 'the service' and insert
  'all the multiplex services available in that area'.
  Amendment No. 229, in clause 8, page 9, line 8, leave out 'the service' and insert
  'all the multiplex services available in that area'.
  Amendment No. 256, in clause 11, page 11, line 41, at end insert—
  '(i) that the licensed service complies with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services)'.
  Amendment No. 257, in clause 18, page 19, line 15, at end insert—
  '(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 4(1) (general licence conditions), it is hereby declared that a digital programme licence may also include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for securing that any ancillary service provided by the licence holder complies with any conditions adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services).
  (4B) In subsection 4A, "ancillary service" has the meaning given by section 21(2) of this Act.'.
  Amendment No. 258, in clause 26, page 25, line 27, at end insert—
  '(c) ensuring that qualifying services, and any ancillary services provided by independent analogue broadcasters, comply with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services)'.
  Amendment No. 259, in page 26, line 11, leave out 'either' and insert 'any'.
  Government amendment No. 253.
  Mr. Taylor: We are dealing here with a large group of new clauses and amendments. I shall speak briefly to new clause 41 and the consequential Government amendment No. 253, and pause to see what comments emerge.
  598
  The Government have taken careful note of the debate in Committee on common technical standards for digital television. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) played a key role in raising these questions in Committee, helping us to pin down the crucial issues at the heart of the matter. I give him credit for his contribution to the debate. The hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) also made leading and constructive contributions.
  As hon. Members will know, the Government responded to the debate by undertaking a consultation exercise on the possibilities for co-operation between digital terrestrial multiplex providers to ensure that all digital terrestrial decoders could receive all digital terrestrial services. As both Government and Opposition amendments show, the issue crosses the different transmission media. Interoperability between services on any given medium is clearly desirable for digital terrestrial, cable and satellite, but so too is interoperability between services on different media in so far as that is reasonably practicable.
  We can all find common cause in the aim of supporting interoperability. The Government believe that the commercial imperatives of a market in which the objective is to sell services to the largest possible number of subscribers will tend to support, rather than work against, interoperability. We should not ignore the potential for the market to find its own solutions, as has occurred in other areas covered by my responsibility as Minister for Science and Technology.
  There is a desire for interoperability to enable the services to reach the widest possible market. To do so by providing powers to pick particular standards across the board, for example, would create unnecessary uncertainty, retarding development and raising costs. Neither of those effects is in the interests of the consumer, so we have endeavoured to strike the necessary balance. With that in mind, ensuring basic interconnection between services comes down principally to two issues: first, ensuring interoperability between different conditional access systems and, secondly, ensuring that the maximum compatibility that is reasonably practicable between transmission systems is achieved.
  First, on conditional access, hon. Members will know that, on 26 June, we published for further consultation detailed proposals on the regulation of conditional access services for all modes of digital television. Those draft regulations and the associated draft licence for conditional access services will ensure that any broadcaster may obtain conditional access service from every operator. That means that he can include in his broadcast signal the control information for each system.
  Each decoder can unscramble the picture under the control information appropriate to its conditional access system. That is known as simul-crypt, which I understand we will discuss later. It will work in practice because our regulations, following the European directive, will require every decoder to contain the so-called common scrambling alorithm. All that is necessary is to have the conditional access service data for each particular system to control its operation in unscrambling the picture. That is guaranteed by our regulations, which will oblige every conditional access operator to supply service to any broadcaster who requests it.

  599
  The second main objective is to ensure the maximum practicable compatibility in transmission standards. The European directive already mandates particular transmission standards for each mode of digital delivery. Each standard contains a number of mandatory sections. Within those sections, however, a number of choices can be made for some required transmission parameters. That will allow broadcasters to adopt the best set of parameters for coping with the particular environment in different countries, for example, and provides important flexibility behind the different standards.
  Most manufacturers are likely to incorporate substantially the full range of options in their broadcast and receiving equipment, but if different equipment manufacturers in the United Kingdom chose to manufacturer different limited selections of those options—perhaps because they were the options favoured by particular broadcasters or multiplex providers—technical incompatibilities could result. New clause 41, therefore, provides a reserve power for the ITC, following consultation with all relevant players, to select a particular set of options from those allowed by each transmission standard. All broadcast service licence holders would then be required to observe those choices in transmission.
  Taken with our regulations for implementing conditional access regulation, I hope that it is clear that new clause 41 does precisely what we are seeking: it provides a means to ensure the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of digital television services across all three delivery mechanisms—terrestrial, satellite and cable.
  New clause 41 also fulfils the Government's obligation to implement the rest of the provisions in article 2 of the television standards directive.
  Amendment No. 253 provides simply that the definitions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 apply to new clause 41.
  Our amendments achieve their aims without creating great uncertainty as to what standards might be specified. They also avoid certain of the undesirable side effects of some of the other new clauses and amendments in this group. Nevertheless, before I pause to allow other hon. Members to speak, it may be of interest to Opposition Members to know that the Government are minded to accept one further aspect of those amendments.
  Mr. Hoon: I shall not delay the House by repeating the Minister's observations, as they reflect those of Opposition Members in moving various amendments designed to achieve the purpose that the Government are now so keen to advocate. It is appropriate, however, to repeat my earlier mild criticisms of the Government—and perhaps the Minister's Department—that the amendments were not tabled much earlier. I am afraid that it is an example of government by amendment.
  I am pleased that the Government have shifted their position, gradually, in the direction of common sense. New clause 41 in particular reflects the views of the Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were anxious that a common standard should be established.
  The Minister referred to our deliberations in Committee. I hope that he also noted a number of plaintive cries for his attendance so that he could put the
  600
  view of the Department of Trade of Industry as that would have assisted us all. It is for further consideration—perhaps by a different Government—if these matters require amendment in future, that there should be greater co-ordination between Government Departments to achieve what is finally a commonsense approach to the problem.
  Mr. Gale: I concur entirely. I am sure that, if further amendments are necessary, the next Conservative Government will be only too pleased to address them.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology to the Dispatch Box and thank him for his kind opening remarks. As he is aware, having studied reports of the proceedings in Committee, concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the core argument on the development of digital terrestrial and satellite broadcasting relates to conditional access and the technology involved.
  What my hon. Friend has told the House this afternoon is extremely welcome. Last week, the Government published a draft statutory instrument on conditional access. That will go a long way towards meeting many of the concerns about a common interface. If the viewing public are to have the confidence necessary to invest in initially expensive new digital receivers, it is vital that they should have access to all the programmes on offer. They will not be content with a selection achieved through one box, and then having to purchase a second, third or fourth decoder to receive all programmes.
  Set manufacturers must be confident that they are producing equipment that will not be obsolete within a few months or a few years if they are to invest in the production lines necessary to turn out the new receivers. I hope that, as a result of what has been said today, set manufacturers and the public will proceed with confidence and that there will be a new range of wide-screen digital television receivers—with a set-in box, not a set-top box—capable of receiving all the channels whether by satellite, terrestrial or cable television.
  As my hon. Friend said, new clause 41 would give reserve powers to the Independent Television Commission. It is similar to the amendment that I tabled in Committee and which was lost on the Chairman's casting vote. Although new clause 41 gives the ITC some discretion to choose between sub-sets of agreed European standards, it does so only within the terms of article 2c of the television standards directive.
  I am assured that article 2c refers only to the most basic elements of the digital transmission system. It does not cover any of the ancillary elements such as service information, which is not the television picture or sound, but information about the service; it does not cover conditional access, but the statutory instrument will; and it does not cover electronic programme guides, which were discussed in Committee. All those elements are essential both for the digital transmission itself and for compatibility between them. There will be an opportunity through the statutory instrument to address those missing elements if my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is so minded, and I would be grateful if he would comment on that.
  I am extremely grateful for the manner in which both responsible Departments have responded to the arguments that were put forward in Committee. The amendments

  601
  will go a very long way towards meeting our concerns. Will my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology give an undertaking that the statutory instrument relating to conditional access will be on the statute book and operative in time to run in tandem with the Bill's enactment, so that all those concerned can have absolute confidence in the manner in which they are to proceed?
  6 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the Minister's speech, and only in passing regret that the Government's intentions in this very complex area became clear rather late when they tabled their amendments on Thursday.
  The complexity of the issue, both in terms of the technology and the legal language that we are deploying in the amendments, would probably be baffling to most auditors of this debate. I think that we all agree—I do not believe that there is any division across the Floor of the House on the issue—that we are trying to guarantee the ability of audiences to choose to receive either digital terrestrial or digital satellite services, or both, without disposing of equipment that they have already acquired. It is recognised that that is vital to the take-up of the new digital service. I take it that that is what inspires the Minister's amendments, although they are also clearly designed to bring the Bill into line with the terms of article 2c of the European Union television standards directive.
  I tabled new clauses 43 to 46 because it has been put to me—and, I imagine, to other hon. Members—that the implementation of article 2c does not go quite far enough in removing uncertainties. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) described well the defects of reliance on article 2c provisions that seem to be encompassed by new clause 41, and I endorse what he said. The provisions are of course flexible and, since we are in a fast-moving market, perhaps it would be wrong at this stage to specify a complete set of transmission elements where the ITC could play a role. Service information, for example, which is not covered by the directive, is information on where particular services may be found. It is important that compatible standards are made mandatory if receivers are to be able to locate channels and switch between them.
  New clause 16, which the Labour party tabled, seems to cover similar ground, by appearing to lay a similar duty on the ITC. I am sure that it has a similar goal in mind, but I am concerned that the new clause would introduce delay into the process by simply providing, after extensive consultation, for the Secretary of State to lay an order giving the ITC powers—a somewhat slow procedure bearing in mind how rapidly it might be possible for a powerful player to come to dominate the market.
  The ITC has indicated that it would consult widely and fully if it were exercising discretion in this area, and try to reach a satisfactory position by industry consensus. I do not think that, in this matter, we can simply allow the market to operate. It could take a long time to find a common standard, or one could be imposed on the industry. I therefore commend to the Minister new clauses 43 to 46, which would give the ITC the discretion that I think it requires. That is the right approach to create conditions in which a proper inter-connect regime can emerge.
  I found the Minister's speech somewhat tantalising in that he held out the hope that some of the amendments, which have been tabled by hon. Members of all parties,
  602
  might conceivably be acceded to. I therefore hesitate to labour my points lest, by some chance, I might be the fortunate person whom he intends to favour.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: We have had a useful and clarifying debate. I suppose that I am touched by the words of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). One's absence is felt in these matters but, as I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for National Heritage did a tremendous job in Committee. My hon. Friend and I kept in very close touch and I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I had no interest in the Committee's proceedings. There is a close working relationship between the Departments of Trade and Industry and of National Heritage. My responsibilities as Minister for Science and Technology include the economic supply chain, copyright issues and many of the other basic technical standards that underpin the Department of National Heritage's broadcasting policy, and this is one of the areas in which such matters are particularly important.
  Conditional access and interoperability are crucial to our ability to move forward in this very exciting digital television revolution. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet: we must ensure that customers know where they stand and that they do not have to buy many boxes. He is absolutely right that, before we get very far down this track, the new sets will have built in decoders rather than set-top boxes. We are possibly talking about the change of 8 million television sets—that is a slightly back-of-an-envelope calculation—which is a considerable challenge. Indeed, we have set down a timetable for a review of when we might ultimately consider switching off analogue. I would like that to be capable of happening, and for us to give guidance, as soon as possible.
  I should like, if I may, to cross-reference this issue with the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade issued on radio spectrum pricing only 10 days ago. It contains a very useful section on radio spectrum pricing in relation to the broadcasting industry, which is not the subject of these amendments but to which I should nevertheless like to draw attention because I believe that it is relevant to the background to the debate. Set manufacturers must also be given clarity.
  As always, there is a need for a concept of commercial return in order to stimulate investment. We must not stipulate to the point that we ignore the innovative process, nor must we draw the power so widely that the people who are investing consider the risk too big and. therefore, delay their activities until the Government of the day clarify their intentions.
  In my judgment and that of my colleagues, new clauses 43 to 46 would give the ITC powers to do virtually anything in connection with digital television services. Far from creating the certainty that we require, they would be likely to provoke uncertainty. Were the power to be applied to technical standards in decoders, the need for clearance would arise under the single market procedures of directive 83/189/EC, and that would inevitably create further uncertainty and delay. We cannot accept those new clauses, or new clause 16, which offers similar scope. We believe that it, too, would be a recipe for delay and increased costs.
  I accept that not every element can be covered in the statutory instrument. Basic standards on service information are included, although not the full

  603
  specification. The statutory instrument cannot implement more than is in the directive, but it will be laid in the autumn. In the document published on 26 June, we laid down a timetable to which I intend to adhere. We are having consultations until the end of this month, and we will move swiftly thereafter.
  Finally, we come to amendments Nos. 228 and 229, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others. It is important to be charitable, and I must say that the amendments are ingenious and we like them. They seem to offer a response to some of the potential competition law difficulties identified with proposals explicitly requiring collusion between bidders for multiplex licences. Co-operation is still possible, and may be desirable. It should be clear that, under these amendments, the ITC would not be able to preclude bids that did not involve co-operation between multiplex providers. Equipment using different conditional access systems from that of other multiplex operators is still capable of receiving all the multiplex services through the application of simul-crypt, as I explained earlier.
  Furthermore, new clause 41 and its associated amendment, amendment No. 253, provide a back-stop power for the ITC to help to ensure the greatest mutual technical compatibility that is reasonably practicable between digital services. Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 seem to us to add value to this objective in the specific context of digital terrestrial television. They make clear that, all other things being equal, proposals that added to interoperability without raising immediate problems of competition law would be favoured over ones that detracted from interoperability. The Government are therefore minded to agree to these amendments but, for the reasons that I have explained, we will resist the other amendments—and the new clauses—in the group.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New clause 4

  DUTY OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION AND RADIO AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE QUALITY IN PROGRAMMES
  '.—(1) In exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority ("the relevant authorities") shall have as their principal objective to secure that programmes included in any service licensed under either Act shall, taking the relevant service as a whole—

  (a) be of a consistently high quality; and

  (b) contain a suitable proportion of original material produced, or predominantly produced, in the United Kingdom.

  (2) "Suitable proportion" in subsection (1) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued by the relevant authorities.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 35—Duty of Commission and authorities to promote quality etc., in television and radio services in Wales—
  '.—It shall be the principal duty of the Independent Television Commission, the Welsh Authority and the Radio Authority, in exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, to secure that the programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales are of a consistently high quality and that they reflect, taking the relevant service as a whole—

  (a) the tastes and interests of all communities living in Wales; and

  (b) the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13.
  Mr. Mullin: May I begin by thanking my hon. Friends for the backing that they have given to this new clause? It is not every day that my name appears on the amendment paper above that of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not suppose that will happen often in the future. I am grateful none the less.
  New clause 4 seeks to repair one of the fundamental omissions from this Bill—the absence of any requirement that programme quality be taken into account when licences are allocated. It seeks to do this in two ways. First, it will enable the ITC to take into account the quality of the service proposed by the applicant. As the Bill stands, the nearest we get to laying down minimum standards is the requirement in clause 8(2)(d) that the service shall appeal to
  "a variety of tastes and interests".
  That, as I shall argue in a moment, is wholly inadequate.
  Secondly, the new clause will ensure that the material broadcast shall contain a suitable proportion of original British-made programmes. I say "original" because I would not want the purpose of the new clause to be subverted by the endless recycling of second-hand material, whether produced in Britain or anywhere else. As to what constitutes a "suitable" proportion, that would be for the ITC to judge, taking into account all the circumstances—including the fact that, initially, it might be necessary to exercise leniency until the new service was up and running.
  In due course, I see no reason why the proportion of British-made programmes on digital television should not be similar to that expected of terrestrial television. It is important to make clear from the outset to the providers of digital television that we do not wish to be swamped by a tidal wave of American junk. Nor do we wish to see our television production industry go the same way as our film industry. We have an excellent domestic television industry and, in particular, we have a thriving independent sector. We do not want to see it undermined—we want it to be encouraged.
  6.15 pm
  It will not have escaped the notice of those who advise Ministers that the application of new clause 4 is considerably wider than any amendment moved in Committee. It provides the ITC with powers to enforce minimum standards not merely upon applicants for multiplex licences, but on applicants who come within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990. As clause 45 of the 1990 Act makes clear, this includes non-domestic satellite television—in other words, Sky Television.

  605
  For reasons at which one can only guess, Sky has been exempt from the requirement imposed on terrestrial commercial television that a given percentage of its output must be British-made and original. Sky spends almost nothing on original production apart from news and sport, with the result that it is free to import—often from other parts of the Murdoch empire—American and Australian movies and soaps at a fraction of the costs that its terrestrial rivals have to spend on producing original material. It is hard to think of anything more calculated to undermine the quality of British television.
  I am sure that Sky's exemption from the rules that apply to its commercial rivals has been a factor in the desperate spiral of cost-cutting and ratings chasing that has afflicted British television in the past six years. I do not know how this extraordinary arrangement came about. It has been suggested that Margaret Thatcher sent a draft of the 1990 Act to Mr. Murdoch's lawyers, who simply deleted the parts that they did not like. That is one possibility. Another justification was that Sky's start-up costs were so massive and the risk so great that it would have been unreasonable to expect it to meet the same standards as its commercial rivals. I am not sure whether that argument ever held water, but if it did, it has long since been overtaken by events. Sky is now seven years old, and is highly profitable. It is about time that it was required to operate on a level playing field. New clause 4 will provide the regulators with powers to make sure that it does.
  I now return to the argument about quality. I read the Minister's speech on this issue in Committee and, frankly, I was confused by it. On the one hand, he appeared to argue that the Bill already provided the regulator with powers to insist on minimum standards of programming. On the other hand, he argued that any safeguards would place an unreasonable burden upon investors. He cannot have it both ways. As regards his suggestion that variety was an adequate substitute for quality, that was admirably disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that the Oxford English dictionary defined variety as "the absence of monotony". Is that the best that we can hope for from this wonderful new technology? Should we not be a little more ambitious?
  The Minister argued that we must allow multiplex providers to give viewers what they want—the very argument that has given us The Sun and has dragged the rest of our tabloid newspapers into the gutter to compete. I do not want to see the same thing happening to our television. None of us should pretend that we know what the viewers want, but of one thing I am certain—unless we insist upon the enforcement of minimum standards from the outset, the viewers will get what is cheapest and most profitable for directors and shareholders. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in Committee to say how we could prevent a decision by one operator to go down market from dragging others down with it, the Minister said that there was "every reason to hope" that the quality of channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be imported into the new digital services. He continued:
  "We shall have to wait and see."—[Official Report, Standing Committer D. 25 April 1996; c. 64.]
  For my part, I am not prepared to wait and see, or to rely on hope. All the evidence from at home and abroad suggests that once one surrenders decisions about quality
  606
  entirely to the market, the trend is remorselessly downhill. As for the quality of channels 1, 2, 3 and 4—we are still awaiting channel 5—which the Minister hopes will be imparted to the digital services, there has been a dramatic decline in quality since the wave of mergers triggered by the 1990 Act. The knowledge that the first two digital multiplexes will go to the holders of existing franchises gives me no confidence.
  The only way to guarantee minimum standards is to provide the regulator with power to enforce them. That is what I am proposing. In Committee, the Minister said that the dominant criterion by which the ITC will judge applicants is
  "the degree to which the application … is likely to advance the cause of digitalisation in this country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 April 1996; c. 66.]
  Never mind the quality, feel the width—that is precisely the philosophy that will lead us down the road to ruin. In the long term, it will not be the standards of terrestrial channels that set the pace for digital television, but the opposite. Digital could undermine the standards that we are struggling to maintain on the other channels. We will end up with a tabloid TV—50 or 500 channels, but nothing worth watching on any of them.
  If the Government are not willing to take into account the Opposition's fears or those of many in the industry, for example those associated with the Campaign for Quality Television, one might expect them to listen to the ITC, which was set up precisely to regulate the industry. I presume that the ITC—or, I would presume it if the Minister were anywhere to be seen—enjoys the confidence of Ministers. It would be a strange affair if it did not. What does the ITC have to say on the issue? I will quote from a briefing that has no doubt been circulated for the Report stage to all hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee, which states:
  "Despite widespread agreement concerning the need to empower the ITC to take these matters into consideration when analysing applications for multiplex service licences, it is by no means certain that the ITC will have sufficient statutory powers to exercise discretion in these areas. If this uncertainty remains, the ITC believes the legislation could actively prohibit"—
  that is underlined—
  "consideration of these factors in the licensing process."
  At the end of the debate in Committee, the Minister undertook to go away and reflect on the quality of what he called "the backstops". I gather that amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are the product of his reflections. If that is so, I can say only that they are obscure. Their purpose may be clear to the fine legal minds who advise Ministers, but they are not clear to me or to the people whom I have consulted.
  At the end of last week, I asked the ITC whether the amendments had resolved the problem from its point of view. I was told that they would make no significant difference. If the Government are committed to maintaining the quality of British television, as they claim, why cannot they say so unambiguously in the Bill? That is the purpose of new clause 4 and I commend it to the House.
  Dr. John Cunningham: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on the new clause and his speech in introducing it. I enjoyed the sight of his name alongside that of our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and mine on the amendment paper—long may it continue.

  607
  New clause 4 encapsulates all the important arguments that took place in the Committee in this House and in another place and on Second Reading. Consistently, we have heard from Ministers that the provisions of schedule 7 to the Bill would allow a carry-over of the powers and duties of the Independent Television Commission from the 1990 Act. Those duties under section 2 require the Commission to discharge its functions
  "in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests."
  At the end of the Committee stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made clear, the ITC was still not convinced that it had been given the necessary powers. The Minister said:
  "the lawyers still cannot make up their minds about the exact wording."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 June 1996; c. 765.]
  He promised to write to all members of the Committee setting out the exact situation. That he has done. In the past few days, he has begun to catch up on his correspondence. We have had a series of letters from him about matters contained in the Bill. I shall quote the letter from the Minister of State, who said:
  "I am sorry that in expounding this case I inadvertently misled the Committee on the relatively technical question of the application of Section 2 of the 1990 Act".
  It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the Committee and, of course, we accept his apology. That is not the problem and it is not surprising because he was trying to reconcile two almost exactly opposite points of view. On the one hand, in the letter, he was saying,
  "It remains the Government's view that quality should not be a distinct criterion in the award of multiplex licences."
  That is the Minister's and the Government's view. However, he then went on to say:
  "There are, however, two particular respects in which, in our view, the ITC will be able to take account of quality considerations".
  The Government say that they do not want quality to be a specific consideration, but they want nevertheless to take into account quality issues. That is contradictory and the Government had every opportunity to make their mind up on the matter and to clarify the situation.
  The reality is that the body that will have to implement this part of the Act—the ITC—remains unconvinced that the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State today are sufficient to give it the clarity and certainty that it requires. The ITC believes that any exercise of those powers to decide between digital programme service providers could, as the proposals stand, leave the ITC open to legal challenge, which would obviously be highly unsatisfactory.
  The reality is also that quality of programming and quality controls in television exercise people in all parties and also exercise the public a great deal. Although the amendments about the V-chip are grouped separately, there is a link between what we are discussing, the new clause and the subsequent amendments—how the statutory bodies of government and we as legislators protect people from gratuitous violence and other unsatisfactory and unacceptable productions on television.
  608
  New clause 4 seems to be the right way to proceed—by allowing an explicit reference to the power to consider quality when judging programme services. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been able to be quite clear about that in the new clause. The Government have deliberately chosen not to select that as a criterion and have obfuscated the issue, as the Minister's letter makes clear.
  The new clause also gives the regulators powers to consider issues relating to original material and United Kingdom-based productions, which are particularly important to our audio-visual industries. It also extends to radio, an area that the Government have completely ignored. That alone renders their amendments unsatisfactory.
  I urge the House to support new clause 4.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin): we see eye to eye on many issues. However, if he had used the word "channels" rather than the phrase
  "programmes included in any service",
  the wording would have been much more specific, and it might not have been so easy for the authorities to wriggle out of it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that is far too easy under the current drafting.
  Anyone who has BSkyB, or watches it regularly, will know that its channels conform to everything in the new clause. TNT, for instance, shows old films predominantly—six or seven a day. Most are English, feature Jack Hawkins commanding a submarine and have been on television 15 times before, but they nevertheless fall within the criteria laid down in the new clause. Bravo shows films dating back to the 1950s; UK Gold features non-stop repeats of British programmes—yard after yard of "EastEnders" and "The Bill". Recently, it has shown all the Morecambe and Wise programmes, "The Two Ronnies", "Poldark", "Elizabeth R", "I, Claudius" and "Minder".
  The whole nation enjoyed that marvellous television in the 1970s, and I very much enjoyed watching it for the second time. Often, when I leave the House at midnight—not feeling very tired—and there is nothing else on television, I watch a 1977 repeat of "Match of the Day". That is wonderful football. It is possible to watch recordings of historic sporting events, all of them British and original. All that stuff of which we are so proud is on satellite television—on BSkyB, for instance. The Discovery channel shows wonderful documentaries. Whether they feature jackboots marching into Poland, Adolf Hitler or the history of the Ford motor car, they are far better than anything that is produced now.
  BSkyB would accept the new clause. The old British stuff that is shown on perhaps 10 of its channels far outweighs the new American stuff. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully. His intentions in regard to quality and standards are admirable, but he must be more specific.
  Mr. Dafis: I support the new clause, because I believe that we need guarantees on quality. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, when

  609
  there is intense competition it is easy for standards to fall. In Committee, I gave an example of the kind of reduction in quality that we have seen since the 1990 Act, specifically in the case of documentaries on third world and environmental issues which are produced on commercial channels. In many instances, there has been a reduction of some 40 per cent. in such coverage. It is a worrying trend.
  I take it that, in referring to "high quality" and
  "taking the relevant service as a whole",
  the new clause encompasses such considerations. I could not regard a service as being of high quality unless it dealt, seriously and educationally, with the major issues of our time. Surely the issue of environmental sustainability and third world development is the big issue of our time. It is deeply depressing to see serious coverage of such matters diminishing. It is with that thought in mind that I shall vote for the new clause.
  I am glad to note that new clause 35 deals with the same issue in a Welsh context. It also asks for a mechanism to allow consideration of Welsh broadcasting in its entirety, which we certainly need. Wales has three programme providers, which are in competition with each other but collaborating and co-operating at the same time. It is that second aspect that needs to be strengthened. Like others, I would like a proper, comprehensive study of the Welsh broadcasting scene to be conducted, examining ways in which it can be developed in the round.
  The new clause refers to
  "programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales".
  I take it that that makes it possible for us to discuss the BBC, which is a crucial element in co-operation on the Welsh scene. The BBC should recognise its responsibility, especially in regard to the amount of central funding that it provides for Wales. Between 1992 and 1996, its income from licences increased by about 14.7 per cent. I believe that funds for the BBC in Wales have increased at a much lower rate—by about a third of that amount. That is not good enough. Funds for the BBC in Wales are crucial. The BBC supplies 10 hours a week for S4C, and I understand that it regards that as fulfilling its responsibility for Wales; but it is not satisfactory.
  Let me say a little about the reorganisation of the BBC that is currently proposed, and the effect that it may have in Wales. One member of the BBC's board of governors was responsible for regional broadcasting; now, one member of the new BBC broadcasting unit will be responsible for regional and educational broadcasting and a number of other important services. There is a danger that the whole regional dimension will suffer, and Wales will certainly be included in that decline.
  The new clause refers to
  "the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales".
  I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will speak about the English language heritage of Wales in that context, and—if I may anticipate him—I agree entirely with what he will say. One of the big deficiencies in Welsh television provision is that that English-speaking culture, and the vitality of the English dialects that are spoken in Wales, are not reflected.
  It often strikes me that journalists and announcers on BBC Wales and HTV speak not with any kind of Welsh accent, but in monotonous, boring received-pronunciation
  610
  English. Sometimes they aspire even higher, and go for cut-glass English. The result is often comical. I consider cut-glass English comical in any event, but when it is spoken by people who are obviously affecting it and have had elocution lessons in order to do so, it is grotesque.
  Language is an important part of culture and diversity, and dialect is part of that. I would welcome the comprehensive look at the broadcasting scene that new clause 35 encourages.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) ought to be central to any Bill about broadcasting. The issue of quality should not have been debated so late in the proceedings on the Bill. I know that it was considered in Committee, but it should have been central to the original legislation, as it should have been central to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which caused such damage to the whole of British broadcasting.
  Too many people—even people who work in broadcasting—see quality of programming as secondary to the delivery system. I do not mind whether programmes come by digital methods or, provided everyone has access to them, by cable, satellite or terrestrial means. What matters is the quality of the programme that comes by this miraculous medium. I worked in the industry for a while, but I did not understand how it worked. I was concerned about the quality of the picture that came out at the end. Quality should be central to our consideration and legislation.
  The idea that profoundly divides the Conservatives and the Opposition is that quality programming can somehow happen by accident, or, as I suppose they would say, as a result of market forces. All the experience of the media in Britain is that that simply is not true. If I were to caricature the difference between the broadcast medium and the print medium—the newspapers—I would say that the broadcast medium has been subject to broad democratic control and regulation whereas the print medium has not. If I asked any neutral observer anywhere in the world whether British broadcasting or British newspapers had the highest reputation and the highest quality and which was to be admired and emulated. the answer would be broadcasting, not the print. There is a lesson there for us all to learn.
  Any cursory reading of the history of the industry shows perfectly well that, if we want quality programming, we must find means of ensuring that it exists, as the new clause seeks to do in a modest way. I could think of several amendments to it. I shall describe briefly for the Government's benefit, if they will listen, even at this late stage, how quality programming can be achieved.
  For a start, we need to provide for television skills in the industry. The multitude of skills that go towards making a television programme do not come out of thin air. They are created as a result of people working in the industry and being properly trained.
  Where is the training coming from now? What is happening to all the people who now work for small production companies who previously worked for the BBC or ITV and received their training there? I do not knock the small production companies, but they are living off the skills of the past; off the skills of people who

  611
  received their training in the BBC and ITV. What does the Bill say about training in relation to quality programming? Nothing.
  My next comment may seem old-fashioned to Conservative Members, but I make no apology for it. If we want quality programming, we must provide some security of employment and a career structure. People need to know that, if they try their best to make a decent programme one week and fail, there will be an opportunity to improve the following week and to learn from other people. There must be security in the industry.
  6.45 pm
  My hon. Friend's new clause implies, but does not spell out specifically, that centres of excellence are needed. He wants to include a requirement for British broadcasting. I strongly support that, but I would add to it. I know that he agrees with me. Such requirements would mean that regional centres of excellence would have to be established. It would not mean that everything would be made in central London.
  I want regional centres of excellence, not only because I want employment in the regions, but because we lose the richness of the possibility of producing good-quality television programmes if we require most of the programme makers and producers to live and work in London.
  I am not talking about regional programming in the patronising way that we so often hear from the Government Benches. Ministers say, "Oh well, they do their regional show at 6.30 and the regional news." I strongly support regional programming and news, but I want to see network programmes made in the regions by people in the regions with regional skills. That also contributes to quality programming.
  Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional and national production by the BBC and the ITV companies is important not only in terms of broadcasting but in terms of the continuation of art and culture in the regions? Regional broadcasting centres provide stable employment for a large number of people who work in the theatre and other areas at the same time.
  Mr. Grocott: I agree with my hon. Friend. So many of these industries are related to each other. People move from one to the other. If a television production centre is moved from a region, a great part of its—I do not want to sound too pompous—cultural and artistic capacity is also removed. We all know what has happened to regional centres of production. One of the staggering things about the Government's attitude to the Bill is that they seem to have learnt none of the lessons of the previous failed legislation. Any Government spokesman ought to start by apologising for the 1990 Act.
  I can only speak about what has happened in Birmingham. At Central Television there were four thriving studios before all the machinations surrounding the 1990 Act. There was a range of programming—not only regional news. There were programmes for the network and everything else. That has all been diminished. Skilled people have left.
  612
  I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. If we are to get broadcasting back on the right track, we need to acknowledge that there must be a framework within which broadcasters operate which requires excellence and high standards. We need to stop bowing, as we constantly have under the Conservative Government, to the needs of advertisers and company mergers, and start listening a little more to the viewers and programme makers.
  Some people may think that this is a trivial point, but I am afraid that I do not. One small example of the decline that has taken place as a result of the previous legislation is the ridiculous business of sponsorship of television programmes. Does it really add anything to the weather forecast that it is sponsored by PowerGen, "Bringing you electricity whatever the weather"? Does that improve the quality of the forecast? Does it add to the sum total of human understanding of the weather? Of course it does not.
  That is an important example of the way in which the miraculous medium of television is not being used in the interests of quality programmes to enrich our lives, but is being subverted by the needs of accountants and advertisers. My hon. Friend's new clause goes some way to redressing the balance, and I strongly support it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I wish to address my remarks to new clause 35, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) touched on. I make no apology for raising Welsh issues again, because one of the purposes of the Report stage of a Bill is to report to the House what changes the Committee has made to the Bill.
  In the context of Welsh broadcasting, the Bill is radically different from that which entered Committee. It will transform the role of S4C in the digital age. Let me draw to the attention of the whole House exactly what those changes are.
  First, there will be a major new role for S4C on multiplex 3. It will have a much larger role than was envisaged on Second Reading. Secondly, S4C will be freed to go into satellite, cable and radio in both the Welsh language and English. Thirdly, it will be expected to exploit its commercial potential on its new multiplex, with a new financial arrangement of a commercial character. Fourthly, it will have new opportunities to expand its language service, as Channel 4 in the digital age will be removed from the S4C programmes and become a service all of its own.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend has touched on the financial arrangements and restructuring of S4C, but has he looked at the accountability of S4C, which receives a huge public subvention for programmes but is accountable to no one?
  Mr. Rowlands: I should declare an interest when referring to S4C, because my wife is a member of the S4C authority, so I am accountable, if no one else is.
  I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the commercial and funding arrangements governing the new functions of S4C will be kept separate from its existing functions. No public funds from S4C can be used for its commercial developments.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Is not the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda that the S4C authority has to lay an annual report before the House?
  Mr. Rowlands: Yes, it does, and that gives us an opportunity to debate it. The most recent one, in common with previous reports, continues to inform our debates.
  I should like to draw specific attention to the other dimension to broadcasting in Wales—broadcasting in the English language. In some respects, other aspects of the Bill will have a disadvantageous effect upon the English language services and broadcasts in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, we should be deeply concerned about the centralised role of the BBC.
  The figures are quite astonishing—BBC Wales broadcasts in the English language contribute just 19 hours to the BBC network. That even contrasts poorly with the output in Scotland, which contributes 90 hours. Even more astonishing, the factual and documentary programmes provided by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales constitute just 1 per cent. of the total output. A major change of heart is needed by the BBC in relation to the two nations and the English regions.
  I should like to draw the House's attention to the other means of English broadcasting in Wales—our commercial station, HTV. It will be greatly affected by the alterations in the Bill. The combined BBC and HTV investment in programmes in the English language adds up to only £25 million a year. That contrasts with the £63 million that is rightly dedicated to Welsh language programmes of S4C.
  HTV will also be affected in three other serious ways, which will have a knock-on effect on potential English language broadcasts in Wales. First, in the past, HTV did not have to compete with Channel 4, because Channel 4 was part and parcel of S4C. The new Channel 4 in the digital age, however, will be a major competitor.
  Secondly, £3 million from HTV will be returned to Channel 4, which is not committed to spending that money in Wales or in any of the other regions. Thirdly, HTV will face potential competition from S4C, which will have a role in one way or another in the production of English language programmes. On top of that, it is saddled with the incredible nonsense of the licensing arrangements that have led to HTV paying £23 million a year for its licence, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has already said, Central pays £250,000—
  Mr. Grocott: It pays £2,000.
  Mr. Rowlands: Compare that with the £23 million cost of the HTV licence. That cost is a major drain on the development of English language broadcasts in Wales.
  Many of the changes in the Bill are most welcome in relation to S4C, but we must consider the disadvantages that may be suffered by English language programme making in Wales, particularly that of HTV.
  There is one simple solution to the problem. The renegotiation of the licence should coincide with the changes that will result from the Bill. The disadvantages that HTV will suffer as a result of the Bill could be compensated by changes to the licensing arrangements. That alteration, combined with the demands that we should rightly be making upon the BBC nationally to amend its attitude to English language broadcasting in Wales, would offer a solution. We should have a much more balanced view of broadcasting in Wales.
  614
  I hope that, if nothing else, we have impressed upon the Minister and the Department today, as we did in Committee, that broadcasting in Wales is not just a matter of the Welsh language. It goes much broader than that, relating to the opportunity and potential talent of so many people in Wales to express their skills also in the English language.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I was the second Member to put my name to it, and, emboldened by my presence, others more distinguished than I followed. Perhaps they did not have the courage to do so until they saw our joint names on the new clause.
  As my hon. Friend would expect, I express my support from a slightly different point of view, as someone—here I must declare an interest—who presents a political programme on Sky Television. I speak for freedom, truth and justice, and Lord Tebbit speaks from his point of view. We discuss the issues of the week.
  I support the new clause because it is right in principle. I support it because the trade union representatives who came to speak to us about the Bill want some quality control and quality influence on the part of the ITC to be included in the Bill. It is right that that should be done.
  I support the new clause because, at the moment, the ITC's powers are inadequate. Its basic powers are to see that people live up to the terms of their submission for a contract, and to exercise an effective control over regional programmes and the amount of production for local viewing in the regions. It should have some power over quality, and have the ability to edge companies up-market. It is not good enough merely to give it the negative power to say, "You've departed from your contract."
  The quality power enshrined in the new clause is appropriate, because we have seen a deterioration in the quality of current affair programmes in particular. The production of such programmes is always difficult, because they do not win audiences as news and entertainment programmes do. When I used to work in current affairs, it was a golden rule that such a programme lost between one third and a half of the audience, perhaps because I was on such programmes, that it started out with. It would be difficult to persuade companies to produce quality current affairs programmes unless the ITC had some power to demand it.
  I also support the new clause because digital represents a whole new ball game, in which we must try to seek some guarantee of standards. Competition in television is intensifying, and it is possible that we will see the same remorseless slide down-market as we have seen in the press.
  The standards of popular television in this country are higher than those of the popular press. We have the least worst television in the world, and perhaps the least best popular press. Why? Because the competition is not as intense in television, and because television is regulated to maintain standards in a way that is not possible in the press. We need that type of regulation. The new clause addresses that important issue directly. That is why it is necessary.
  I must enter a caveat, because satellite needs a slightly different approach. One cannot achieve a level playing field in respect of the British percentage of programmes

  615
  or the definition of quality between satellite and cable on the one hand and terrestrial television on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out the differences, and said that many satellite programmes represent high quality and British production. It is certainly true that Sky One and Sky News have not gone down market as many people expected.
  Satellite is different, because it does not have access to the privileged channels that terrestrial represents. Those channels are privileged, powerful and universal channels. Satellite has had to build its own audience in its own way, and in doing so, it has responded to different needs. One means of building an audience is through massive investment in British productions, because people here like British-produced programmes.
  Given the way in which satellite was launched, however, it was impossible to fulfil that requirement in the same way as terrestrial has managed to do. Satellite has therefore built up its audience by approaching the task differently and by providing a different kind of programme. It will not be able to jump suddenly into the same kind of box of requirements now met by the terrestrial channels.
  The future of television must lie in the fact that most people will turn for their basic viewing to the terrestrial channels. That is what happens still in the United States. There is a multiplicity of channels in that country, but between 60 and 70 per cent. of the audience still watch basic network television. The same will happen here. People will rely for basic viewing on network television—the bread and butter of television.
  People will turn to cable, satellite, perhaps digital—that is difficult to make predictions about at the moment—to follow up specialised interests such as sport or news. I confess that I am a news freak. I love CNN and Sky News, because they make it possible to watch the news as it happens. It is exciting. Some people are news freaks; some people want a variety of films. They will turn to cable, satellite or digital for a diet supplement of their own specialised interest. It is difficult to regulate the quality or the British production on cable, satellite or digital television as we would terrestrial channels.
  7 pm
  It is right for the ITC to have power and influence, but it cannot have what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South urged it to have—an absolutely level playing field, with the same requirements imposed on both sides. Indeed, as I read it, the new clause does not require that, because it uses the words
  "taking the relevant service as a whole"—
  that could be the channel in cable and satellite—and the requirement is to obtain
  "a suitable proportion of original material".
  Suitability
  "shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued".
  Inevitably, that suitability will be different for different channels on cable and satellite. We are saying not that the British content should be the same throughout, but that the ITC should have the power to edge up and raise standards.
  616
  Admittedly, quality is intangible. Some people assume that quality is taste. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South would admit "Blind Date" as a quality programme. I regard it as a quality programme. It has high production values, and it is entertaining and extremely well done. I am compelled to watch it because my wife loves it, so I do not have much alternative. Quality lies in production values, in training, as my hon. Friend said, and in the approach to programming, rather than in taste.
  Television's role is to educate, inform and entertain. To do so, we must be able to ensure quality programming, maintain quality standards and give the ITC the power to keep pushing them up, to maintain the pressure, to review the position continually and to keep reviewing the British content. That is extremely important, because commercial pressures, which will intensify as we get more channels, are pushing things the other way. We want the ITC to have the power to combat that, to have its own role as it once did and should again, to maintain the quality we believe we have in British television, which we are entitled to maintain.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I support the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, in Committee the Minister's position on quality was initially somewhat confused, but in discussion it became much clearer. He was pressed by Opposition members of the Committee on that point and, in response, said that, in his view, the Bill did allow the ITC to apply quality criteria by inheritance from the Broadcasting Act 1990, and that, other things being equal, the ITC could use quality as one of its criteria in determining digital licence applications. That is explicit, for example, in columns 66 and 68 of the Committee Hansard.
  However, the ITC advised us throughout that that interpretation of the Bill was factually incorrect, and that the Bill did not give those powers to the commission. The Minister assured us that those fears were groundless, but now, in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned a few moments ago, the Minister has accepted that the ITC was right, that he was mistaken, and that he inadvertently misled the Committee on that point.
  What is really worrying is the part of the Minister's letter in which he spells out to the Committee the reality of this inheritance from the 1990 Act. I know, because I spoke to the ITC this afternoon, that it is dismayed about what the letter says. It says:
  "the ITC will be constrained in awarding licences to do so on the basis of the criteria set out in Clause 8".
  That is exactly what worried members on both sides of the Committee who were concerned about quality, because clause 8 does not mention quality, regionality or originality.
  If the ITC is indeed constrained to consider solely the criteria set out in clause 8, as the Minister's letter says, all the assurances that the Minister gave the Committee were without foundation. I hope that, in responding to the debate, he will at least confirm the rather weak assurances on this subject that he gave us in Committee, especially in column 68, that the ITC can take quality, regionality and originality into account, even though they are absent

  617
  from clause 8, because that alone is the basis on which the Bill emerged unamended on this point from the Committee.
  Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for tabling his amendment and giving us the chance to run through these extremely important issues. We know from Question Time before consideration of the Bill, from Second Reading and from Committee how important hon. Members on both sides of the House consider this matter to be. However, I cannot commend new clause 4 to the House. It appears to the Government to be much too restrictive.
  We should compare the new clause with what currently applies to the broadcasting regulators. Currently, they are required to promote fair and effective competition and to ensure that, taken as a whole, the services they license are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
  Within that general remit, there are specific statutory arrangements, spelling out the criteria to be applied in granting particular categories of licence. These take account of the very different circumstances of different licence categories. Strict and detailed programming and scheduling content conditions apply to the holders of regional Channel 3 licences. These are clearly not intended, for example, in the case of satellite, where the constraints of spectrum scarcity are so much less and there is consumer choice and subscription access rather than free-to-air broadcasting.
  It is not as though the Bill actively precludes the quality and original UK programming criteria which this amendment seeks to make paramount for every service. The general duties in the 1990 Act, which I began by mentioning, will be applied by the Bill to the new digital programme services. This is what is secured by Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13. Under the Bill as it stands, the regulators will be free to take account of quality considerations in assessing how likely a particular programme package proposed by a multiplex applicant is to appeal to viewers and listeners and thereby promote their take-up of digital receiving equipment.
  Similarly, quality considerations can be taken into account in considering, as the market develops, the acceptability of any licence variations relating to programming which a multiplex operator may propose. In the Government's view, this strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that the market can prosper and the need to allow the regulators to avoid any danger of a flood of low-quality or stale programming.
  Similarly, the Bill applies a statutory requirement that new digital terrestrial television services include at least 10 per cent. of original European-produced programming, and the higher figure of 25 per cent. will apply in perpetuity to the digital broadcasting by channels 1 to 5 of the services provided in digital simulcast and after analogue switch-off on the new digital services on that channel of the multiplex.
  New clause 4 is not needed, and does not propose a practical means of regulating commercial broadcasters. The Government will oppose it if the Opposition seek to put it to the vote.
  Perhaps I might just say that, although it has been an extremely interesting debate, different people who have spoken have used the word "quality" for different
  618
  concepts. There is quality as applied to what one might call highbrow programming—I do not say that in anything other than a neutral sense—Shakespeare or high-class documentaries and so on. There is also quality in the sense that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) meant when he said that "Blind Date" is a high-quality show. I am sure that he is right—but it is a different sort of high quality. Both kinds are important, but it is also important to remember that the same word can be used in quite different senses.
  The word "quality" can be used in yet another sense as well. Some people who talk about quality broadcasting mean that programming should include a certain number of hours of religious or educational broadcasting, or documentaries. Finally, quality can also be taken to mean taste, decency and impartiality—items that are taken into account in the Bill, and which were included in section 6 of the 1990 Act.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) mentioned the debates that we have had on the question of a backstop. I said that the lawyers could not make up their minds whether the backstop that I believe is in section 2 of the 1990 Act is imported to this Bill by schedule 7. Quite fairly, I told the Committee that I thought it was, but that, if not, I would bring it in: which is what I am doing. Besides taste, decency and impartiality, which are to be found in section 6, there is to be this second, albeit less important, backstop—in the form of the sort of quality that the ITC must take into account when scrutinising the whole range of services.
  The same arguments apply to new clause 35, which relates to programming in Wales. It is a fact of commercial broadcasting that broadcasters need to appeal to their audiences. In Wales, that means broadcasting material of interest to those living in Wales; and HTV and S4C broadcast a wealth of material that reflects the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for helping to educate me in the value of the English language in Wales as well as the Welsh language, and I thank him for sending me the text of a talk given by Mr. Geraint Talfan Davies, which I found fascinating.
  The Government regard the new clauses as unnecessary, and will vote against both.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 289.

  Division No. 159]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, Stephen

  619

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Church, Judith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (MonkSands W)

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

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Etherington, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAllion, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fraser, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  MacShane, Denis

  Galloway, George

  McWilliam, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Maddock, Diana

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Graham, Thomas

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meacher, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meale, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  620

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Short, Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spellar, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stott Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Joan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Randall, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Eric Martlew.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Boumm'th E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Colvin, Michael

  621

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  622

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trotter, Neville

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Watts, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stewart, Allan

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Sweeney, Walter

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

  PLAN FOR REDUCTION OF VIOLENCE DEPICTED ON TELEVISION
  `(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent with the aim of reducing the amount of violence depicted on television.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament in the form of a White Paper the plan drawn up under subsection (1).

  (3) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament annually concerning the amount of violence depicted on television and progress towards achieving the objectives mentioned in subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Dafis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—Duty of the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) to carry out research into use of 'V' chip to regulate portrayal of violence on television—
  `.—It shall be the duty of the BSC to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of s of violence contained in television programmes and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of

  623
  an electronic device designed, subject to an override power, automatically to block the reception of programmes whose violent content falls within a predetermined classification as being unsuitable for viewing by persons under the age of eighteen.'.
  New clause 11—Duty of the broadcasters to classify programmes according to violent content—
  `.—(1) It shall be the duty of every broadcasting body to establish a common system of classification for all programmes containing material of a violent nature.
  (2) The system established under subsection (1) shall provide, whether by the use of symbols or some other means, for the differential classification of programmes containing different levels of violent material.
  (3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate regulatory body, or in the case of the BBC the Board of Governors, to ensure that the requirement in subsection (1) is complied with and that steps are taken to publish both before and during transmission of the programme in question the classification which has been applied to it.
  (4) "Broadcasting body" in subsection (I) includes the holder of a licence under this Act or the 1990 Act, the BBC and Channel 4.'.
  Mr. Dafis: I shall start with the presumption that what people watch, listen to and read influences their attitudes, values, psychological make-up, behaviour and the quality of their spiritual life—particularly during their formative years. This statement is nothing more than common sense, but it is a position that is often lost during sophisticated argument.
  If what I have said is true, if great skill, creativity, major investment and the deployment of technological resources are brought to bear on what people watch and listen to—as happens with television—the influence will be significant, if not enormous. In this context, we need to bear in mind the extent to which television is driven by commercial considerations and by the profit motive.
  Society has the right to require those who prepare and deliver television services to exercise that influence with responsibility and to consider the general welfare of the community. Freedom of expression is an enormously important consideration—I believe that passionately. I have studied Aereopagitica. I was horrified by the attempt to silence the great writer, Salman Rushdie, who wrote the inspired and profoundly modern book The Satanic Verses. Like all freedoms—freedom from violence, freedom from attack, freedom from sexual exploitation and from oppression—freedom of expression must be exercised so as not to damage the freedom of others and of society. The depiction of violence and sexual activity or pornography together is particularly pernicious.
  We are in a difficult area when talking about freedom. There is a real danger that we may muzzle artists in the name of conformity and respectability and that we may prevent the truth from being told. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that my new clause applies specifically to violence and to the amount of violence that is shown on television. We all recognise that art must depict the reality of the human condition, including violence and depravity. No one would advocate—I do not—sanitising television programmes or art. However, there are legitimate questions to ask about, first, the quantity of violent depictions; secondly, the nature of those depictions; and, thirdly, the motivation for depicting violence on television. Those issues must be addressed.
  We must recognise also that we face an unprecedented situation with the scale of television and the electronic media. Great artists have always been fascinated by what
  624
  happens to the human character in extremis: they have always been fascinated by murder and sex and the relationship between the two. That is particularly true of two great artists, Sophocles and Shakespeare. However, it is misleading to compare their depictions with what we see on television.
  Theatrical depictions were always highly stylised—the most horrifying events would often occur off-stage. Oedipus's self-blinding occurs offstage, as do the murders of Duncan, of Macduff s children and of Cordelia.
  7.30 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: What about the blinding of Gloucester?
  Mr. Dafis: I was coming to that—"Out vile jelly"; I know the play well. Even more vivid and terrible is Othello's murder of Desdemona, which also occurs on-stage. A great artist's depiction of such events in a tragedy fulfils a vital function: Aristotle talked about the process of arousing pity and terror to achieve a catharsis of the emotions. That has been my experience of such plays. Even when terrible events were depicted on-stage, it was done in a highly stylised manner: the horror was more in the words that in the s. My point is that the crude props of the Elizabethan stage could not portray those events with the totally convincing realism and intimate detail that are possible on television and film. The electronic media is a different ball game.
  Another consideration is the frequency with which one sees violent events depicted. The typical Elizabethan would visit a London theatre—at the zenith of theatre's popularity—a few times a year, at best. When I was a boy, I managed to get to the pictures once a week—assuming that I gathered enough empty jam pots to take to the grocer and raised ninepence for a ticket. I did not see television until I was 16—and I thank God that I grew up free from its influence. The situation is altogether different today. We cannot compare what occurred in the past with the presence of television in the home—we are told that people watch it for four or five hours daily. Televisions can be found not only in the family room but in the bedrooms of children and young people.
  Ms Eagle: I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his new clause which proposes reducing the amount of violence that is depicted on television. Does that include the coverage of violent events on the television news?
  Mr. Dafis: I do not differentiate between the depiction of violence on the news and on fictional programmes. The material consideration is the sheer quantity of violent depictions. I do not argue that violence should not be depicted on television, but I raise the issue of quantity. It is well known that many people fear that even the presentation of violent scenes on the news can have an inuring effect and can desensitise people to violence. We must be aware of that danger—as must news editors when they select footage to show on the news. I am viewing the issue in the round and considering the total number of depictions of violence.
  We face a new situation and, in that context, the fondness of artists and authors for depicting violence must be viewed differently. We must bear it in mind that much violence is depicted in the pursuit of ratings—that is the

  625
  great motivator. Many hon. Members will have seen the report on teachers' views and concerns about the matter. The findings of a survey of teachers conducted by the Professional Association of Teachers—a union about which I am not particularly enthusiastic—correspond with the experiences that I gained while working as a teacher and with the views that I sought from other teachers.
  That survey points out that schoolteachers are profoundly concerned about the influence of violence on television on their pupils. They believe that children's viewing habits are not monitored sufficiently by parents and that the current safeguards which are designed to protect children from exposure to adult entertainment are not working. Most important, teachers believe that children are profoundly affected by the television programmes and the videos that they see. As children's value systems are not fully formed, there is consequently a strong tendency for them to assume that what they see portrayed is normal. They may try to imitate or to emulate such behaviour. Mimicry is one manifestation of an influence, but the most damaging influence is more deep-seated and subtle than that. Teachers believe that, in some cases, children who spend a great deal of time watching violent programmes may suffer behavioural consequences.
  I have spoken tonight about children, but no one is immune to the influence of violent material. No one is immune to that exposure, but the danger to children is clear. I believe that there is too much violence on television and that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to try to reduce it. That is what my new clause would do. It takes a different approach to the problem from new clause 10, which is the V-chip proposal. I support that idea, but it involves parents intervening and accepting their responsibilities. I am emphasising the responsibility of the programme makers, including the authors, producers, commissioners and the channel operators. Their responsibility needs to be recognised. I am inclined, when the time comes, to force new clause 7 to a Division.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I have much sympathy with new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), but I wish to follow his general introduction to the theme of violence by associating myself with new clauses 10 and 11. Those two new clauses were tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and it is only by chance, and the way that the turn to speak, like a tennis service, goes backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House, that he is not speaking to the new clauses first.
  I wish to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the interest and concern that she has expressed about the problem of violence, not least in the letter that she sent to me last week, from which I shall quote later. I also thank my right hon. Friend for her courtesy in referring in that letter to the report entitled "Violence, Pornography and the Media", which has all-party support and which was prepared and presented on behalf of the Family and Child Protection Group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight).
  My right hon. Friend Secretary of State has seen the report, studied it and made helpful comments about it. I hope that she has noted the public opinion survey results, from an adequately large sample of more than 1,000 people who were questioned by a reputable professional
  626
  research organisation. The summarised data from that poll show that 65 per cent. of those questioned or interviewed—a high proportion—are "concerned" or "very concerned" about the level of sex and violence used as entertainment in the media nowadays. Those 65 per cent. contrast with the figure of only 27 per cent. who are "not very concerned".
  In the same poll, the summarised findings show that 58 per cent. of those questioned agreed with Dustin Hoffman's now notorious attribution of screen violence as one of the contributory causes of the Dunblane and Tasmanian massacres. That is a remarkable result. Some 58 per cent. of those polled agreed with Hoffman that screen violence was a contributory factor in the Dunblane and Tasmanian massacres and only 16 per cent. of those polled disagreed with that.
  Mr. Brooke: There is a hazard in quoting such documents in a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not intend to mislead the House, but he has quoted a figure of 16 per cent. and it should be 28 per cent.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is correct. Some 28 per cent. disagreed with Dustin Hoffman and 58 per cent. agreed with him.
  Dr. Park Dietz, the chief psychiatrist of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, claimed that the factual worldwide portrayal of the massacre at Dunblane was a causative factor in the Tasmanian mass killing which followed soon after. That view, expressed by a professional psychiatrist—admittedly in the United States—suggests that the scenes from Dunblane had a direct effect on the weird criminal in Tasmania. I am not trying to persuade the House that news reportage is not inescapable and inevitable, but the portrayal of violence has a curious and unpredictable effect and the benefit of the doubt should always, when possible, be given to those who seek to restrict it.
  Ms Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman has made an emotive, and debatable, connection between one event and another. Can he tell me why Dustin Hoffman should be considered an expert on such matters? Was not the easy availability of firearms much more of a problem in those appalling tragedies than how they were portrayed in the news media after they had happened?
  Mr. Alison: I certainly would not claim that Dustin Hoffman is an expert. I am merely suggesting that he expressed a vivid viewpoint that is significant because the public were asked their opinion about it. The viewpoint stands on its own merits and, for a large proportion of those questioned for the survey, it was crystallised by the association with a prominent public figure. That screen violence was a contributory factor to real violence was an expression of the popular view and, if not demonstrably proven, that is what many people think.
  I shall quote a sentence from the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to me:
  "To assume that violence may have an effect on some vulnerable individuals seems to me to be sound commonsense."
  I entirely support and endorse my right hon. Friend's comment, and that is exactly the view that was expressed by the 58 per cent. who believed that Hoffman had expressed a rational and credible viewpoint.

  627
  Question No. 6 in the poll—I shall give the figures carefully, because my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is clearly shadowing me—asks:
  "Do you think the current safeguards to protect children from seeing violence and sex in the media, either through TV or video are too little, too much or about right?"
  Some 68 per cent. thought the safeguards were too little, 5 per cent. thought they were too much and 24 per cent. thought they were about right. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me not to bother to quote the "None/Don't know" figure. I hope that the House will have noted that 68 per cent. of those questioned in that substantial poll thought that the current safeguards were inadequate.
  A significant paragraph on page 13 of the report, on the alleged effect of media violence, says:
  "An American account of the effect upon children stated that the average child watches 12,000 violent acts annually including 1,000 rapes, armed robberies and assaults, and concluded that 15 per cent. of all violence was television induced. Professor Comstock"—
  the author of the research—
  "has found 'a very solid relationship between viewing antisocial portrayals or violent episodes and behaving antisocially'."
  That, too, is a common-sense observation and it is endorsed by what my right hon. Friend said in her letter to me.
  The views of the New Zealand psychologists who examined the matter are particularly significant because of the ghastly tragedy that occurred in the antipodes. The views of the New Zealand Psychological Society related to the watching of television, and are set out on page 12 of the report. It noted a causal relationship between the amount of film violence viewed and subsequent aggressive and anti-social behaviour among both children and adults. It found that
  "constant exposure has a desensitising effect with less physiological and psychological reaction",
  that
  "specific films may provide models which are directly imitated"
  and
  "the more realistic is film violence, the more likely it is to lead to aggressive behaviour."
  A striking and deeply disturbing response to the inquiry appears on page 40—those colleagues who have the report can follow the plot—which quotes a survey by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in February 1995 dealing with playground accidents and copycat play. It was conducted by post and addressed to the head teachers of 250 schools, of which 91 replied. The replies received showed that 91 per cent. of the responding head teachers felt that violent television programmes were linked to aggressive behaviour in schools; 79 per cent. said that there had been examples of injuries linked to copycat play; 96 per cent. thought that educationists, safety experts and broadcasters should produce a code of practice specifically to deal with violence in children's television; and 52 per cent. mentioned Power Rangers by name. Given that the poll was sent to 250 schools, 91 replies was not as full a response as one might have wished for. Nevertheless, it is not an insubstantial number. The fact that the response showed a direct linkage
  628
  between injury and pain caused in playground bullying or violence and television violence must give profound cause for concern in every part of the House.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concedes that the public feel profoundly about this issue. Their common-sense view is that too much violence is particularly damaging for children, who have much readier access to it than they are meant to have under current efforts to restrain their viewing. The 9 pm watershed is clearly ineffectual because late-night programmes can be taped on video recorders once children have gone to bed and watched at a later date. That common-sense reaction, endorsed by my right hon. Friend, shows that there is a direct link, and we want the Bill to do something practical in response to public anxieties and misgivings.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the facts, suggestions and proposals made in this parliamentary report.
  Mr. David Alton: I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and to support new clause 7. Taken together, new clauses 7, 10 and 11 demonstrate the partnership that is required between Government, Parliament, broadcasters and parents. No one would be naive enough to say that the only factors that create a violent society are violent or disturbing s, or that every person who sees violent scenes will necessarily be tipped over the edge. Nevertheless, there is widespread support for the view that the amount of violence on television is now spiralling out of control. That view must be reflected and action taken.
  It is therefore important to point out what the new clauses would actually do, rather than what some have suggested that they might do. New clause 7, which calls for an annual report and a White Paper, is reflective and suggests that we take a deeper look at the problem. New clause 10, which stands in my name and is supported by the right hon. Member for Selby, the hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and other Conservative Members, and by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). shows the spectrum of support within the House.
  New clause 10 calls on the Broadcasting Standards Council to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of violent s contained in television programmes, and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of what is popularly known as a V-chip. It does not go so far as some of us advocated on Second Reading, when we said that manufacturers should place a V-chip in all new sets. It recognises that we have yet to have a debate on that matter. Incidentally, that debate did not take place in Committee, so let us have that debate to reflect on the further action to be taken.
  New clause 11 says that in the meantime we should get on with classifying programmes so that parents can decide what might be suitable for viewing in their homes and have some idea of what will be broadcast. If that can be electronically classified, as will be possible in the future, that will be all to the good.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman has praised new clause 7. Does he agree that new clause 10 pre-empts the outcome of the research suggested in new clause 7?
  Mr. Alton: No, it does not. New clause 10 refers to
  "research into the effects on viewers of … violence".
  It then refers to the "desirability" of the V-chip as one weapon in the armoury. No one is saying that it is the only solution. However, given that 2 million people petitioned the Canadian Parliament, given that members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, supported the new law signed by President Clinton to introduce the V-chip in the United States, given that the European Parliament has said that there should be a Europe-wide system of V-chips—that argument may not commend itself to some hon. Members—given the widespread debate in Europe and North America, and given the fact that action has already been taken, it would be absurd for us to deny British viewers the V-chip.
  8 pm
  There is wide all-party Back-Bench support for the proposal. More than 200 hon. Members signed an early-day motion that I tabled in 1993 calling for a royal commission on the causes of violence. In 1994, more than 250 hon. Members signed an early-day motion calling for the increased regulation of violent videos. The House will recall that the determination of hon. Members of all parties led the Home Secretary of the time, albeit reluctantly, to introduce changes in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  This year, more than 250 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion which condemns the British Board of Film Classification for certifying "Natural Born Killers" as a video suitable for home release and calls on the Government to implement the law as changed in 1994. Sad to say, there has been no response to that call as yet. However, in the context of this debate, it is not without significance that as part of a package of films, "Natural Born Killers" has been purchased by the BBC for possible broadcast on British television. John Birt says in a letter to me that no decision has yet been taken on whether that broadcast will go ahead.
  I draw hon. Members' attention to this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which says:
  "Oliver Stone sued for £20 million by victim of copycat film violence."
  John Grisham, the well-known novelist, is taking Oliver Stone to court because a friend of his was killed in a copycat killing based on the film "Natural Born Killers". There is no doubt that litigation, which is so popular in the United States, may lead to enormous downward pressure on the industry. Hollywood is looking at the outcome of that case, which may have far more long-term consequences than any debate about V-chips in the House today.
  Only last week, the Press Association reported a case in Canada under the headline:
  "Youth Killed and Skinned Young Playmate."
  In Saskatchewan, a 14-year-old boy was influenced by a horror film he saw at least 10 times. There is often the problem of people videoing films, watching them again and again, and becoming obsessed by them. The report says that the boy
  630
  "cooked his victim's flesh on a stove".
  According to the defence lawyer, Barry Singer, the boy was under the delusion
  "after repeated viewings of the horror movie 'Warlock' that he would be able to fly if he drank boiled fat from his victim, 7-year-old Johnathan Thimpsen."
  We are not talking about fantasyland; these things are actually happening. We need only think back to the case of Suzanne Capper, who was tortured to death while her torturers played a recording of the words and music from the "Child's Play III" video, to which the right hon. Member for Selby referred in the context of the Tasmanian killing. It was a film that the killer's girlfriend said that he had watched again and again.
  Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that actual events in news programmes should come within the purview of his suggestion? Does he believe that there should be censorship of news?
  Mr. Alton: Categorically no. I do not think that there should be censorship of news. The hon. Lady may find more common cause with me than she imagines, as I am not suggesting that anyone other than the parent or person at home should censor anything. If any of us wished to have a V-chip installed in our television set, we would be free to do so. If we did not want a V-chip, we would not have to have one. People would decide what they wanted coming into their home. The Government rightly talk about putting more power in the hands of individual viewers and giving them more responsibility for themselves. That principle is entirely in accord with the idea of providing parents and viewers with these rights.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is not what new clause 10 says. It refers to the
  "desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of an electronic device".
  Mr. Alton: The new clause refers to the "desirability".
  Mr. Mitchell: It refers to "all new television sets".
  Mr. Alton: We should consider whether it is desirable. My view is that the installation of a V-chip should be left entirely to the consumer. As I said earlier, I have drawn back from the idea that we should require every manufacturer to install a V-chip, and that is why I have not tabled such an amendment today. New clause 10 says that we should look at the feasibility and desirability of installing V-chips. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the matter should be entirely one on which each person decides. He has my assurance on that.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has talked about parental responsibility. I am the father of three young daughters. I am very concerned about violence at 9 o'clock in the morning in cartoon programmes, not violence at 9 o'clock at night. I am a little worried that the V-chip proposal could be seen as a panacea and could thus take away parental responsibility. Just as one lets the children watch the cartoons in the morning because one wants to do other things, so one might leave the room and assume that the V-chip has

  631
  solved all the problems although there might be things that are totally inappropriate for three-year-olds or seven-year-olds to watch.
  Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, have three young children, from seven years down. Any parent who uses a television set and computer games as electronic baby sitters is being downright irresponsible. They can never take the place of parents. It would equally be absurd for us to suggest that the flickering box in the corner which has taken the place of the hearth, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, can be ignored and that we can somehow turn back the clock.
  Television is part and parcel of modern life. The issue is how we can regulate it in a way that is responsible and reasonable. If one can scramble signals coming into one's home by electronic means rather than by the parent having to be there day and night, one has some limited control. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is right: I am not suggesting that the V-chip is a panacea; I see it as a tool, as a weapon in the armoury, no more and no less.
  Ms Eagle: How would the installation of V-chips deal with the serious problem of parental irresponsibility? Irresponsible parents will not make use of the V-chip.
  Mr. Alton: I have said that I do not see the V-chip as a panacea. It will be a tool for parents who want to exercise responsibility. In addition, we would put a downward pressure on those who make films that contain ridiculously high levels of gratuitous violence. New clause 7 provides that an annual report should be made to Parliament concerning the amount of violence depicted on television. I said at the outset that new clauses 7, 10 and 11 should be taken together. I agree that the V-chip is not the only solution.
  The hon. Lady will know of people on the great sink estates, such as those in our conurbation on Merseyside and elsewhere, who live in situations where there may be relative economic prosperity, but where there may be deep levels of spiritual poverty in the sense of lack of love, lack of parenting and lack of help, where children are often left to fend for themselves. That is the situation into which we pour an unending diet of violence and that, in turn, creates the violent society in which we live today.
  On 23 June, The Sunday Times found that two thirds of children aged between nine and 11 had watched 18-rated movies such as "Silence of the Lambs", "Basic Instinct" and "Pulp Fiction". That touches on the point that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just made. There is a need to tackle the problem universally, not just through the V-chip. More than half the children covered by the survey had televisions in their bedrooms and more than a quarter had VCRs in their bedrooms. In my opinion, that is as potentially dangerous as allowing a stranger in a child's bedroom.
  Mention has been made of the survey by the Professional Association of Teachers. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has called for more controls on screen violence, as has the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Over the years, the
  632
  Government have expressed their concern about screen violence through statutory provisions giving powers to the British Board of Film Censors, the Independent Television Commission and the proposed Broadcasting Standards Commission to maintain standards of taste and decency, specifying gratuitous violence as a particular concern. However, those safeguards have failed to halt a culture of screen violence that is spiralling out of control.
  The right hon. Member for Selby mentioned the comments of Dustin Hoffman. Recently, Ben Elton has been writing and stating publicly that far too much violence is broadcast on television and it should be curbed. Charlton Heston has also spoken against screen violence. David Puttnam, who many hon. Members greatly admire and respect because of his contribution to British film making, said last year that the railway company does not wait until a child has been run over by a train before deciding to put up a fence along the railway line. That is all the House is being asked to do tonight.
  New clauses 10 and 11 represent modest proposals in tackling screen violence. V-chip technology is at the cutting edge of the battle against screen violence. Its application has been thoroughly researched and tested in Canada, where it was agreed that it should be a feature of all new sets. V-chip technology is not limited to new sets; it can be installed in old sets for about £2.
  The main benefit of the V-chip is not the extra control that it gives parents who choose to use it—although that is a significant bonus—but its impact on broadcasters. The obligation to classify programmes would not only force broadcasters to develop a working code on violence, but would confront them each day with the implications of including gratuitous violence in their programmes.
  The Minister will know from the extensive lobbying that she has received from broadcasters and advertisers that the V-chip will mean that broadcasters cannot guarantee the advertisers particular audience levels for programmes that contain gratuitous violence. Surely that is good as it would put pressure on those who make such programmes. It always strikes me as slightly ironic that the same advertisers who are against the curtailment of outlets for putting their advertisements into programmes spend £4,000 million every year trying to sell us their wares on television. If they did not think that what we saw had any influence on us, presumably they would not spend so much money on television advertising.
  Who is opposed to our modest and reasonable proposals? It has been suggested that the V-chip would encourage broadcasters to show more violence. That is incorrect for the following reasons. First, none of the proposals dismantle existing controls on broadcasters or negate their responsibility to respect standards of taste and decency. I expect that the Secretary of State will tell us that the ITV companies and the BBC have become more sensitive to violence. However, I would expect that to be the case whether or not parents are given extra controls.
  Secondly, commercial pressure from advertisers seeking verifiable audience figures would be brought to bear on the broadcasters, who would be less likely to opt for increasing violence to grab high ratings. Thirdly, the evidence of the regulation of screen violence in the film industry is that although some directors continue to test and exceed the limits, the majority seek to produce films with a lower rating in order to guarantee a wider target audience—for example, a PG rating rather than an 18 rating.

  633
  It is further argued that although the United States has opted for the V-chip technology, it has had little effect on the mounting levels of horrific violence shown on American television. That is a specious argument which misunderstands the nature of broadcasting in the United States. United States broadcasters face strict regulation on sex and language, but they operate in a far more permissive regime with regard to violence. V-chip technology has yet to be introduced in the United States. Until that happens, it is ridiculous to brand it ineffective. There is no watershed in the United States and broadcasters can show violent programmes at any time.
  The principal argument against the V-chip comes from the advertisers. It is not without significance that the Advertising Association arranged for opponents of the V-chip from the United States to attend a seminar at the Department of National Heritage. According to the Advertising Association's public relations office, civil servants made the arrangements and the same opponents also had meetings with the Secretary of State. If the Advertising Association was asked to bring in opponents of the V-chip from the United States, why did it not fly in supporters of the V-chip and hear from the people who are in favour of it before today's debate?
  In Britain, the watershed is now being used as a fig-leaf to cover the increasingly gross content of broadcasting into the early hours. That is a more fundamental concern than any theoretical question about the effect that the V-chip might have on broadcasters in future. The Sunday Times demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the watershed in the figures that I have already given the House.
  Those who believe that it is all a matter of parental control should reflect on what these surveys tell us about the capacity of the majority of parents to control what their children see, let alone what they see when they are outside their parents' control—for instance at friends' homes.
  The amendments represent a modest but useful step in the right direction. They reflect the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as those of the electorate and I commend them to the House.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. David Mellor: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), whose knowledge of Shakespeare I envy and admire.
  We should all be concerned about violence on the screen. However, the idea that the V-chip can contribute to the control of that violence is completely untenable and unsustainable. To illustrate that, I shall expand briefly on the points that I made on Second Reading.
  I am something of a veteran of these encounters, having started as a Home Office Minister with the Video Recordings Bill 1984—which established video classifications—introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright). One of the tragedies of such debates is that they tend to polarise opinion, largely because the case for change is overstated. It is impossible not to have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), but to suggest that the Dunblane massacre is relevant to the debate was profoundly misleading. Thomas Hamilton had many problems in addition to being warped by television
  634
  violence. If we wanted to do something positive about Dunblane, we would not wait until Lord Cullen produced his report before taking action.
  As a Home Office Minister, I remember trawling endlessly through research on screen violence. Frankly. it is an abdication of our responsibility in the House to ask researchers to tell us whether such s are damaging. Researchers cannot tell us that. However, research has made it absolutely clear that damaged personalities can be further damaged by exposure to extreme violence. Most of us can watch scenes of extreme violence and merely feel repelled that we live in a society which produces such entertainment. It does not make us want to go out and hack somebody to bits. Although we should not underestimate the common sense of most of our fellow citizens, there is no doubt that some people are deeply warped and damaged by screen violence. It probably inflames their imaginations and causes some of them to go over the edge—it may be a precipitating factor.
  Although it was interesting to hear about some of the curious responses to opinion pollsters—perhaps to satirise the whole process of opinion polling—nevertheless, one of the problems of addressing screen violence is the ambivalence of the public response. The very members of the public who say how much they deplore screen violence will watch it. Why are those films made? Why are those television programmes shown? Many of them are high-audience programmes. They are shown because they attract an audience and because sensationalism attracts people. That is why we can place very little faith in public opinion surveys. Surely we must place faith in our own common sense and the structures that Parliament has established to control those elements and ensure that those controls are exercised effectively.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to television news. There is censorship of television news. It is not applied externally, but by the editors of television news programmes who—perfectly honourably—often choose to reject footage that would be sensational because it is too awful to be seen. We should encourage them to do that. Scenes of a massacre are not made that much more attractive by close-ups of bodies and glorious technicolour shots of wounds.
  By the same token, we must accept that, although television is in the firing line tonight, the real problem with extreme screen violence lies with Hollywood and our obsession with American culture. What Dustin Hoffman said is relevant because he is representative of an increasing trend in Hollywood, which should have begun before, of people who, having made millions and millions of pounds out of films, are suddenly becoming repelled by the very industry in which they have been involved.
  I am glad that we have moved on to talking about violence. Years ago, when I started in the business, if one may so describe it, we talked about sex. Violence has rightly moved to the centre of the stage, and for that at least we can be grateful because we ought to be particularly concerned about violence, and certainly about extreme sexual violence.
  Every film that a director makes, he makes to establish a certain notoriety; to push the frontiers forward. He also makes it on the basis that someone else will come along and do something more extreme. We do not need to add new clauses to do something about that. We have the British Board of Film Classification, which has the power to neuter

  635
  such products by refusing to grant them a licence. We should encourage it to do so, but not in order to present some fairy-tale vision of the world or to suggest that the world outside may be awful but what will be shown will be only what would pass for entertainment 50 years ago.
  One cannot turn the clock back. We should encourage the BBFC to take action if it sees a film that plainly and simply wants to reproduce exploitative violence to attract and create sensation and to draw people in to do nothing more profound than shock them more deeply than they were by what they saw the previous month.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that—I believe—only two films have been permanently refused certificates for video release by the BBFC? One was "The Exorcist" and the other was "Straw Dogs" which, of course, starred Dustin Hoffman?
  Mr. Mellor: That is not quite true. It is probably true of films that were given a cinema classification but were then refused for home release. There is a restricted category that was taken out of any classification, which was introduced by the Video Recordings Act 1984. Indeed, I had to watch some of those films, such as "Faces of Death" and "Driller Killer". Does anybody want to join me on this trip down memory lane? There is nothing new under the sun—we were into all that sort of stuff 12 years ago.
  One of the reasons why I disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is that he sells his own case short by using all the profound points that he made about the damage done to already damaged lives to suggest that the V-chip has something to contribute. The V-chip is a piece of escapism. Does anyone understand what its introduction would mean? It is a crude piece of equipment. It operates only on a scale of one to five. It does not have a mind of its own. If five represents extreme violence, it is triggered and shuts off only because the material has been pre-censored and said to be of category five.
  Although I agree with what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said about sink estates, they are precisely the areas in which nobody would bother with the V-chip. Middle-class parents who do not have to worry that their child will turn into some teenage werewolf are probably the ones who will have their V-chip humming away. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the V-chip is a sad delusion.
  We must say that good people sit on the Independent Television Commission, that good people are governors on the board of the BBC, that—one hopes—good people sit on the Broadcasting Standards Council, or whatever the wretched thing will he called now that it has been amalgamated with another equally wretched body whose purpose has never been particularly clearly established in my mind, although I think that I was responsible for some of the legislation that created it.
  Leaving that aside, there are mechanisms of control and—on a sensible, all-party basis, one hopes—we must encourage and support them, to create not Toytown but a sane world within which people can be exposed to powerful and even shocking entertainment out of which
  636
  we take the kind of extreme violence that has no place in our society and that we know is damaging. We do not need some fellow from Essex university to conduct a survey for five years to tell us what is damaging. We know in our own minds that such stuff is not needed.
  With respect to those who propose the V-chip, there is no technological answer to the problems that we face. Above all, there is no answer which, in effect, goads people who want some adult entertainment into feeling that they must defend some extreme things to get away from some of the quite impossible arguments that are raised against it. Surely we can reach some kind of common-sense consensus based on the principle that we in this House charge the broadcasting authorities with responsibility and it is up to them to discharge such responsibility and not escape through technology if they do not do so. It is for us to hold them to account for the powerful tool that we have put in their hands.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on bringing some clarity to the debate. I should say straight away that I sympathise with the aims and objectives of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Parents and, indeed, many people who are not parents, would be generally sympathetic to what they have said about gratuitous violence or explicit sex and its potential impact on young people.
  I share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney that to seek a solution in technology is almost amusing. The idea that parents know more than their children about how to use electronic gadgets is—I speak for myself, at least—somewhat amusing. The idea that children would not find which of their friends' parents did not have a V-chip in their television and be off round the corner to watch programmes in their friends' homes should also be borne in mind. Children and young people are extremely ingenious and will find ways around such things, even if the solution is practical.
  I am not particularly against the V-chip proposals. If people want to be able to buy such technology, they should have the right to do so and there is no reason why it should not be marketed either as an option in new television sets or to be retro-fitted to existing sets. I am not opposed to that, but when we realise that there are about 36 million television sets in the country it becomes clear that retro-fitting the V-chip would be quite a long job even assuming a significant number of people wanted to do it.
  There is also the problem of V-chips in video recorders and the need for them in personal computers. The number of pieces of equipment that, in theory, would need a V-chip to protect young people is colossal. To talk about the V-chip as a permanent solution or even as a readily available solution is to raise false hopes. Such a solution will not happen on anything like the scale that is necessary to have much of an impact.
  I agree with another point that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney made. Responsible parents—parents who want to exercise some control and guidance—are the ones who would be most attracted to the V-chip, and the very parents who abdicate parental responsibility and do not exercise it in any way are the least likely to invest in the technology.
  Mr. Alton: Although I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point, does he not accept that he is inviting the House to tilt at the wrong windmills? Nobody is saying that the V-chip is a panacea. All we are arguing for is the right for people to have the technology if they so wish. Does he also accept that all the arguments that he has just advanced could be applied to the United States of America or Canada, where legislators have arrived at conclusions that are different to his.
  Dr. Cunningham: Of course it is true that those arguments could be applied on both sides of the debate, but just because the V-chip is being adopted in Canada or the President of the United States of American has decided that it should be introduced in his country does not mean that it will work or deliver the goods. I am saying that it is dangerously misleading to suppose that such an introduction will have a major impact. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that if people want to be able to buy the technology, and either retro-fit it to existing television sets or buy it in new television sets or videos, there should be nothing to stop that, but I am not sure why we need to legislate, because nothing prevents that from happening now.
  That brings me to perhaps a more important point that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did not spend much time discussing—who will rate the programmes? That will be an enormous bureaucratic exercise. Who will be responsible? Who will pay for it? I may be wrong, and I hope that I am not misreading the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I understand that he wants to leave it to the broadcasters. Is that correct?
  Mr. Alton: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Broadcasters classify programmes at the moment, and that is why there is a watershed at 9 o'clock. Broadcasters must determine whether a programmes is suitable for transmission before and after that time, so no extra work would be involved. The House must take action, because the broadcasters will have to tag material electronically to allow the V-chip to be of use. Even if everyone buys a V-chip, it will be of no use unless we require the broadcasters to tag programmes.
  8.30 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: Exactly, but who would be responsible for tagging the programmes? The hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be left to the broadcasters, but there would be a natural tendency on their part to put the lowest possible rating on a programme they could get away with to ensure that more people had the opportunity to see it especially where advertising and commercial pressures were involved. The problem with selling these ideas separately is that all programmes must be vetted, tagged or rated before the V-chip can be effective.
  Ms Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend know how live programmes could be classified, since nobody knows what will happen on them?
  Dr. Cunningham: I suppose my hon. Friend has broadcasts such as that of Prime Minister's Question Time in mind. I do not know the answer to her question, and she has raised an important point.
  638
  I am not opposed to people having the technology, but I am doubtful about legislating on the matter and leaving it to the broadcasters. The Bill proposes a new Broadcasting Standards Commission; the Opposition support that proposal strongly. Far from requiring the Secretary of State to produce a White Paper or requiring other organisations to do more research, we should let the new body—which will be responsible for standards and complaints—have a look at the situation. It could then report to the House on what it believed to be the way forward.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Many hon. Members will agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about technology, but does he agree that the general concerns in the nation and in the House are that there is too much violence on television, that too much of it is unnecessary and that too much of it is too violent? The Government recently initiated a change from one standards body to another, but it seems not to have done the trick. How can we be reassured by the creation of another body? Is not the recommendation in the new clause at least a move in the right direction?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not saying that research should not be done or that these matters are not important. I am saying that there are other ways in which to deal with them, and I have proposed some.
  I am as concerned about censorship as I am about some of the other issues. I do not believe that it will be helpful or beneficial to a better understanding of life or an appreciation of art and culture if people can use technology to block out important parts of plays. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to civil actions in the United States on the basis of films. It seems incredible to me. If film makers are to be the subject of civil litigation, why should that not apply also to books? If people can carry out alleged copycat actions after watching a film, why can they not do so after reading a book? "The Silence of the Lambs" was, after all, a book before it was a film. We are getting into dangerous ground.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to Shakespeare. I am a lifelong supporter of Shakespeare, and I watch the Royal Shakespeare Company at every opportunity—particularly its season in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Are we saying that if Shakespeare's plays are made into films and put on television that people will V-chip the murder of Julius Caesar or the emergence of Coriolanus from the city after he has slaughtered people? Is that what we really want? That is a cause for concern.
  If, through the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, we can take action along the lines that I hope the Secretary of State will announce, we can far more realistically—and, I hope, without raising false hopes—create the climate of opinion necessary to reduce some of the violence that we are talking about.
  One of the things that worries me about the proposals relates to the current and agreed 9 o'clock watershed. Critics say that that watershed simply pushes violence on television into the early hours of the morning, but if proper parental control is exercised, children—the people about whom we are most concerned—ought to be in bed by 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. The fact that they are

  639
  not tells us a lot about what is wrong with parental control. There is a real danger that the introduction of such technology will create the excuse—although it may not see it through—for the erosion of the 9 o'clock watershed. People might say that violent films can be broadcast earlier because they can be coded, allowing the V-chip to be used.
  Mr. Dafis: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about technology, but he let slip a remark that he thought that something needed to be done about the level of violence on television. Do I take it that he regards the current situation as unsatisfactory?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I have said that more than once, and I am happy to confirm that that is my view. I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, and those of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, but I do not share their views on the potential solutions. Above all, I do not want to raise false hopes that, by making technology available, the problems can be solved and will go away.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I sympathise strongly with the objectives of all the new clauses, and there is no doubt that there is widespread sympathy in the country for them. I wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about the difference between television and other media. Television is not only in the home, we do not have to pay anything to watch it. It is not like hiring or buying a video, or going to the cinema—even if that costs as little as nine pence, as the hon. Gentleman said. No transaction is required; we are required only to turn it on. In addition, the number of hours of viewing per day and per week that numerous surveys show to be the average—particularly among the young—make television different. Also, we can video record and replay what we see on television.
  It is not only the vulnerable who are at risk from violence, particularly the gratuitous and realistic violence that we see too much of. If such violence is continuous, almost anybody will be affected by it. However, I am far from convinced that any of the new clauses address the problem. A number of reasons why they fall short of meeting that objective have already been expressed, so I shall not repeat them.
  I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that prime responsibility rests with broadcasters to moderate the amount and type of violence. Of course, there are important responsibilities for parents, teachers and government. I hope that I will hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government are concerned, are giving the issue attention, and will continue to do so.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have rarely heard a new clause introduced in a way with which I felt such strong agreement than when the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) introduced the new clause. His description of the effects of television on children, his concern that that is in many ways uncharted territory, his description of the influence of film in encouraging imitative and mimicking behaviour and his concerns about inuring and desensitising children are all views with which I strongly agree.
  640
  8.45 pm
  I shall explain to the House why it is not appropriate to support the new clauses, but I hope that I may offer some assurance—in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested—that these are matters that the Government take extremely seriously, albeit we believe that we have set in place mechanisms, through the regulators and responsibilities on broadcasters, to ensure that there is further action.
  I also commend the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has consistently ensured that we pay proper attention to the effects of violence on young people. It is impressive that, in a Bill of such complexity, covering many areas, the House has chosen to speak at length on this subject. That in itself is a demonstration of the fact that hon. Members regard it with great importance. It may not be of great concern to the press and others, but we, as Members of Parliament, take it extremely seriously.
  I was concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill about the number of nine to 11-year-olds who have watched material that is quite unsuited to their age. Many would agree with his concern that so many of them have televisions in their own bedrooms, where they are able to watch unattended. Rosalind Miles spoke forcefully the other day about the dangers of children watching television in an isolated way. Children need an adult's interpretation of television. About nine years ago, I chaired a Dicey trust conference on the media and the rule of law. Many people from television, including Will Wyatt and others, were there, as well as Mary Whitehouse. At the time, it was fashionable to sneer at those who were concerned about the effects of violence on the young. Things have now changed substantially. At that stage, my worry was that about one third of children aged between five and eight had televisions in their bedrooms. That figure has now risen substantially.
  As is often the case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) challenged the presumption that we could tackle some of the issues in the way that is set out in the new clauses. That is a view that I hold. The only aspect that has not been properly covered is the fact that many people find so much violence frightening, whether or not it influences behaviour—I take the view that if the independent television companies make their money by persuading people that showing advertisements on television influences behaviour, it is extraordinary to say that other television programmes have no influence on their behaviour. Fear of violence is common in our society, although actual levels of violence are low. Anyone who is afraid of violence has that fear exacerbated by the amount of violence that they see on television.
  As the right hon. Member for Copeland made clear, the Bill establishes the Broadcasting Standards Commission on an enhanced basis with greater authority. In addition, it will have the power to commission research in many areas, including on violence, which makes new clause 10 unnecessary as it already has that power. The BSC will have strengthened authority because, if the regulators and broadcasters fail to act on its recommendation, it will be required to follow the matter through and ensure that a statement is made saying what happened to the complaint in question.

  641
  Only recently, the House debated the new royal charter and agreement for the BBC. Again, that strengthens the authority and clarifies the responsibilities of the BBC's governors, as the regulators. Many hon. Members will commend the remarks of the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland. When asked recently whether more needed to be done about violence, he said:
  "It is an area where all broadcasters need to be permanently vigilant. The burden of proof should lie with the producer who wants to include violence rather than the other way round. There's legitimate public concern."
  In years gone by, we would not have had such a strong response from the chairman of the BBC. At present, its producers' guidelines are under review. One of the assurances that I can give the House is that, following today's debate and the strength of feeling and authority with which comments have been made, I intend to have further discussions with the chairmen of the BBC and the ITC, as the regulators, as well as the chairman of the new BSC so that I can be sure that the many points raised today are recognised and given the weight that they deserve.
  Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend is sounding a little tougher and I am pleased to hear that. Does she appreciate, however, that members of the public who are watching this debate will probably feel exasperated? Most people now know that there is far too much violence on television and that it is doing a vast amount of damage. They look to this House to do something about it. If we do not accept the new clauses, which may have their faults, the public will expect action that will bite quickly, not long-term reviews, hoping, wishing and supporting. That will not do. Children are being damaged daily and we need much more dynamic action.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Of course, some of the evidence is conflicting. I take a strong interest in the report to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby referred on violence, pornography, and the media. Many people of distinction contributed, not least Professor Andrew Sims, the professor of psychiatry at the university of Leeds. The fact that two thirds of the population said that they were concerned about levels of sex and violence shows that we must give that matter careful consideration. At the same time, however, the ITC reports that only 4 per cent. of the complaints that it receives concern violence, so there is a gap between the general perception that there is too much violence and the number of complaints received, which has fallen—it used to be nearly 6 per cent. and now it is down to 4 per cent.
  Another piece of evidence that gives ground for encouragement was the research published last summer by Sheffield university, which showed that whereas in 1986 about 1.1 per cent. of material on television contained scenes of violence, it is now down to about 0.61 per cent. Also there has been a change in the public's tolerance. The public have become progressively more concerned.
  Professor Philip Graham—formerly a child psychiatrist at Great Ormond Street and now president of the National Children's Bureau—said that although less than 1 per cent. of a football match is made up of goals, which is
  642
  indeed true, it is the goals that one remembers. Although the amount of violence may be diminishing, none of us should disregard the power of the volume that remains.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way because this is a non-party issue. In resisting new clause 7, is she saying that it is the Government's view that the amount of violence, however one measures it, is okay and that there is no statutory requirement for an aim to reduce it? If she is, surely that is a refusal to intervene, as is often the case with the Government, in matters that affect broadcasting as distinct from film, books and other publications.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that new clause 7 is appropriate, because it undermines the authority already provided through the BSC—which has been given strengthened powers, and responsibility—and the regulators and broadcasters. The Bill gives the BSC authority to commission research on violence, and I have just reported one of the changes that has been made on the basis of information from Sheffield university. I believe that we need an annual statement on the amount of violence that features on television, and that is precisely what is now happening: the BBC, the ITC and the BSC are ensuring that material is made available annually enabling us to measure the effect year on year.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the watershed, a system adopted by the regulators as a guide to programme content. It is a further and effective means by which parents can make decisions about their children's viewing. I think that hon. Members throughout the House have re-emphasised that it is ultimately the responsibility of parents to ensure that children watch appropriate material.
  As has been said time and again in the House, there is no room for complacency, but we should consider the new clauses in detail. I have explained why new clause 7 would undermine the present position; as for new clause 10, my Department is already reviewing the way in which the V-chip might work. We attended a seminar in which Dr. Arthur Pober spoke about the chip. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill could not be present, but I know that he was invited at relatively short notice. I shall visit the United States later in the year, and hope to talk not only to Dr. Pober but to those who are persuaded that they have overcome some of the perceived disadvantages. Indeed, I shall ensure that I talk to those people.
  I do not need to rehearse some of the disadvantages that have already been identified by my colleagues—for instance, the danger that parents will have a television with a V-chip downstairs while the children will have one without a V-chip upstairs, and the danger that programme makers will believe that they are discharged from responsibility because a V-chip is in place. Many reservations have been expressed. I believe that they may all be surmountable, but that it would be inappropriate at this stage to make this the subject of primary legislation.
  Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State answer a question that was asked earlier? If we opted for the V-chip, how would live programmes be classified?
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is a good point. The question of classification, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), would cause considerable difficulty.
  Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State should kill two points once and for all. First, I cannot think of an instance in which a V-chip would be relevant in the context of a live programme. We are talking primarily about films, many of them part of the Hollywood culture. Secondly, I think that the Secretary of State will accept that classification already takes place. She has just mentioned the watershed; how can we have a watershed unless someone is classifying the material?
  Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, viewers are increasingly warned about the likely content of a programme, and responsible broadcasters frequently say that a programme contains material that may be offensive to some. On the other hand, reservations have been expressed by Mary Whitehouse and the National Viewers and Listeners Association in relation to the danger of a perverse effect. Channel 4 tried to identify programmes of a particularly unsavoury character, only to find that the audiences for those programmes increased. I am afraid that the rating identified by the hon. Gentleman can have a perverse effect. I anticipate that, as the years go by, alerting and informing parents and the public will become more widespread, but the point is that it is not appropriate today to require that as a matter of primary legislation.
  I hope that the House will feel that the Government take television violence seriously. The responsibility must be shared between regulators, broadcasters, parents and the public in general. I believe that the Bill provides enhanced powers for the safeguarding of standards and the protection of young people. While urging hon. Members not to support the new clauses, I assure them that I will make it my personal responsibility to follow up all the proposals contained in them with those directly responsible—and I am one of those directly responsible.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is interesting to note that massive changes affecting the whole structure of television and its ability to sustain quality are being passed in a more or less empty Chamber, but that, as soon as we come to an emotive issue such as violence, the Chamber begins to fill up. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) pointed out, it is interesting that it is violence this time rather than sex; but I suppose that we are all tired at the end of a long Session. Chamber rage has built up, and we are turning our attention to violence.
  Most of the discussion of violence on television strikes me as irrelevant. Violence is part of life, and therefore it is part of television. The problem, when it comes to public perceptions, is the generalised denunciation of violence—violence in the news, for instance. It is sometimes necessary to show violence in news broadcasts. Had the first day of fighting on the Somme, 80 years ago today, been shown on television—20,000 were killed on that first day—would the British generals and Field Marshal Haig have been able to continue to sustain the deaths of wave upon wave of British youth under the machine guns' ragged rattle for months until the rains started in October or November? It might be necessary to show some violence in such circumstances. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said in his admirably balanced speech, it is sometimes necessary for artistic purposes—in performances of Shakespeare, for instance.
  644
  The case becomes enormously emotive and exaggerated, but there is an argument behind it. There is a problem that extends beyond the Chamber. The problem is that violence has become almost a quota of productions—part of a formula that is necessary for the making of a successful second-rate, or third-rate, television programme. The formula involves getting a big-name actor or attractive actress—preferably one who will take her clothes off—and to include a certain element of violence and a car chase. Violence thus becomes built into many of the factory-produced television programmes that we watch, produced by the great production house in California.
  That means that the quota can increase, and people can bid higher and include more violence to maximise audiences. Unless we control it, we may end up with casts of thousands tortured, dying or murdered. If that becomes part of a culture—as it has on television—people will be inured to violence. It leads to an acceptance of violence as a natural response. The drip-by-drip conditioning to violence, which is a real danger, produces the kind of concern that we have heard expressed tonight. It is a conditioning process which we should be able to control and stop.
  Two basic propositions need to be stated. The first is that we should have the power to decide for ourselves what comes into our houses. If the V-chip did that, it would serve a useful purpose. As part of that power, we should have the information on which to decide. That is what one of the new clauses in this group seeks to provide.
  Secondly, we should have the power to penalise violence as a production feature and, therefore, reduce it and cause the producers of routine programmes for television to discount it. On both those grounds, there is a case for the new clauses before us today. I am not enthusiastic about them. New clause 7 is impractical. New clause 10 would not do what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that it would. It asks for an inquiry, but if that inquiry produces the verdict that the V-chip is acceptable, all new television sets will include a V-chip. There is no choice in that.
  The V-chip is a doubtful piece of equipment. It is almost science fiction. It is a pity that the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) is not here. He gets hooked on the science fiction of technology so he should be speaking on this matter. I am doubtful. There is general concern. For those reasons, and in the spirit of Blackburn—not as a reservoir dog but as a Straw dog—I am prepared to support the new clause.
  New clause 10 merely asks for an inquiry, which we should have. New clause 11 merely asks for the provision of information. I will support them.
  9 pm
  Mr. Brooke: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, I believe that the concern of the nation on this subject is such that it reflects well on the House that the Chamber is fuller for this debate than it was for earlier debates. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that Parliament cannot abdicate responsibility for these matters to researchers, although I would disagree with him if he were to argue that research was not helpful to our understanding of the problem.

  645
  I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for sending me the report from which he quoted. I know that he will forgive me if I say that I found the report somewhat parti pris. My intervention in his speech was partly intended to make sure that the evidence was accurately quoted. I was worried because some of the evidence was somewhat dated. The New Zealand report that he quoted was drawn up in 1976—now 20 years ago. The children in the United States watching scenes of violence on television were studied at least five years ago. The report was written in such as way that one might have thought that Professor Comstock had done that research, although if one looks at the report closely, it is clear that his views are separate.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have had some responsibility for these matters myself. I can remember bringing the broadcasters in. I am delighted that the monitors now report some evidence of a reduction in the incidence in violence.
  We as a nation are good at spotting precipices and avoiding going over them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) quoted Greek tragedy in his scholarly opening speech. It was a convention of Greek tragedy that violence took place off stage and that messengers reported the violent events as part of the drama.
  As the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underlined, common sense sees a link between these events, whatever that link may be. Personally, I hope that I do not take a Panglossian view, but I have confidence in the combined good sense of the nation. The nation clearly has a view on these matters. Broadcasters are just as capable as the rest of mankind of reading the nation's concern and the nation's evidence. It is important that we maintain up-to-date research, but no one in the nation will let us lose sight of the problem.
  Ms Eagle: I wish to register a few notes of caution, particularly around the use of the phrase "too much violence on television", and to emphasise some of the problems with the V-chip that many hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House in this extremely important debate.
  Every hon. Member is extremely concerned that we should properly debate the issues around violence, and whether violence on television is a cause of more violence in society; and come to some reasonable assessment.
  Likewise, we also have a duty to remember that it is easy to blame television violence for the violence in society. There was a great deal of violence before broadcasting began, and there are all kinds of causes of violence. We do our debates no good at all if we try to put all the blame for the violence we see in society on the broadcasting media. It is a bit like blaming witches for crop failures, which used to be a favourite practice in mediaeval times. It was much easier to blame witches for crop failures than to blame the weather or an incompetent farmer.
  That fact may explain the difference between the large percentage of public concern quoted by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) from his research and the figures cited by the Secretary of State of the low number of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Council about violence in television programmes.
  646
  How much easier to blame something appalling like the Dunblane tragedy on a television programme or the influence of television violence than to have to look into the nature of humanity and try to search for the reasons for that kind of tragedy within and among ourselves and the society we have created. How much easier to blame television violence than to take some difficult and hard-nosed decisions about the state of our society.
  In future, I hope that some important decisions will be made about the banning of handguns, so that we minimise the chance of such a tragedy recurring. It is important that we should not just make a scapegoat of the broadcasting media and try to blame them for all our problems.
  New clause 7 refers to
  "the aim of reducing the amount of violence depicted on television."
  As hon. Members may have been able to gather from some of my earlier questions, the new clause makes no distinction between different kinds of violence or the context in which that violence is portrayed. Surely it is different to depict violence in television news when it is an actual event, albeit portrayed, we hope, responsibly.
  The example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the Somme was ingenious and thought-provoking. One example much closer to home is the stark photograph from the Vietnam war of the young girl who had been burned by a napalm bomb, running naked down a road. That was one of the most startling s to be reproduced during the Vietnam war, and I believe that it led to much of the agitation that subsequently developed to get that war stopped. We must think carefully about how we portray actual events. We must be sensible about that.
  Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady. Is she aware of the story of Malcom Muggeridge, when he was a broadcaster covering the Biafran war? He was filming an execution that was about to take place when the batteries on the camera ran low. The execution was stopped so that the batteries could be recharged in order to film the execution. Is it not the case that the medium itself often becomes more important than the events going on around us? We must therefore exercise responsibility when we discharge our functions, whether as broadcasters, parents or Government.
  Ms Eagle: People should act not only responsibly, but with integrity, and it is up to the journalist to exercise that quality.
  Had we not seen some of the shocking scenes of the famine in Ethiopia, we might not have been able to react as we did. We must admit that the broadcasting media are powerful, but we must be much more subtle in our response to their s, especially if they depict real events rather than fictional ones. When we talk about the quantity of violence on television, it is our absolute duty in a democracy to draw that distinction.
  The second key distinction is that between fictional violence which is realistic and that which is clearly fantastic. What is its context? Some of it will be more damaging than others. I do not believe that it is acceptable to say that we must stop the portrayal of violence in all circumstances in a film or a play on television. We must take account of that.
  New clause 7, which talks about the quantity of violence, makes no distinction between the context in which it is shown or how it is shown. Many people think that the

  647
  "Tom and Jerry" cartoons are appallingly violent, but most children can draw a distinction between cartoon-portrayed violence and the violence in "Rambo III".
  Another emotive issue is the depiction of rape. Again, that depends on the context. The depiction of rape in "Straw Dogs" is far more offensive and potentially dangerous because of how was it was depicted than the depiction of rape in "The Accused". We must make some of these distinctions; we cannot talk about quantity in a gross way without appreciating the context in which these scenes are depicted.
  We must also draw a distinction between adults and children. Children obviously need protection, especially when they are young; adults less so. New clause 7 takes little account of that. I shall not remind the House of the many valid criticisms of, and questions about, the V-chip's suitability. The main problem is that, even if we could get the V-chip into the 36 million existing television sets, it would give broadcasters a chance to say, "You have that system of classification, so we can produce what we want, and it is up to consumers to decide whether to watch it."
  The results of introducing the V-chip on that scale, even if it were possible, would be the reverse of what those who are pushing the idea intend. It would be difficult to argue that it was necessary to have the V-chip and a series of extra systems of censorship. We either let people choose or we try collectively, as we are doing in this country with our very good regulation systems and classification systems, to control the problem as it should be controlled—with the maximum consensus.
  We have talked a lot about children. It is incumbent on us, as a national Parliament, to mention the millions of households without children, which may want to have access to adult entertainment of a sort that we would not want children to watch. We must take account of the views and interests of those households.
  New clause 11 is much more onerous than the hon. Member for Mossley Hill suggested, because all our deliberations on the Bill have been against the background that we are on the threshold of a massive extension of channels. We shall have 50 or 100 channels in the not too distant future. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all those should be classified, however large their audience, for everything they do, including advertisements and live programmes? I have already mentioned the problems in trying to classify live output.
  We must be pretty clear in our minds that the V-chip is not the way forward. We must support the institutions we have introduced, which on the whole do a pretty good job. I do not always agree with every decision by the British Board of Film Classification, but it does a pretty good job, as do all the other institutions that we have created to try to recognise the importance of the broadcasting media and of influencing people, and to establish a reasonable, consensual way through some of those difficult problems.
  I oppose all the new clauses, because they add nothing to the institutions as they have developed, but threaten to undermine them.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) up to a
  648
  point, but only up to a point, because in this debate we have failed adequately to confront the problem of violence. With great respect to those who eloquently supported their new clauses, they are only touching the periphery; they are dancing around the edges of a significant social problem.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey talks about society and television. Television is a central aspect of our society, and there is a real feeling among many thinking people in this country that, in the past decade or more, we have witnessed the progressive erosion of childhood innocence, largely at the hands of television.
  It is pointless to talk at length about books and television. We choose books to buy to read, to take down from the shelves. Television is there in almost every home in the land, is watched indiscriminately in many homes, and does a great deal of damage—for a simple reason. The aim of everyone who utters, as I am seeking to utter now, is to influence. Why do people write books? Why do they write plays? Why do they produce television programmes? The answer is: to influence people.
  Shakespeare has been quoted this evening. The difference with him is that, when people go to a Shakespeare play, they are deeply moved, and they come away with a clear message and a clear moral. The difficulty with so much modern television is that it is thoroughly amoral; there is no sense of right or wrong, of good or evil. But there is often a gratuitous depiction of violence and an explicit description of sex. All people—young people particularly—are vulnerable to these messages, and they are manipulated by them.
  9.15 pm
  The implicit message of this Bill is that television is set to proliferate—the advent of digital, the arrival of more and more channels, and so on. More, in my view, will not mean better, however. It will mean a proliferation of the tawdry—if we are not careful.
  I do not for a moment impugn my right hon. Friend's sincerity or motives when she says that she takes these issues seriously—I am sure she does—but she must take them with more seriousness. She said that she would be talking to the new chairman of the BBC and others. I urge her to have them in very soon after we have completed our deliberations on this Bill. She must tell them that, although they are doing their best, it is not good enough. There is too much gratuitous violence on our televisions, and there will be more.
  I do not like new clause 7, because it makes the Secretary of State into the grand censor. I believe that censorship is necessary, but that it should be done by the new standards body, the BSC. I want it to behave with a robustness that has been singularly lacking hitherto in those whose duty it is to examine and control. It should not be afraid of controlling.
  In a way, there is no worse crime against humanity than the destruction of childhood innocence. It must be stopped. I believe that the depiction of violence in news broadcasting can be a positive good when it shows evil men doing terrible things to others. I remember, as a small child, being in a cinema when the first newsreel of Belsen was shown. My mother's instinctive reaction was to put her hands over my eyes, but my father said, "No, let him see it." 1 have never forgotten it, just as the young children

  649
  who saw the terrible scenes from Bosnia will never forget them. Nor should they. The evil that man can do to man is terrible, and we should know about it.
  What we are really discussing today, however, is fictional, gratuitous violence without a moral. The hon. Member for Wallasey talked of the famous photograph from Vietnam, and said that it was very influential. I agree; but why? Because people saw something evil and terrible happening, and reacted against it.
  So I accept my right hon. Friend's sincerity of purpose, but I want a greater firmness of purpose. I want her to give an unequivocal message to those with this enormous power over our lives—those who produce and control the production of our programmes. It is the very future of our nation that is in their hands, because they have the chance to ensure that our children see what is good, and know the difference between what is good and what is evil.
  Ms Lynne: We are not saying that our new clauses will be the panacea for all ills. It was interesting that not one hon. Member who spoke in the debate said that there was not too much violence on television. We are proposing minor measures—they are small measures. The Secretary of State said that she is looking into research about the V-chip—that is all we are asking for; that is all new clause 10 asks for. We are not saying that the V-chip should be put into all television sets and that everyone has to use it—we are saying that parents should have the choice to use the V-chip or not to use the V-chip.
  As far as classification is concerned, the 9 o'clock watershed already exists. The producers already have to classify, so it would not cause a great deal more work. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that he spoke about this 12 years ago. What has happened? We are still seeing violence—the diet of violence is getting worse and worse on our television screens and in films.
  Many years ago, when I first started acting, we did not have this sort of violence or this portrayal of violence—the skills and the techniques were not there. As in Shakespeare, a messenger would come on to say that someone had been killed, and there might have been a little bit of violence. We did not have the technical skills that we have today.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to live television. Few producers of drama programmes will produce live drama programmes: their joy is in the editing of the programmes—that is where we get gratuitous violence, where we get the cutaway shots, where we see a head come off a body or where we see someone have their arms or legs cut off. That is the sort of gratuitous violence we see on television at the moment.
  These measures are not great measures, and we are not saying that they are a panacea. However, they are measures that we want to see accepted in the Bill. There are many other measures—such as those relating to gun licensing—that we can talk about on other Bills at a later stage. Tonight, we are asking hon. Members to vote for these small new clauses. They are a step in the right direction. I ask the Secretary of State whether Government Members will have a free vote on these new clauses—all Opposition Members will have a free vote. I hope that some Government Members will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Dafis: There is a growing consensus that there is too much violence on television, and that something must be done about it. That view is held in the country, among experts and among Members of Parliament—and I have been impressed by that. Hon. Members have said that there is far too much violence on television and that it is doing a huge amount of damage. Something has to be done.
  I will not go into whether we can establish a direct connection between depictions of violence and specific crimes—although I dare say it happens. We have a constant diet of violent scenes—surely it coarsens the grain of society and increases the amount of low-level violence, such as threatening behaviour. I believe that there is also a connection in relation to the most horrific crimes.
  The V-chip issue has been carefully and eloquently described, and I am not competent to consider the technical aspects of it. Parents who wish to prevent their unsupervised children from being exposed to pernicious material should have the opportunity to do so—I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) accept that principle.
  I emphasise that my amendment is modest—it is not a huge imposition. It asks the Secretary of State to draw up a plan to reduce the amount of violence. Surely that can be done without sacrificing the need for realism and the need to depict violence to the extent that is appropriate. We can prevent the depiction of violence in newsreels. We are discussing reducing the quantity of violence that is shown on television—that is of the essence.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgment of the problem, and I am glad to hear that there will be an annual review, discussions with regulators and so on. Tonight we have an opportunity to put a useful process in motion without causing a huge dislocation of existing provisions, and without creating major difficulties for the Government. That is what the amendments do.
  In the process, we shall send a powerful message to the Government—Conservative Members have heard it already—to the broadcasters and to the public. Tonight the Chamber has grappled with a serious problem in society, and the debate has been most impressive. We should take the opportunity to send that welcome message, so I shall press the new clause to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 352.

  Division No. 160]

  [9.25 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Canavan, Dennis

  Alton, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Corston, Jean

  Byers, Stephen

  Cox, Tom

  Callaghan, Jim

  Cummings, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Dafis, Cynog

  651

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  MacShane, Denis

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Maddock, Diana

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marek, Dr John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Galloway, George

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Gapes, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mullin, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pike, Peter L

  Graham, Thomas

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Radice, Giles

  Grocott, Bruce

  Randall, Stuart

  Hanson, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hardy, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hodge, Margaret

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoey, Kate

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hood, Jimmy

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

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

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Straw, Jack

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Illsley, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Jamieson, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Janner, Greville

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Walley, Joan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Keen, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Khabra, Piara S

  Wray, Jimmy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Lewis, Terry

  Litherland, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

  McAllion, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bates, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alexander, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Booth, Hartley

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  652

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forth, Eric

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Sir Peter

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Gallie, Phil

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butcher, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Butler, Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Caborn, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clapham, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coffey, Ann

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Corbett, Robin

  Heald, Oliver

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Couchman, James

  Henderson, Doug

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hicks, Sir Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Horam, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Denham, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Hutton, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ingram, Adam

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jack, Michael

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evennett, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Faber, David

  Key, Robert

  Fabricant, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  653

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Knox, Sir David

  Richards, Rod

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Riddick, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Robertson, Fiaymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Legg, Barry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Leigh, Edward

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lidington, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luff, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  McFall, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Sir Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madel, Sir David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Malone, Gerald

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Spellar, John

  Marland, Paul

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, Iain

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxton, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Iain

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Steve

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Trotter, Neville

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waller, Gary

  Pendry, Tom

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Whitney, Ray

  654

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

  DUTY OF THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION (BSC) TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO USE OF 'V' CHIP TO REGULATE PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
  `.—It shall be the duty of the BSC to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of s of violence contained in television programmes and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of an electronic device designed, subject to an override power, automatically to block the reception of programmes whose violent content falls within a predetermined classification as being unsuitable for viewing by persons under the age of eighteen.'.—[Mr. Alton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion and Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 376.

  Division No. 161]

  [9.40 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Battle, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Beggs, Roy

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Home Robertson, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hood, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Corston, Jean

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cox, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dafis, Cynog

  McAllion, John

  Davidson, Ian

  McFall, John

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

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Maddock, Diana

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Galloway, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  655

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Spellar, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Peter

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Alexander, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clappison, James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Couchman, James

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Berry, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Betts, Clive

  Darling, Alistair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Denham, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Duncan, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bright Sir Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  656

  Evennett, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Faber, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Janner, Greville

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Flynn, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Forman, Nigel

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Forth, Eric

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Foulkes, George

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Keen, Alan

  French, Douglas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Fry, Sir Peter

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Key, Robert

  Galbraith, Sam

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Gale, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Gallie, Phil

  Knapman, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

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

  Garnier, Edward

  Knox, Sir David

  George, Bruce

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lait. Mrs Jacqui

  Gill, Christopher

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Legg, Barry

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Leigh, Edward

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Gorst, Sir John

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Lewis, Terry

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lidington, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Luff, Peter

  Gunnell, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McLeish, Henry

  Harvey, Nick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Madden, Max

  Hawksley, Warren

  Madel, Sir David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Heald, Oliver

  Malone, Gerald

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Mans, Keith

  Hendry, Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Mates, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Horam, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Merchant, Piers

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mills, Iain

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hunter, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  657

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe,)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Norris, Steve

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Olner, Bill

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stephen, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stewart, Allan

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Sumberg, David

  Parry, Robert

  Sweeney, Walter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Sykes, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pope, Greg

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Radice, Giles

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Richards, Rod

  Trotter, Neville

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walden, George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ward, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Simpson, Alan

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Sebastian Coe.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

  ESTABLISHMENT AND ANNUAL REVIEW BY ORDER OF LIST OF PROTECTED SPORTING EVENTS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and thereafter annually, carry out a review of those sporting events listed in accordance with section 91 of this Act.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall publish the results of each review carried out under subsection (1) above in such manner as he considers appropriate.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall make an order specifying those events to be included in the list for the 12 months following each review under subsection (1).

  658

  (4) Subject to subsection (5) below an order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  (5) An order under subsection (3) which has the effect of removing an event from the list may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15—Powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the sale of television rights—
  '.—(1) If the Secretary of State concludes that the sale of the exclusive rights to televise all or part of any sporting or other event is not in the national interest, he may by order determine that any contract entered into for that purpose shall be void.
  (2) An order under subsection (I) above may state, for the purposes of any subsequent contract, which part or parts of that event may be the subject of the sale of exclusive rights as mentioned in subsection (1).
  (3) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult the owner of the rights to televise the event, relevant broadcasting organisations and anyone else as he determines.
  (4) No order under subsection (1) may be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
  New schedule 1—Listed Events—
  .—The list of events mentioned in section 91 of this Act is as follows, namely:—

  Association Football
  —the F.I.F.A. World Cup Finals (that is to say all stages of the tournament after the qualifying stages)
  —the F.A. Cup Final
  —the Scottish F. A. Cup Final

  Lawn Tennis
  —the Wimbledon Finals
The Olympic Games

  Horse Racing
  —the Derby
  —the Grand National

  Cricket
  —Test Matches played in the United Kingdom

  Rugby Union
  —matches in the Five Nations Championship involving England, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.'.
  And the following amendment thereto: (a), at end add—
  `—the Welsh Rugby Union Cup Final'.
  Amendment No. 1, in clause 91, page 86, line 35, leave out from 'in' to 'subsection' in line 38 and insert—
  `the list contained in Schedule (Listed events) to this Act.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the list of events referred to in subsection (1) above, but no such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  659
  (2A) The power referred to in subsection (1) above to vary the list of events shall include the power to add an event to, or delete an event from, the list, or to substitute one event for another.
  (2B) The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power conferred by'.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 86, line 47, after 'list', insert
  'contained in Schedule (Listed events) to this Act.'.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 87, leave out lines 1 to 7.
  Amendment No. 129, in page 87, leave out lines 10 to 15.
  Amendment No. 4, in page 87, line 14, leave out `(2)' and insert '(2B)'
  Amendment No. 5, in page 87, leave out lines 16 to 19.
  Amendment No. 130, in clause 93, page 87, line 35,, leave out
  'the commencement of this section'
  and insert '19th March 1996'.
  Dr. Cunningham: New clauses 12 and 15 and the associated amendments Nos. 129 and 130 refer to the listed sporting events that were the subject of considerable debate and not a little controversy not only in the other place but across the country after the publication of the Bill. The Government suffered their first defeat on the Bill in Committee in another place on the list of sporting or other events that should not be shown exclusively on pay-per-view or subscription television—in other words, events that should be reserved also for terrestrial television broadcasting.
  The Government amendments were tabled at the 11th hour in the House of Lords and rightly came in for great scrutiny in Committee. Our concern now is about the process by which a sport could become listed or could be removed from the list, since we do not take the view that the existing list should remain in its present form for all time. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed to have been pleased that the House of Lords overturned the Government's wishes on the matter. If we accept—as she did then—that these events are of national importance, we must also accept that they should be subject to a national debate on the future merits or demerits of listing them.
  New clause 12 would make the list the property of Parliament, and not exclusively that of the Secretary of State. The new clause would impose a duty to review the list annually and to place it in the form of a statutory instrument before the House of Commons. Nothing of that nature happens at present. As the proposal has been controversial—not only here, but among sportsmen and women, broadcasters and fans—many people have argued that the list should have a number of other events added to it immediately. The five nations rugby championship has been suggested—[HoN. MEMBERS: "The four nations rugby championship, now."] Perhaps that is right. The Ryder cup golf tournament is another example.
  New schedule 1 and its associated amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) would add the five nations tournament to the list, but we have been advised that there is a serious problem with that addition to the list, and with the addition of the five nations championship to the Bill. Indeed, our advice from the Clerks is that this schedule would make the Bill hybrid, thus placing the entire Bill
  660
  in jeopardy. In many respects, that might be appealing to Opposition Members but, frankly, that is not a road down which we wish to travel. There are far too many important provisions in the Bill that we do not want to be lost, and we cannot support that approach.
  New clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene in these events. We have argued for some time that the list should be reviewed and that the Secretary of State and Parliament should be allowed to add further events, if that is the decision. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 would ensure that the full effect of listed status would apply to any event added to the list from the time the Government amendments were added to the Bill. In that way, it would be perfectly feasible for this or any future Government to add an event or events—including the four or five nations rugby championship—to the list.
  For that matter, any other event that it is decided should be protected for terrestrial television broadcasting—it may not necessarily be a sporting event—may be added. One thinks of millennium celebrations, or other events over which there could be a clash of interests in deciding whether they should be exclusively broadcast or more generally available. That could be done if it was thought appropriate and practicable, and if the Secretary of State so recommended and the House agreed. That process would also give sports' governing bodies and broadcasters, in addition to the House and hon. Members, sports fans and organisations, the opportunity to contribute to the debate and discussions before any change in the listed events took place. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Sir Peter Fry: I find considerable sympathy with the Opposition new clause because the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the sport that is dearest to my heart—rugby union football. In the past few weeks, I have discussed the decision of the English Rugby Football Union with a considerable number of rugby players and officials, particularly from the junior clubs.
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Sir Peter Fry: There is widespread concern that the recent agreement between the Rugby Football Union and Sky Television not only has endangered the future of the five nations championship but will deprive the majority of people in this country of the opportunity to see home internationals when they are being played, by removing them from their television screens.
  I regard that as exceedingly unfortunate after a period when rugby football was more of a minority sport than it is today. It has made great strides in recent years, has attracted many more players, especially youngsters, and has spread across all class barriers. It has had a wider and ever more enthusiastic audience. In effect, the governing body of rugby football says, "We are not too worried

  661
  about all the people who want to watch—after all, only a privileged few can get tickets to Twickenham when home internationals are played—but we are concerned about making the maximum amount of money out of a deal with Sky Television."
  It was not me who described the august members of the Rugby Football Union as a "collection of old farts". I suggest that a collection of money grabbers would be a more appropriate description today than that by the former England captain. For a sport that was amateur for so long to make such a transformation and do the deal with Mr. Murdoch's empire that it has done is certainly to be deplored, and it is deplored by me and by the vast majority of rugby supporters.
  Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend knows that I share his concern about this matter and I agree with every word he has said. Is not the great tragedy the fact that, although the Rugby Football Union says that the money it is getting is for the benefit of the sport as a whole, by turning it into a professional sport, which has meant that every senior club wants £1 million a year just to run the club and pay the players, the RFU has driven the deals with television companies? That is not to the long-term benefit of the sport—particularly that of the junior clubs—but is all to do with money grabbing at the highest possible level.
  Sir Peter Fry: That was a good intervention and I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further. We have already seen the rift that has developed between the big clubs and the rest of the people who play rugby. I deplore that rift. The inevitable question is, as the Rugby Football Union picks the English team and the big clubs need the union, who is going to play for England in home internationals?
  I must make it clear that I do not object to the best players in the sport receiving some remuneration. We have to accept that and move with the times. What I do object to is the Rugby Football Union saying, "Regardless of what anyone thinks, you're going to have to pay £24 a month to whoever it is to see home internationals at the time of the kick-off." That is a form of blackmail to a great many members of the public and it is a blow to the prestige of rugby union football. That is why I have sympathy with the new clauses and amendments.
  I do not think that the measures go far enough, however. I would have liked the new schedule tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—I call him my friend because we have paired in the House for many years—to be accepted. For many years, people felt certain that the five nations championship was safe, and that we could not find ourselves in the position in which we find ourselves today. Now, unfortunately, we are being told that it will be difficult to turn the clock back. It is not just a question of whether the championship will be televised; it is a question of whether it will ever be played again after the next season. Like many others, I thought that the august members of the rugby union committee would be able to compromise and find common ground with the other home unions. I was astonished that, following the agreement that was reached, there was a danger that the championship could well end.
  I hope that the message that tonight's debate will send is that what has happened is not in the best interests of rugby union football, and that the House wants the
  662
  championship to continue. If the threat of considerable future inconvenience for any union that does a deal with the television company that will take the sport off the screen causes the rugby unions to compromise and decide that the five nations championship is more important than one individual union in this country, I believe that our debate will have been worth while. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able at least to persuade me not to vote for the new clauses and amendments; at present, I would find it very difficult to vote against them.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), some of whose sentiments I echo.
  I find the term "listed events" rather too innocuous: I prefer to think of events such as the World cup, the FA cup final, the Scottish cup final, the Derby, the Grand National, test cricket in this country and, of course, Wimbledon as the jewels of sport.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out that, if my new schedule were passed, the Bill would be in danger of becoming a hybrid. Let me emphasise that what we are asking for, as rugby enthusiasts, is parity. We want the five nations championship to continue to be seen by millions of people throughout the country. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dalis) proposes to amend the new schedule to include the Welsh rugby union cup final, and I do not disagree with that.
  Dr. John Cunningham: We share my hon. Friend's objectives; that is not the problem. The problem is that., if the new schedule is added to the Bill, we are advised that it will put the whole legislation in jeopardy. If that happened, my hon. Friend would not get what he wanted. Our amendments do what he wants, while retaining the Bill intact. That is why it is advisable to support our amendments and not press the new schedule to a vote.
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot for the life of me understand why the five nations championship was not included in the Bill in the other place.
  I declare an interest. Two or three years ago, several hon. Members got together and formed an all-party rugby union group. I am not exactly declaring an interest, because there is certainly no financial remuneration in the arrangement, but I have followed the sport closely for the past 50 years.
  Rugby union has become very much a national sport. Indeed, it has developed into an international sport. Let us consider some of the issues. The tickets for an international match could normally be sold many times over. Unfortunately, many tickets are still sucked into the black market and sold at exorbitant prices.
  It is expensive to go to an international today. According to the official statistics which I was reading only last week, Wales is now just about the most deprived region of the United Kingdom. Therefore, many people such as redundant mineworkers and steelworkers who would normally wish to go to internationals simply cannot afford to go.
  Other people—some elderly, some infirm—who have great love for the game feel that going to an international match, with a big crowd, is just too physically exacting.

  663
  All those categories of people—those who cannot get tickets, those who find internationals too expensive and those who find that they are past going to internationals—watch the match on their television screen in the cosiness of their own parlour. That has been the case up to now.
  I have no wish to interfere with the administration of rugby. That is a matter for the responsible officials of the game. However, as Members of Parliament we cannot help but be concerned if our constituents will be deprived of an amenity that they have enjoyed for so long. The so-called highlights of the match two hours afterwards are a very poor substitute for the real thing. Nevertheless, I appreciate the difficulties in which the rugby authorities find themselves, particularly with the advent of professionalism. Personally, I regret the fact that the game has gone that way, but there it is. As the hon. Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) said, each major club says that it needs £1 million to run its team for just one season.
  Of course the rugby unions have to be concerned about the future development of the game. Naturally, therefore, they must consider the moneys coming into it, but they need to consider also what effect Mr. Murdoch might have on the game. How much control would he want to exercise? We have already seen what has happened with rugby league. It has been transferred arbitrarily manner to the summer. I understand that attendances at matches have dropped substantially.
  Today, of course, the running of various sports is all to do with sponsorship. We have seen the ridiculous outfits that our cricketers wear on a Sunday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] How daft they look.
  The Broadcasting Bill is seen as a measure that will prevent ordinary people from enjoying the sport that they love. So many families just cannot afford a satellite dish outside their home. One of my constituents, Mr. Ron Stewart of Caldicot, wrote a letter to the Western Mail a couple of weeks ago in which he said that an "ordinary Joe", as he called himself, could not afford a satellite dish, but he was still very keen on rugby. Mr. Stewart loves to see the internationals and he is afraid that he will be deprived of that particular pleasure.
  I say to the Government and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who speaks for the Opposition, that they must find some way to ensure that ordinary people can still see rugby internationals as they have done in the past. If not, I believe that the changes envisaged will have a detrimental effect on the future of the game, because ordinary people will lose interest in it.
  10.15 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who indirectly moved his amendments to the new clause.
  I should declare an interest as one who was a member of the Scottish Rugby Union committee for some 20 years. I therefore know a little about the discussions that have gone on every few years on the renewal of the television franchise. That is why I am particularly disappointed at what the Rugby Football Union has done this year by giving a monopoly to Sky Television. It is no use to say, "Well, that is fine. You can see the highlights or even a recording of the match two hours later". Once
  664
  one knows the result of a game, half the pleasure of watching it has gone. That is a very poor answer to the attitude of the RFU.
  I know that the RFU feels that it is up to it to obtain the most money possible from television to put back into the game. One appreciates that the four home unions have spent huge amounts of money developing their stadiums. We now have fine grounds in the four home countries, and in Paris as well. At the same time, however, the game has had to face a huge increase in the payments to players, and, of course, the cost of seats to the public has gone up dramatically. That makes it all the more important for the man in the street to have the opportunity to see rugby on terrestrial as well as Sky Television.
  I am quite a believer in Sky. I enjoy watching golf at the weekends and rugby football from the southern hemisphere and South Africa. That is all good and we have to take our hats off to the Sky producers for the way in which they have enhanced the programmes over the years to an extremely high standard. That still does not remove from the argument the point made so strongly by the hon. Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) that those who pay their television licences—it is a pretty high sum now—are entitled to see some top sport some of the time. Were they to lose live coverage of the entire five nations championship, they would feel seriously disadvantaged.
  Most of the governing bodies of the international sports that are on the preferred list accept that and behave extremely competently and fairly to their viewers, and, of course, that is absolutely right. To me it is extremely serious that the RFU is prepared to put the five nations championship at grave risk.
  The Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union—as a result of a decision yesterday—and the Irish RFU are serious. They will not play England in the so-called five nations championship if the Sky Television franchise as proposed by England goes ahead. They will look forward to playing a four nations championship, probably of an extremely high standard, bringing excitement and enjoyment to all concerned but there will not be television broadcasts from Twickenham of England playing against Scotland, Wales or Ireland. That would be a sad loss to everyone in the country.
  We must try to persuade the RFU that money is not everything and we must try to find a compromise. It is very sad, when the four home unions and France have been the closest of colleagues for at least 100 years, that one country wishes to opt out and be particularly difficult when it comes to giving the viewers of this country what they want to see, while ploughing a huge amount of money back into the game, whether the money comes from the BBC or elsewhere.
  We must try to help the RFU off a hook that it has put itself on, and to get back to running a five nations championship. It is no use England thinking that it can have fun and games playing Italy or Romania in show games at Twickenham and perhaps playing a touring side. We must look at the touring sides too. Those from the southern hemisphere—the three main countries that we wish to see are New Zealand, Australia and South Africa—will need to negotiate television arrangements with the four home unions. If England carries on as it is, it will have great difficulty in reaching a favourable agreement with the other countries. Sadly, we are reaching an impasse.

  665
  Putting the five home unions on to the approved or special list is not the way forward. It is far more important that we retain the status quo with a degree of flexibility so that the rugby unions, if they wish, can have part Sky, part terrestrial television for other games in the five home unions. It would be wrong to reduce their opportunity for negotiation by putting them on to the preferred list.
  The House should send the RFU at Twickenham a very strong indication that we are especially disappointed at the attitude that England has taken towards the five nations championship, that we know that the other countries are dead serious about not handing over their rights to the five nations championship and that England really should come to the negotiating table, call a meeting as soon as possible and begin negotiations all over again, which will bring an enormous amount of money to all the countries, not only England.
  Miss Kate Hoey: I strongly support new clause 12. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will accept the reasoned arguments about his new schedule. If his schedule were on the statute book, Euro 96 would not have been one of the listed events. It is important that we proceed as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
  It is unfortunate that we even have to move and discuss a new clause like this. If the governing bodies of sport took their long-term duty seriously, we should not be in this position. Of course money is important, and of course we want to get more money into sport, but the short-termism of our sports governing bodies, in not worrying about the future of the sport so not encouraging young people to enter it, has meant that more and more of our sport is being changed and manipulated at the will of the people who run television.
  I support Sky Television. I welcome what it has done for sport generally, but the balance is beginning to move too much in favour of those who have satellite television at the expense of others who do not but who want to see the jewels of our sporting heritage. The new clause proposes a check on our governing bodies. It will make them sit up and realise that they can no longer act in a vacuum, or assume that what they think is good for sport actually is.
  The phrase "the property of Parliament" was used earlier in the debate. I think that sport is the property of the people. As Members of Parliament, we must be able to represent our constituents' point of view. The annual review affords us that opportunity. It is not too much to ask for this compromise. Conservative Members who may feel that we are trying to dictate terms must realise that sport matters enough for Parliament to take it seriously. If we are serious about the future of sport, I see no reason not to support the new clause.
  Mr. John Greenway: For the sake of good order I declare my interests as an adviser to Tyne Tees Television and as president of York City football club—not that I want to discuss channel 3 interests or second division football tonight.
  The Rugby Football Union has displayed breathtaking timing. The contract that it has signed with BSkyB could not have come at a worse time for the other sporting bodies that are trying to put together a sensible
  666
  compromise solution to genuinely held concerns about the sale of sporting rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right: this is a dispute which the national rugby football unions need to resolve themselves. In any case, what has happened does not make the case for new clauses such as these.
  I want to mention the interests of racing, speaking in my capacity as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee. Two of the eight listed events are horse races of international importance—the Derby at Epsom and the Grand National at Aintree. Both race courses are owned by the Racecourse Holdings Trust. With some sadness, it has accepted the amendment canted in another place, believing, however, that it has to some extent closed down its opportunities and undermined the value of the sale to terrestrial channels of both the Derby and the Grand National.
  As in this House, so within racing there are differing views. Tonight I could construct a convincing argument for further legislative intervention. It is perhaps more difficult to construct an argument against it—except to say that we cannot for ever expect our sporting bodies and their sports to achieve international success while depriving those sports of the lucrative returns from the sale of television rights.
  In the recent Friday debate—more leisurely than this one—we were concerned with where all the money goes. We need to insist, for instance, that the Premiership pushes more money down to the clubs in the lower divisions. Without the second and third divisions, and even the Vauxhall Conference, we will not win Euro 2000 or the World Cup in, say, 10 years' time.
  The new clauses propose that the Secretary of State will have the power to increase the list in the future. What does that mean for four-year or five-year agreements? For example, I refer to the five-year agreement between the Derby and Channel 4. What about the other big race festivals, such as Cheltenham, Ascot and the August meeting at York? It will undermine the value of the rights of sale, even to terrestrial television.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Secretary of State has the power to add events to the list now. The amendments circumscribe the power of the Secretary of State—she can do it now on her own, without consultation, without reference to the House of Commons, without consultation with the sporting bodies or the racing organisations. The hon. Member for Ryedale has got the point wrong: we are asking for a consultation process before any changes are made, not arbitrary changes in or out of the list.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Greenway: I very much doubt that the Secretary of State has the power now to add an event to the list retrospectively or to do so in a way that would undermine a contract that is already entered into. If that were the case, it would solve the problem of the Rugby Football Union's sale of the five nations championships—all the Secretary of State would have to do is say, "I am adding this to the list, and the contract is null and void". That is not a sensible proposition.
  As I have said, all hon. Members have strong views on this issue. I was a member of a delegation of Conservative Members who went to see the Minister in the early part of the discussions—we wanted to find a way through the

  667
  difficulty. I have found that the more I have looked into this, and the more that I have addressed the vexed issue of unbundling, the more I have come to the conclusion that legislation is not the solution. Despite what I said earlier about the poor timing of the Rugby Football Union, I believe that the national sporting bodies have made a genuine attempt through their voluntary codes.
  We have before us a unique situation in which the Central Council of Physical Recreation has taken out a full page advertisement in The House Magazine so that hon. Members can see how seriously it views this situation. It is to the credit of the House and the way in which hon. Members on both sides have pursued this issue that it has brought the CCPR, on behalf of all sporting bodies, to the point where, for the first time, they are prepared to put in writing a code of practice and to police it. On balance, that is what the House should support. More legislation is not the solution.
  Mr. MenziesCampbell: I do not declare an interest in this matter so much as an obsession. I have had an obsession with sport since I enjoyed the only access available to the 1948 Olympic games—the radio, or the wireless as it was called in those days. Access has a lot to do with the extent to which people become enthusiastic about sport and the extent to which they are persuaded to take up certain sports. I have an interest in a narrow sense in that I am a debenture holder of the Scottish Rugby Union at Murrayfield. That does not always bring pleasure—it occasionally brings a substantial amount of pain.
  The powerful speeches of the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) underline just how extraordinary the decision of the Rugby Football Union is at this time. While it is not the oldest tournament in the world, it is the envy of many other sports, it has lasted a long time, it has given a great deal of pleasure to a large number of spectators and it has ensured the maintenance of the highest standards of proficiency in the sport of rugby football in the northern hemisphere. It seems pretty shortsighted to throw that away in favour of the possibility of a substantial financial return and a large fee paid by one form of television.
  Mr. Lord: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Rugby Union has put itself in an impossible position? Twelve months ago it did not—at least openly—pay the players anything, but now it is paying players throughout the sport, and especially those from senior clubs, large sums. As a consequence, each senior club wants £1 million a year in order to run its organisation. Did not the Rugby Union create the situation itself by deciding to go professional and, in my view, destroy the game?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman and I have had that debate before. I understand his desire to stick to what one might call the Corinthian values of rugby football. However, events in the southern hemisphere proceeded at a pace, there was a recognition of rugby players' commitment to the game and the time that they devoted to it and it was decided that they should be paid. We adhered to the Corinthian code in the northern hemisphere, while in the southern hemisphere substantial sums were being paid to players.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: No we did not.
  Mr. Campbell: Things may have been different in parts of the country with which the hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I. However, the degree of commitment necessary from players in the Scottish international XV, who trained five or six days a week and spent weekend after weekend away from home for no financial reward, was such that it was not realistic to expect individuals to continue to make that sort of contribution. I think that professionalism was inevitable—and I speak from my experience in the sport with which I was intimately connected. Eventually the degree of commitment necessary becomes such that one cannot expect people to continue doing it for nothing. That may be regrettable, but they are the circumstances.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The reality.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, that is the reality. It seems to me that there is a fundamental question whether we believe that the widest possible range of people should have access to special sporting events. It is correct to say that individual sports wish to maximise their access to resources. However, I want to be satisfied that those resources will be spent in sensible ways—the development for which people argue must be funded properly. The truth is—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) is correct—that there is a degree of short-termism in the approach of many sporting bodies that are not willing to think beyond the immediate offer in a particular contract. In many respects, they are not mindful of the sport for which they presently have responsibility and of their obligations to maintain that heritage and to pass it on to succeeding generations.
  There is no doubt that for a long time certain sports were inadequately rewarded. The fact that the BBC was the only broadcaster willing to buy sport meant that there was no proper market. In that sense, many sports did not receive a return on their product. However, that should not be a justification for creating circumstances in which a monopoly is ultimately produced through the operation of the market. If a sporting organisation—no doubt it is substantially generous at this stage—has a monopoly, who is to say that it will not exploit that monopoly again in due course?
  Sport is the area in which the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations are able and willing to compete on financial terms. They are not queuing up to make "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility", or to make detailed documentaries, or to film all of Shakespeare, or to provide access to the finest opera or music. They have chosen sport. Because the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations can pay substantial sums, they believe that they will be able to take away from the BBC an important part of the service that the BBC offers. Of course, it is inevitable that the BBC will not be able to compete with the sums of money being offered by other organisations and it will have to consider other methods of funding. The BBC may be driven to introduce subscription and, as soon as that happens, the justification for the licence fee funding of broadcasting becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. So although we are anxious about sport and although the individual enthusiasm of hon. Members is reflected in what they say about sport, a longer-term implication lies behind those matters.

  669
  I have much sympathy with new clause 12. A period of 12 months is mentioned in subsection (3), and we can argue about whether the period should be one year or three years. But the thrust of the new clause should recommend itself to the House because it will provide a balance between the legitimate right of any sport to capitalise on its television potential and, at the same time, it will maintain the right of virtually universal access that has been part of the sporting heritage and tradition of the United Kingdom.
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had a general debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There has been no indulgence from the Chair. Everything has been in order, so far.
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: I am relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my words are therefore unlikely to incur your censure.
  The debate has shown the House at its best, because we are united by our concern for sport and for the access of the public to sport. The issue is almost apolitical, and general concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If any political instincts intrude on my attitude to the subject, they suggest a minimalist approach; I do not approve of new clause 12 because of its over-prescriptive nature.
  If I have a bias, it is to believe that the rights to sport belong to the sporting bodies. We might have views about whether the sporting bodies always conduct their affairs in ways of which we approve, but they might think that we do not always conduct ourselves in a way that they would approve as citizens. I am anxious not to go overboard in placing heavy regulations on the sporting bodies. I recognise the great public interest in the subject and we are all concerned that sport should be revived—we have been concerned that there has not been enough participation in it. We want more resources to go into sport, and one of the easiest ways in which that can be done is through the sale of broadcasting rights.
  I have a special interest in cricket. I have the honour to be the secretary of the all-party group on cricket, although I do not speak for the group because we all have our individual opinions. I am also a member of the committee of Essex county cricket club, so I can express a view from that direction. I am concerned that the sport of cricket could be severely prejudiced if we hedge it about with too many restrictions. Cricket needs reviving in this country, and we are concerned about the amount of cricket played by young people in school. For the first time recently, cricket has had a glimpse of the amount of money that it might get, and it will be able to use the increased income from the most recent deal on broadcasting rights to the real good of the sport. All the evidence so far is that it wants to use that money sensibly. When it has an opportunity to gain more money through the sale of its broadcasting rights, it would be cruel of us to restrict that.
  Much more needs to be done if we are to revive interest in our great national game. We must think carefully about how we restrict the powers of the cricket authorities to sell what they have. In the last agreement that they made, they demonstrated that they understand the wider needs.
  670
  While it is important to raise income to plough back into the game, it vital to the lifeblood of cricket that the public as a whole should be able to develop their interest and experience the excitement of the sport through hearing and watching, through the electronic media, the game being played at the highest level. There must be a balance between the two.
  10.45 pm
  I happen to think that the cricket authorities might be the best people to judge how to get the balance right, and I am a little doubtful about whether we should second guess them. I should be satisfied to give the Secretary of State a reserve power in case something goes seriously wrong, but I should like the matter to be played out to see what kind of deals are done.
  Ms Eagle: Was the hon. Gentleman entirely happy with the coverage of the recent world cup on terrestrial television?
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: The hon. Lady betrays a misunderstanding of the matter. There is no way in which hon. Members can control what an overseas organisation does with the television rights to what it possesses. We could exercise no control over what the Indian and Pakistan boards happened to do with the television rights of the world cup in their countries. It is a common misconception. We accuse the British authorities of letting down viewers in this country because, apparently, we cannot get the rights to live, ball-by-ball coverage on terrestrial television here, but we can have no effect on that. We can simply claim to have some effect on what happens with the game as it is played in this country and how it is presented.
  At this stage, we would be wiser to accept the work of the sporting authorities, who are signing up to the code of conduct. I instinctively prefer that approach, rather than being over-prescriptive. If they show that they cannot achieve a balance covering the interests of participants, spectators, viewers and listeners, the Secretary of State should have a residual power to intervene, but I urge the House not to go overboard in trying to tie the hands of the various authorities, as we would live to regret it.
  Mr. Maxton: I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) on one point: we should do as much as we can to encourage people to participate in sport. We have a duty to do so, because evidence shows that exercise is good for individuals' health; and if we improve individuals' health through their participation in sport, we improve the general health of the nation. I presume that we all want that.
  Money spent on the development of sport does not, alone, encourage young people to participate in it. Seeing their sporting heroes on television is the major incentive. How many children do we now see on public tennis courts with tennis rackets in their hands because Wimbledon is on television? The whole House has been congratulating the English on how they have run Euro 96. How many kids are now out playing football?
  What better case can be made for keeping our major sporting events on terrestrial television than Euro 96? As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said in Question Time this afternoon, 25 million people

  671
  were interested enough in football to watch the England-Germany game last Wednesday. Those figures cannot be matched by cable television or by satellite television. One tenth of that number would have been able to watch Euro 96 if it had been exclusive to satellite. If Euro 96 had been exclusive to satellite, many more people would have gone into pubs to watch it. That would have led to more drinking and thus to more trouble on the streets.
  I shall quote briefly from a letter I have received—I am sure that other hon. Members have received it—from Tony Hallett, who is the secretary of what calls itself the Rugby Football Union. That is pretty insulting in itself because it is, of course, the English Rugby Football Union, not the Rugby Football Union. Mr. Hallett says:
  "We wish to be free to negotiate on our own behalf the best package for our game."
  In the same letter, he claims that the agreement the union has reached with BSkyB will mean
  "greater coverage of live rugby union games".
  More matches might be shown live, but the audience will be considerably smaller.
  Why should we not accept absolutely the argument that the sporting bodies have a right to sell their broadcasting rights where they wish and how they wish? The answer is this: an enormous amount of public money goes into sport. Money goes directly from government through Sports Council grants. Increasingly, money comes from the lottery, with which there is a five-year deal. So far, almost £200 million has gone from the lottery into all sport. Under the five-year deal, the total figure will be almost £1 billion. Does not that give us some right to say how sport should be run and who should be able to see it?
  Large amounts come from local government in terms of playing fields given cheaply, changing rooms and coaching. Then there are coaching and sports facilities in schools. All that is public money. There is also an enormous number of people who give their time freely, or who pay subscriptions to play their sport. Surely with all that money going into sport, we as the representatives of the people who watch sport on television have some right to a say in how sport is shown on television. That seems to me to be a fairly straightforward case. That is why I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
  There has been great emphasis on the fact that the five nations tournament is likely to disappear as a result of the rugby deal. That is deeply regrettable. The argument is not whether the five nations disappear—I hope that the Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the French will stand firm and play a four nations tournament rather than try to keep the five nations.
  What is more important to rugby is the disappearance of rugby from the television screens of most of our people. Only 15 per cent. of viewers will be able to watch live rugby matches in this country. As the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, it is live rugby that people want to watch. They want live sport, not highlights or a recording of the event two hours later.
  Interest in rugby will decline. Fewer young people will come into the game and the long-term interests of rugby will be damaged as a result of the deal that the English
  672
  union has done. The only reason that Tony Hallett gives for the deal is that he wants England to be able to compete with the countries from the southern hemisphere, particularly New Zealand and South Africa. That will never happen, because there is one basic difference between rugby in Britain and rugby in New Zealand and South Africa: rugby is our second or third most important sport. Football is our premier sport, whereas in New Zealand and South Africa rugby is the premier sport—the sport that every youngster wants to play. That is why it will always be extremely difficult for the home nations to compete with those countries.
  I am appalled that the English Rugby Football Union is prepared to throw away the five nations championship for the doubtful prize of being able to take on New Zealand and South Africa at some future date. It should concentrate on the five nations championship and develop the sport in Britain.
  Mr. Gale: May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister briefly to concentrate his mind on amendment No. 130 and to comment on its legality? It seeks to make certain specific provisions retrospective to the Bill's publication on 19 March. Following publication of the Bill, Back-Bench organisations, sporting bodies and other groups made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the back of those representations, the Central Council of Physical Recreation put in an enormous amount of hard work with the governing bodies of many sports in an attempt to produce what everyone believed might work—the voluntary code to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred.
  The voluntary code was published while we were debating the Bill in Committee. It covered live transmission rights, repeat rights and radio rights and it was hailed as a great achievement. Everyone believed it to be a fair deal for sports, for sporting bodies that needed television and media money, and for spectators. However, before the ink was dry, a deal was struck between BSkyB and the Rugby Football Union. To be fair to BSkyB and to the RFU, that deal, which separates highlights and radio rights from live transmission rights, honoured the letter of the agreement, but that deal was struck in the knowledge that the other four of the five nations championship were already negotiating a deal with the fifth nation—England—to provide coverage for the whole of the five nations championship. In other words, two organisations—BSkyB and the RFU—sought deliberately to drive a coach and horses through the voluntary code. I believe that the RFU has undermined all the work by the CCPR and my hon. Friend the Minister to establish that voluntary code.
  We now know that the five nations championship is at risk and could well become the four nations championship. That will deprive an enormous number of tomorrow's rugby players—the young players—of the opportunity to watch the stars of today. They will no longer have the opportunity to see those games live on television. That is important.
  It is important to note that only 10 per cent. of the massive fee will go into developing the game. The other 90 per cent. will be used to pay off the mortgage on Twickenham. I do not believe that 10 per cent. is sufficient to pay for the training and development of young players. Is it legally possible to make the Bill retrospective?

  673
  Although I do not like retrospective legislation, the deal was struck in the knowledge that the House was debating the Bill and my hon. Friend and the Central Council of Physical Recreation were negotiating a voluntary code. Action was taken to pre-empt those negotiations. Is it legally possible for the House to make that part of the Bill retrospective so that the deal can be overturned?
  Mr. Grocott: It is ironic that in the week after Euro 96 we are debating whether major national sporting events should be broadcast on the main television channels that everyone can watch. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the semi-finals attracted an audience of around 27 million. That must be close to a record television audience for a sporting event. Had England reached the final, which was played yesterday, there is no doubt that the audience watching would have broken all records for any televised sporting event.
  I assume that the Government will oppose the new clause. They have been absolutely intransigent in opposing any attempts by any of us over the years to try to ensure that the major sporting events are shown on the main channels. If—I know that it is a big if—England had won the European championships in front of a huge audience, it would have been in the knowledge that the next European championships could well be available only to an audience of about 2 million people.
  11 pm
  We know what happens to audiences when events are transferred from terrestrial channels to cable and satellite. Throughout the European championships, we were constantly reminded about the World cup 30 years ago. This is a Department of National Heritage Bill, and we are talking about our national heritage. To those of us who watched that game 30 years ago, England winning the World cup is part of our national heritage—but it would not have been if it had been available only to a tiny minority on a subscription channel. The immortal words, "They think it's all over—it is now," would not even have been remembered; they would certainly not have become part of the country's language.
  That loss of heritage applies to many other events too. What would have happened to the interest in athletics if the Coe and Ovett duels of the early 1980s had been available only on a narrowly subscribed channel? Those are the questions that hon. Members should ask themselves before more and more of our major events are lost.
  Some of us have been saying these things for years and the Government have basically done nothing. I could cite a great string of events that have already been lost, but I will mention just one or two. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) talked about the cricket deal. One-day cricket internationals have been lost from terrestrial channels. Although they never attract anything like the viewing figures that football attracts, it is worth looking at what happened to the figures. The last time the one-day internationals in England were available on the terrestrial channels—England against New Zealand in 1994—the audience was 2 million, which I accept is not huge. For the first one-day international match this year, between England and India, shown on satellite, the audience was 170,000. If that is in the long-term interests of cricket, the cricket authorities must have a different view of those interests than common sense dictates.
  674
  Those people who say, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) did—the fallacy is frequently quoted in the House—that somehow the sporting authorities would be in dire need of money and would not get the cash without the generosity of Sky Television should be reminded of the most damaging deal which resulted in the loss of a major event from the main channels: the Premier league football deal, which is currently in operation. In that deal—we know that the money offered has gone up dramatically since then—Sky offered £300 million, while ITV offered about £260 million, which is not peanuts; it is not exactly asking the sporting authorities to accept sackcloth and ashes.
  The notion that the chairman of the Premier league, who sat down to negotiate the current deal or the one that has most recently been negotiated for an astronomical sum, was thinking of the long-term interests of the sport and the desperate concern that young people should see it is foolish. I do not particularly blame such people for riot sharing that interest, because running a football club is not necessarily the most lucrative way to pass one's time. Their interest is in next year's balance sheet. That is why they want the deal with Sky. They are not concerned about the most crucial element of sport—that young people should see it at its best.
  Anyone who thinks that the Government can be trusted to secure the national events for the nation has only to look at the record. This matter has been raised repeatedly in the past five years. As recently as last December, Ministers were saying that there was no case whatever for intervening in any way, shape or form to try to protect more events. It was only when they lost the vote in the House of Lords that they had a Damascus road conversion.
  It is important that the major sports of our nation are available to the people whom we represent and, my word, there is no doubt about what they are saying. We have a responsibility to them, and to the long-term interests of sport which I am afraid that the sporting authorities are simply not taking into account in the way they should. It is our duty to see that the list is regularly reviewed and. I believe, extended to respond to what the public want.
  Mr. Sproat: I will try to speak at no great length. I start by saying that this is certainly a serious issue, but the Labour party's proposals are not the answer. The rig ht hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) explained that new clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to review the list of events in clause 91 within 12 months, and annually thereafter. Following the review, the Secretary of State would be required to present an order in Parliament, specifying events to be listed for the following year. This would be subject to negative resolution, or to affirmative resolution if an event were taken off the previous year's list.
  The Government are not convinced that there is any need for an annual review process. The protections envisaged in part IV of the Bill for listed events are intended to apply to a limited list of sporting and other events which have a clear national significance. Occasions when an event should come on to the list—or come off it—are likely to be rare and, on past practice, the contents of the list have tended to be adjusted only every five years or so. Nor do the Government agree that the composition of the list should be subject to a process of parliamentary approval. Current arrangements for the Secretary of State

  675
  to decide on the contents of the list after consultation with interested bodies—such as the BBC, ITC, S4C and the governing bodies of the sports concerned—maintain the necessary flexibility and allow a fair balance to be struck between the various interests involved.
  The process envisaged in the new clause would be cumbersome and bureaucratic, and could be expected to bring continuing turbulence to the make-up of the list and pressures continually to add to it. The list system has worked well and there is a clear system to review it as necessary over time. We are accordingly not persuaded of the case for a new clause requiring an annual review and an order-making process as proposed.
  Mr. Maxton: If the ability exists to review the list regularly, did the Government consider putting the five nations championship on the list?
  Mr. Sproat: No doubt my right hon. Friend will consider doing so, given what has happened tonight, but she will make up her mind after the House has decided what the process should be.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Sproat: No, I must get on. The right hon. Member for Copeland explained that new clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to declare void any contract to televise an event that he or she concluded was not in the national interest. That would entail wiping out, at the decree of a Secretary of State, the commercial freedom to strike deals. That is an exceptionally interventionist and draconian measure of virtually unlimited scope with wide-ranging implications for which the Government see no public policy rationale.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) that if we must make a choice, the people who run the sport concerned—in his case, cricket—must have a better understanding of the game than hon. Members. It is clear that these provisions would introduce major uncertainty in the negotiation of television rights for sporting and other events. I cannot see how a rights holder can be expected to negotiate a contract with a broadcaster if both parties know that there is a possibility that, after they have negotiated a deal, the Secretary of State could declare it void because the Government have decided that what they entered into freely cannot obtain.
  The clause is based on an extreme view of the extent to which it is in the national interest to watch certain events on television. It would cause serious damage to a market which, by and large, regulates itself effectively. Adequate and proportionate provisions already exist to protect those events that are of special resonance to this country. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government will certainly oppose it.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister answer the question posed by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)? Since the deal between BSkyB and the RFU was done after it was evident that the House would discuss on Report whether the five nations championship would be
  676
  added to the list, does he not regard that deal as an attempt to bounce the House into not putting that event on the list? Does he agree that, in the event of anyone attempting to bounce the House into not doing something that it might otherwise have done, the House should respond strongly and exercise its rights accordingly with his support?
  Mr. Sproat: I do not. Retrospective legislation is nearly always bad and would certainly be bad in this case. It is up to the House to decide if it wants to do it—as it certainly could—but I would strongly oppose it.
  The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) explained that his amendments Nos. 1 to 5 and the new schedule would enshrine in statute his proposed list of events, which differs in certain ways from the current list. They would make any amendment to the list subject to affirmative order statutory instrument.
  As the right hon. Member for Copeland mentioned, one fundamental objection to that is that it would make the Bill hybrid. A second objection is that, in the Government's view, it is wrong to short-circuit the listing process now. The right process is to establish the framework of controls in the Bill and review the list of events subsequently. As I have explained, we are also opposed to a process that would make amendments to the list subject to statutory order.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland explained that amendments Nos. 129 and 130 to clauses 91 and 93 would remove the provisions which prevent retrospection. They would make any contract signed after 19 March 1996 subject to the provisions. The Government oppose those amendments on grounds of principle. The intention is to legislate retrospectively so that the five nations championship can be brought within the provisions of part IV of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly said what a lot of people in different parts of the United Kingdom, including England, say about the way that was done, but it is not our right to tell people who own assets what they can or cannot do with them. That is the prime principle on which we stand. Those assets belong to the sports bodies. Whatever we may have as private individuals—[Interruption.] Yes, they belong to the sporting bodies and Parliament should not take away the right of those people to decide how they are going to dispose of them
  To sort this out, we asked the Central Council of Physical Recreation to come up with a voluntary code that would meet the two prime concerns involved: the need for as many people as possible to see what they want to see on free-to-air television; and the need for the sports bodies, which develop and are responsible for the sport, to own their own assets. We have reached a compromise in the voluntary code, by which the sports bodies make certain that either the full match is on terrestrial television, or—within a short space of time in the case of the RFU deal—it is on free-to-air terrestrial television within two hours of the match being over. That compromise does not please everyone, but it achieves the best of both worlds that both sides can achieve.
  The Government will certainly not agree to any amendment that takes away the rights of the sporting bodies to dispose of their assets. The right hon. Member

  677
  for Copeland has not made a compelling case for retrospection and the Government reject all his amendments.
  Dr. John Cunningham: With the leave of the House. I want to begin by correcting one error in the contribution of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that 19 March was the date of the publication of the Bill. It was not. It was a much more important date—the date on which the Government added their own amendments in the House of Lords to cover these issues, following the vote there. The English Rugby Football Union did its deal with BSkyB after 19 March. So that deal was done after the Government had expressed their intention—by tabling amendments—of preventing such deals being done.
  The Minister said nothing in his reply to deal with that issue. Is he content, or is he just thumbing his nose at his hon. Friends who have asked those important questions about the future of the five nations championship? Does he believe that the way the English Rugby Football Union is going is in the best interests of that championship? He ignored those questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends and he has failed to respond effectively to the debate.
  In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), the hon. Gentleman would do far better to support our amendments. If any sport has a good case for being reviewed on the list of events, it is cricket, including Test matches. If the hon. Gentleman supported our amendment, at least there would be an opportunity for that to be done. I therefore intend to press the motion to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 287.

  Division No. 162]

  [11.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Church, Judith

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Coffey, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Byers, Stephen

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  678

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobson, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dowd, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lewis, Terry

  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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McCartney, Ian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McFall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McKelvey, Wlliam

  Foulkes, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McLeish, Henry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  McWilliam, John

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Diana

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

  Henderson, Doug

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  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, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  679

  Purchase, Ken

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stevenson, George

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Straw, Jack

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Touhig, Don

  Rooker, Jeff

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wallace, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Simpson, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Snape, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. George Mudie.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cash, William

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clappison, James

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bates, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sr Nicholas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bowis, John

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Elletson, Harold

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evennett, David

  Butcher, John

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  680

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sr Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  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)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, Sir 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'dford)

  Pattje, 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

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Sr Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  681

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trend, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stephen, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whitney, Ray

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Willetts, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Simon Burns.

  Tracey, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 13

  THE SECONDARY LIST OF EVENTS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up and keep under review a list ("the secondary list") of sporting events of national interest other than events listed under section 91 ("secondary listed events") to which the provisions of this section and of section (Separation of highlights and live coverage of secondary listed events) are to apply.
  (2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section (91) shall apply to the secondary list as they apply to the list drawn up by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of that section, and any reference in that section to a list of sporting or other events of national interest, shall be construed also as a reference to a list drawn up under this section.
  (3) For the purposes of the provisions of this Part relating to the secondary list, television programme services shall be divided into two categories as follows—

  (a) services falling within paragraph (a) of section 92(1), and Channel 5;

  (b) all television programme services not for the time being falling within paragraph (a) above.'—[Mr. Pendrv.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Pendry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 14—Separation of highlights and live coverage of secondary listed events—
  `.—(1) A person providing a service falling within either paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) of section (The secondary list of events) ("the first service") for reception in the United Kingdom or any area in the United Kingdom shall not, without the previous consent of the Commission, include in that service live coverage of the whole or any part of a secondary listed event ("the live coverage") unless—

  (a) another person, who is providing a service falling within the other paragraph of subsection (3) of that section ("the second service"), has acquired the right to include in that service televised highlights of that event or part of that event; and

  682

  (b) the area of the United Kingdom for which the second service is provided consists of or includes the whole, or substantially the whole, of the area of the United Kingdom for which the first service is provided,

  but nothing in this subsection shall be taken to prohibit the person providing the first service from including in that service the whole or any part of a recording of the live coverage.
  (2) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 95 shall have effect in relation to subsection (1) of this section as they have effect in relation to subsection (I) of that section.
  (3) If the Commission are satisfied that the holder of a licence under Part 1 of the 1990 Act or of a digital programme licence under Part 1 of this Act has unreasonably failed to comply with subsection (1), they may require him to pay, within a specified period, a financial penalty to the Commission.
  (4) The amount of any financial penalty imposed on any person under subsection (3) above shall not exceed the amount produced by multiplying the relevant consideration by the prescribed secondary multiplier.
  (5) In subsection (4)—

  (a) "the relevant consideration" has the same meaning as in section 96(4)(a); and

  (b) "the prescribed secondary multiplier" means such number as the Secretary of state may from time to time by order prescribe,

  and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
  (6) Subsections (6) and (7) of section (96) shall apply to any amount payable to the Commission by virtue of subsection (3) above as they apply to any amount so payable by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of section (96).
  (7) If the Commission are satisfied that a broadcasting body has unreasonably failed to comply with subsection (1) above, they shall make a report to the Secretary of State.
  (8) In this section "broadcasting body" has the same meaning as in section (97).
  (9) For the purposes of this Part—

  (a) "highlights" of live coverage are recorded extracts of that coverage selected from the whole of the coverage by the person to whom the highlights rights are granted, and

  (b) references to the right to include highlights of live coverage of the whole or part of a secondary listed event in a television programme service shall be construed as references to the right to include such highlights in that service on each day upon which that event, or part fo that event, takes place and within a reasonable time of the conclusion of that event, or that part of that event, on that day.'.

  Mr. Pendry: The new clauses relate to what is commonly called unbundling, which was considered in another place when an amendment was proposed by Lord Howell to compel all sports to be covered by unbundling, legislation. It was withdrawn because a voluntary code of practice was promised instead.
  On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear that if we felt that the code was unsatisfactory we would seek to reintroduce amendments on unbundling at this stage.
  We have now been able to see the code of practice drawn up by the major sports division of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, and to study it closely. On that committee, there are several vested interests, which would seek to protect their own negotiated settlements with broadcasters, ahead, we would argue, of national interests; but the House has a duty to consider wider issues than the narrow sectional ones of sports governing bodies. We recognise the interests of millions

  683
  of people who enjoy watching sport on terrestrial television, who increasingly find that pleasure taken away from them.
  11.30 pm
  Although there are some improvements on the previous draft, the Opposition still have several reservations. That is why we tabled new clauses 13 and 14. They are not intended to undermine the voluntary code—quite the opposite. They are there to support the code and ensure that its provisions on unbundling are enforced. If broadcasters and governing bodies abide by the spirit and wording of the voluntary code, there will be no need to add any events to the secondary list; but there is a reserve power for the Secretary of State if need be.
  We did welcome the code's publication and its recognition of the importance of sport to the social life of our country. It is encouraging that governing bodies of sport are coming together to draw up a code of this kind. We should note, however, that they did so following moves by a number of us in this and another place to introduce a statutory code.
  On many issues, we have no problem with the code. We warmly welcome its call for moneys earned by the sale of broadcasting rights to be reinvested in the development of sport. There may be arguments about the percentage that should -go into that development, which stands at no less than 5 per cent. in the voluntary code, but we should all agree with the general principle. However, we still have several doubts about the code.
  First, we are worried that not all major governing bodies have signed up to the code; at the moment, 11 bodies have done so. Secondly, we are worried that there has not been enough dialogue with broadcasters about the code. Initially there was no mention of news access, and that is why we tabled amendments in Committee on that important issue. We are pleased that the Government have accepted that principle by introducing new clause 27.
  We have other concerns about what has been left out of the code, and especially about the fact that there is no indication of what will happen to governing bodies if they ignore it. There is no mention of any penalties or methods of enforcement for non-observance. As it is only a voluntary code, the governing bodies could simply ignore whatever penalties were imposed. Ultimately, they have the right to walk away. The code has no teeth and, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said in Committee,
  "a voluntary code is clearly not going to be effective."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 554.]
  I know that many other Conservative Members share his, and indeed our, view.
  In Committee, the Minister called for a balanced approach. The interests of the general public, the overwhelming majority of whom do not have access to subscription services, must be considered, but the genuine interests of the sports must be taken into account.
  It should be no surprise to the Minister to learn that I agree with him that a balance needs to be struck. Our point of difference is how we strike that balance. The Minister supports the voluntary code but, as I explained, it has deficiencies. We need a measure that will give
  684
  adequate protection to all our major sporting events while meeting the reasonable needs of the sports-viewing public. That is precisely what we propose.
  I commend these new clauses to the House.
  Mr. Sproat: We oppose unbundling and intend to vote against it. The Government considered the issue of unbundling broadcast sports rights with great care and discussed it with all the relevant interests as part of our consultation earlier this year. The Government recognise the special importance of broadcast coverage of sporting events, but this new clause, even if limited in the way that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) explained, introduces an entirely new concept, unparalleled in any other aspect of broadcasting here or, to our knowledge, anywhere else in the world. No other product or commodity sold in a competitive market is subject to such a process.
  The sports bodies have acted responsibly in agreeing a voluntary code on broadcasting rights. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde says that he supports it. He cannot support it and then say that he wants to impose a compulsory unbundling.
  The Government's provisions on broadcast sport in the Bill are fully in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. Unbundling is an unwarranted additional step. The ITV Association thinks it preferable that the market should take its course within existing competition rules and does not want unbundling.
  The controls proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be complex, uncertain, arbitrary and bureaucratic. They would be subject to uncertainties of definition. Accordingly, I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman wants to carry the matter through to a vote, we will fight him in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 286.

  Division No. 163]

  [11.33 pm

  AYES

  Abbott Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Allen, Graham

  Canavan, Dennis

  Alton, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Church, Judith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Coffey, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Cox, Tom

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

  Cummings, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Caborn, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  685

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Denham, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Faulds, Andrew

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maddock, Diana

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  Garrett, John

  Marek, Dr John

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooney, Terry

  686

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Salmond, Alex

  Timms, Stephen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Short, Clare

  Wallace, James

  Simpson, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Williams Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wlliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Snape, Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Straw, Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Colvin, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Congdon, David

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beggs, Roy

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan, Alan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dunn, Bob

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Booth, Hartley

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Emery, Ftt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Fit Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butcher, John

  French, Douglas

  Butler, Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Cash, William

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gill, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  687

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  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)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knox, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, 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, Sir Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  688

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Nonwich N)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whittingdale, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  Waller, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

  BBC PENSIONS
  '—(1) The trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme shall refer to the Secretary of State, before such date as he may specify, the division and distribution of the relevant assets which is to be made for the purpose of making a transfer payment to a pension scheme established for their employees by a person or persons specified in a scheme under section 110 of the Act (the specified person); any such division and distribution of those assets and liabilities shall not be made by the trustees except—

  (a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, or

  (b) in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2).

  (2) Where any such division and distribution is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1), he may by order direct that the relevant assets shall be divided and distributed by the trustees in such a manner, and such a time, as is specified in the order; and any provision of—

  (a) the pension scheme established by the specified person referred to in subsection (1), or

  (b) any enactment relating to occupational pension schemes, including any enactment relating to transfer values,

  shall not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the division and distribution of those assets in accordance with any such order.
  (3) When making an order under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of all classes of persons who are for the time being beneficiaries under the scheme referred to in subsection (1).
  (4) In this clause, "the relevant assets" means the assets held by or on behalf of the trustees and "the trustees" means the trustees of the Scheme referred to in subsection (1).
  (5) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 284.

  Division No. 164]

  [11.47 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin-Walker, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Alton, David

  Battle, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ashton, Joe

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  689

  Beggs, Roy

  Gapes, Mike

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Berry, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Chidgey, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hodge, Margaret

  Church, Judith

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

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

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Coffey, Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Chris

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Madden, Max

  Galloway, George

  Maddock, Diana

  690

  Mahon, Alice

  Rooney, Terry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Simpson, Alan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mudie, George

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Olner, Bill

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler. Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Wallace, James

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rendel, David

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Rooker, Jeff

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coe, Sebastian

  691

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, Sir David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lester, Sir Jim

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Luff, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  692

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pickles, Eric

  Sykes, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Robertson, Raymond (Abd'n S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sainsbury, Ftt Hon Sir Timothy

  Walden, George

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitrjngdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Bates.]
  To be further considered tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PRODUCTION AND SALE) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Bates.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Speaker shall, notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)),—
  (1) at the sitting on Monday 8th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Industrial Tribunals and Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
  (2) at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lilley and Mr. Tony Blair relating to Occupational Pension Schemes not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
  the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bates.]

PETITION

  Inland Revenue (Salisbury)
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: It is now midnight. Exactly 12 hours ago, I received at St. Stephen's Gate the petition that I now present to the House. My constituents object to the proposal to close the tax office in Salisbury. Nobody likes paying tax, but when people do, they require a good local service to taxpayers and employers. Last year, there were 10,000 personal callers at the Salisbury tax office and more than 50,000 telephone calls seeking advice and help.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of our concern and join us in calling on the Government and the Inland Revenue to maintain current levels of service and to continue to provide a local tax office in Salisbury.
  To lie upon the Table.

  East London Line
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  12 midnight
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to us in south-east London. I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am well aware that his duties seem to entail responding to a disproportionate number of Adjournment debates; I do not know whether he receives performance-related pay. That highlights the importance that transport-related issues have for Members throughout the country, and especially in London, where the problems are often at their most acute.
  I do not know whether the press reports that the summer will see the Minister finally being able to lay down his onerous burden are accurate. If that does happen, I for one will miss him, and I wish him well in whatever the future may bring.
  The ability to travel easily into and through inner London on good public transport is becoming ever more urgent as road traffic grows and as greater priority is given by all political parties to environmental standards. In that regard, the prospects for the development of the east London line offer substantial potential for relatively rapid low-cost and cost-effective improvements to the transport system in south-east London in particular.
  The dearth of tube services south of the river, and especially in south-east London, is a matter of historical fact and a continuing source of discontent for those of us who live there. The Minister's constituency, which is at least three times further from this place than my own, has a tube service reaching up to if not beyond the M25, deep into Essex. Yet the entire borough of Lewisham, an inner-London authority, has only two stations in the very north of the borough, at New Cross and New Cross Gate, neither of which is in my constituency. It is the potentiall of an expansion of services from those stations to which I wish to draw attention this evening.
  The east London line has always has been the Cinderella of the London underground—or north London underground, as it could more accurately be described. It seems to have been viewed more as an awkward appendage to the overall system than as an integral part of it. The present position is even worse, because we have no service at all on the east London line. It has been closed since March last year for work to the Brunel tunnel under the Thames and other work associated with the Jubilee line extension.
  The people in the area welcome the improvement and upgrading, but we were told that the line would be closed for only seven months. It remains closed, and, for a variety of reasons of which the Minister is well aware, as I have raised the matter with him on numerous occasions—I have a strong impression that his views on the handling of the matter are not very different from my own—the reopening will certainly not be until next summer, probably in August. That is a period getting on for 30 months, as opposed to the original seven.
  The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to belabour that aspect of the case. However, I will say that, although the people of south-east London have as much regard for our common architectural heritage as

  695
  anyone, they place at least as much weight on having comprehensive, safe and reliable transport links as they do on being spectators in an industrial museum. Suffice it to say that it has been an object lesson on how not to run a railway. None the less, looking forward optimistically to the restoration of the service, it is imperative to maximise the benefits of the refurbished river crossing by examining ways of extending services both north and south.
  As a lifelong resident of south-east London, I have long felt that the extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle through Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford to Bromley and/or Croydon would be the most significant transformation of the public transport system in our part of the capital. However, the plans have been around for many decades, and the immense logistical and financial implications of their numerous permutations effectively pushes any such scheme firmly into the medium if not long term.
  It is my firm belief that the development of the east London line services south from New Cross Gate via Forest Hill and Norwood Junction to East Croydon can, by the imaginative use of largely existing Railtrack infrastructure, effect the best and quickest extension of underground services into south-east London.
  The east London line extension project has strong regeneration benefits for inner London and represents good value for money within London Transport's business criteria. It could be operational within the lifetime of the next Parliament if priority is given to authorisation and funding. With the creation of the important interchange at Canada Water linking to the millennium site on the Greenwich peninsula, and the opportunities for connection with direct services to Gatwick at East Croydon, the scale of the possible benefits becomes clearly apparent.
  Government policies support the extension in principle. The public inquiry into the northern extension to the City and Dalston was held in autumn 1994, and just last week the Minister announced that he was "minded to approve" the project. I welcome that unreservedly.
  A cash funding gap is currently forecast for the extension. London Underground is actively pursuing private finance initiative opportunities, but better value for money could be achieved by through running to and from Railtrack lines in south London. Subject to line capacity, it might be possible to provide crossovers on to Railtrack at New Cross Gate as a low-cost and rapid solution.
  Final authorisation and contractual arrangements depend on a number of next steps, including the actions that I have just listed, progress with the PFI and an understanding of the funding gap that London Underground might have to cover. There is good support from other interests such as Railtrack, which is researching through-running options.
  At present, the line is closed, but when it was last running, it made a small operating loss. It is recognised as an important cross-river public transport service east of Tower Bridge. It serves the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lewisham; I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his place. They are all inner-city communities involved in regeneration projects such as those in Bethnal Green and Deptford.
  696
  Passenger business doubled in the 10 years to 1994, largely through docklands redevelopment. London Transport has long recognised that the line's revenue potential and the economic benefits for London have been limited by its use simply as a cross-river shuttle, and its policy is to extend the line to serve a larger area, and preferably link with the Railtrack lines north and south of the river.
  The Government's transport strategy for London was published in May, and recognises the potential of an extended east London line. It states:
  "Some schemes, notably the East Thames Crossings and East London Line, are of particular importance to the achievement … of regeneration."
  The Government's strategic guidance for London's planning authorities that was also published in May includes the objectives to
  "maximise the environmental and economic benefits of serving London's transport needs by public modes in preference to the private car and improve the attractiveness of all forms of public transport to provide a viable alternative to the private car and secure modal shift"
  and to
  "support new rail infrastructure where justified, both in response to demand and to assist regeneration".
  Technical advice is that through main line trains could use an extended east London line, subject to some modifications of the existing line. It was used by British Rail until the 1960s, and the design of the strengthened Brunel tunnel permits use by some national train types.
  A through-running study reviewing routing options is due later this year from Railtrack, and the project would be better value for money if through running via a southern extension was introduced at a similar date to the northern extension, although work on the northern extension is much further advanced, as I shall explain. Subject to available line capacity—I recognise that as a constraint, especially with the as yet unclear development of Thameslink 2000—it should be possible to provide the crossover I mentioned for a low-cost and rapid solution for the southern extension.
  The southern extension from New Cross via Forest Hill and Norwood junction to East Croydon also has the distinct advantage above all the other southern extension options of not needing any special powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992, or other special powers. Opportunities for through running to increase further passenger traffic would have the benefit of providing through commuter trains between north and south London, serving the City of London at a new station on the site of Bishopsgate goods yard, and linking outer-London centres such as Croydon directly to docklands—Croydon being one of the south-east's major commercial centres outside London.
  The east London line projects score well on all calculators of regeneration benefits and London Underground's value-for-money criteria; however, a cash-funding gap is forecast for the northern extension. The schemes accord with the Government's funding priorities as set out in the joint Department of Transport/Government Office for London transport strategy, which was also published in May, which stated as priorities
  "new and improved river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge … projects which sustain and enhance London's economic position … projects which exploit the contributions that private finance can make".

  697
  The east London line extensions are listed in the Department of Transport and the Government Office for London's third tranche of schemes after existing and committed projects. The Department of Transport and the Government Office of London have advised that progress and timing of the east London line extensions now depend on securing private finance. London Underground Ltd. launched a major consultation exercise in April to seek views on how the project can best be structured to achieve successful private finance involvement, and is to consult further with train operating companies.
  The East London Line Group, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a joint body representing the common interests of all the boroughs along the route, together with local communities, regeneration partnerships and businesses in the areas affected, has a crucial role to play. It has already been active in raising partnership finance and assisting site preparation, which has included Hackney council, London Industrial and Dalston City Partnership securing £2 million from the European regional development fund for refurbishment of the Dalston viaduct. Hackney and Tower Hamlets councils have worked with Railtrack Property and English Partnership to secure the go-ahead for the almost £2 million-worth demolition of Bishopsgate goods yard.
  Other crucial elements are required to be put into place to take the schemes forward. With rail privatisation, the rail network in London has a mixed economy for planning and authorisation, ranging from statutory railway regulatory agencies and Government Departments to the public sector, London Underground and its newly enlarged PFI powers, to the private sector Railtrack and other train operating companies. The east London line and its extensions are at the interface between all those different ownerships and responsibilities, and it will require positive support and effort and innovative decisions to take the project forward expeditiously.
  The Government need to provide guidance on the scale of any funding gap that may be bridged in recognition of the projects' benefits to London's regeneration and the many London boroughs that have access to the single regeneration budget, transport policies and programmes funding and ERDF money that are not available either to Railtrack or London Underground.
  The East London Line Group has offered to work closely with London Underground on marketing the reopened line and seeking better connections with other rail and bus services, although the best marketing tool for a transport service would be that it serves the places where people are and the places they want and need to go. The extension of the east London line falls neatly into that pattern.
  The list of necessary next steps show that, with the PFI and main line privatisation, the path towards an extended east London line is not simple. Much needs to be done by others. Railtrack, for example, is helping with assessment of the extensions for through running. Nevertheless, it would greatly assist the project if the Minister could give commitments—not necessarily now, but certainly in the near future—to endorsing the re-marketing of the line on, we hope, its reopening in the summer of next year, and to giving a definite date by which a decision will be made on the northern extension.
  That will give confidence and certainty to the private sector—the key to levering in private finance moneys and to the project development process. The Government must
  698
  agree in principle that the initial east London line extensions should open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. They must indicate their willingness to consider what core funding may be appropriate as a contribution towards the extensions project once any funding gap has been better defined by London Underground Ltd.
  The Minister must facilitate urgent discussions between LUL, Railtrack, the franchising director and the rail regulator on matters of joint and individual interest concerning through running, which must be settled before the tenders are sought. In view of the level of complexity, I ask the Minister to press the Government Office for London to appoint a co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary progress on this matter is made as soon as possible.
  This is a complicated issue, requiring effort and commitment by a number of bodies and individuals. Within that context, the southern extension via New Cross Gate and Forest Hill to Croydon offers the most straightforward option, and the benefits that it could bring to large numbers of people in east London—both north and south of the river—will more than justify the exertions involved. The hon. Member for Southwark arid Bermondsey has asked for thirty seconds to speak in the debate, and he may be fortunate in seeking catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, on behalf of the neighbouring borough of Southwark, I endorse entirely the case that he made. Secondly, although we have clearly suffered from the long-term closure, there is great expectation about the reopening of the line. Thirdly, all the stations currently on the line serve a vital use. Fourthly, of all the five cross-river underground lines, the east London line has the greatest potential for regenerative advantage at the least cost and with the greatest ease for the citizens of Southwark, and for those citizens of the area where the Minister lives and beyond.
  I hope that there can be an amber light now and a green light soon for an east London line extension to follow the succesful Jubilee line extension that was breaking new ground only last week. I hope that the Minister can be positive, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said on behalf of his borough, his constituency and his colleagues in south-east London.
  12.16 am
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham', West on securing this debate, and I am extremely grateful to him for his kind personal remarks. The trouble is that mutual congratulation is a dangerous sport in this place, although I am probably rather more relaxed about it than the hon. Gentleman. But I am extremely grateful to him, not only for having raised the issue tonight, but for all the support that he has given to the east London line through what he rightly said has been a difficult time.
  I acknowledge straight away that this has been an extremely unsatisfactory process for constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In the limited time available,

  699
  we do not want to go over that history. However, I confirm that the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society is working closely with London Underground to make sure that the historical aspects of the tunnel are fully studied, analysed and recorded. The line is expected to be ready to reopen in the summer of next year, and it will reopen in a better shape than ever.
  About £75 million is going into the line, bringing real and visible improvements to both the trains and the infrastructure and underpinning the future of the line. As well as the new station at Canada Water—which the hon. Gentleman rightly said will be vital for access to the millennium festival and to the swathe of stations east of the east London line—the stations at Whitechapel, Shadwell, Wapping, Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays are all being renovated and cleaned, and their brickwork is being repointed. There will be a spectacular difference. Those stations are beautiful in their own right. They have some fine industrial archaeology, which might be frustrating on occasions, but which is worth preserving and celebrating. That also means that they will be in good order to survive for the use of future generations, and they will be a lot more attractive.
  We are going to improve the trains as part of the big train refurbishment programme. They will be smarter, cleaner and more comfortable. We will be renewing the signalling system, which will make the service a lot more reliable. There will be new train arrival indicators, station closed circuit television, clocks and so forth, and the train radio and tunnel telephone systems are also being replaced.
  In addition to the more visible signs of improvement, we are going to renew sections of the track, completely overhauling the pumps and the drainage and installing additional track-side power supplies. So our joint hope is that, when all that transpires in the summer of next year, we will have a first-class system as a lynchpin to the two extensions.
  As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, the interest is now in looking at the future—in terms both of the northern extension and of the prospects south of the river, which are every bit as exciting as he suggests. First, on the works north of the river, as he says, I have issued a "minded to" letter already for the northern extensions. I think that we have made it clear that, in the event that the work proceeds, it will need to do so as a private finance initiative project.
  London Underground is reassured that there is a degree of interest in that project and in taking it forward. None of the three of us here represents that part of London, but we are acutely aware of it. Hackney is, I think, the only borough north of the river that does not have any tube station. There is no doubt that putting a rail facility in from Dalston and Highbury and Islington down into the east London line and accessing the City in that way will be a major improvement. As a lot of the track bed is already in place and the cost of refitting the line will be relatively modest, it seems an opportunity well worth taking.
  I am obliged not to express any further opinions on the attractiveness or otherwise of the details of the scheme, because of the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to exercise. We
  700
  have initiated the scheme with London Underground, and have always been clear about its advantages for London. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is included in the strategy document. I can make it clear that I think that it will serve a worthwhile purpose.
  On the extensions to the south, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of the line going from East Croydon through to Canada Water and then north is very exciting. Obviously, the train path issues must be studied with Railtrack—in terms of Thameslink and the other competing services on the line. On other occasions, I have found it frustrating that the limiting factor for a new proposal—I am thinking of the west London line—is not so much the willingness of the rail company to run the service, or of passengers to use it, as the fact that there are limitations on train paths, which are almost insuperable, for technical and safety reasons.
  The hon. Gentleman made a good point. We have to ensure that we explore as many of the rolling-stock opportunities as we can. Where it is possible to offer longer through services, I am sure that, the more we are able to stitch in the east London line to services both north and south, the greater benefit there will be—decongestion, opening up the hon. Gentleman's area and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested, perhaps even opening up parts of Camberwell, Peckham, and possibly Denmark Hill and the loop through to Victoria. There are some tremendous possibilities, which are worth exploring.
  I have always felt that the east London line was something of a Cinderella. Ironically, unlike the Jubilee line, at more than £2,000 million, the east London line—at what we might describe as £100 million in envelope terms for the extensions—is probably a fairly modest bet, but it is just as important to the areas it will serve. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well: there is nothing like the density of rail link in this part of south-east London as exists in almost every other quadrant of the city.
  The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the future of the line. First, he asked about re-marketing of the line on reopening. He is right: that needs to be treated as a specific exercise. I know that London Underground is very keen to win back substantial custom on the line. To put it bluntly, having invested £75 million in substantial improvements, the one thing it does not want to do is let them go by default. London Underground wants to ensure that the marketing is forceful, and brings home to people just what a good service there is from north to south.
  As for the Transport and Works Act order application, I understand that a final decision letter could be issued by the end of this month, or very soon thereafter. I am afraid that I cannot give a more precise date.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a commitment that the extensions could open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. I agree that that is a very desirable objective, although we shall have to deal with a number of issues that exist in the real world—not least, affordability and value for money—and obviously the PF1 competition will have to run its course. We will have a reopened line through to Canada Water that will facilitate some of the millennium traffic.

  701
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the time scale. I think that we are both committed to agitating for the development in order to make it a reality and a success.
  As for the funding gap, I look forward to receiving furtehr advice from London Underground on the possibilities for financing of the scheme. LUL has undertaken to come back to me either later this month or early next month on the figures that it is now hearing. I can make no promises at this stage, because I do not yet know what the financing prospects are, but when I talk to London Underground, I shall bear in mind the strong desirability of an effective package.
  As for the urgent discussions among London Underground, Railtrack, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the regulator and others, the point has been extremely well made. We have an interface between two different systems, and it may be a question of underground trains running on Railtrack track.
  Personally, I have always felt entirely relaxed about the ownership of the new scheme. Whether it is owned by a train operating company, London Underground or a third party seems to me much less important than that the scheme goes ahead. The PFI discussions may well make it obvious who should take on the financing, but I am assured that the process of joint urgent discussion being
  702
  led by London Underground is now under way. My officials stand ready to help in any way they can in the event that their services are needed.
  The hon. Gentleman's points about access to a better public transport system for a huge number of people in the south-east quadrant of London underpin the whole debate. The historic reasons for not building the underground railway south of the river are reasonably well known, certainly to the hon. Gentleman and others with experience of London. We must now plug the gaps, which, as we all know, are large and not inexpensive.
  However, together with the Docklands light railway extension, and hopefully, in due course, the Woolwich metro project—which we mentioned in the strategy document—this development will enable us to take much of the traffic off roads in that quadrant and use some of the public transport capacity that is inherent there. At present, there is heavy traffic in the area.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the issue. This has been a useful exchange, and I thank him again for the supportive and constructive way in which he has dealt with the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Performance Assessment
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, to what extent the Commission has(a) encouraged and (b) permitted competitive performance assessment (i) within Departments of the House and (ii) between their respective employees. [34670]

  Mr. Beith
  (a) Performance-related pay was introduced several years ago for staff in the non-industrial grades in the civil service and the Commission approved the introduction of similar arrangements for appropriate groups of staff in the House in order to keep "broadly in line" with the civil service as required by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

  (b) Performance pay in the House takes two different forms, depending upon the grade of the post. Competitive performance assessment exists for staff in grade 7 and above. Pay increase are dependent upon the box marks awarded in the staff annual report and the competitive element arises because the performance awards are paid from a performance budget, usually equal to 2 per cent. of the pay bill. For staff in grade 8 and below, the competitive element does not exist because performance awards, again dependent upon annual report box marks, are made in accordance with a progression chart without regard to a predetermined budget.

  (i) The performance pay budgets are set on a House-wide basis for each of the grades at grade 7 and above, rather than by Department. The element of competition is therefore House-wide.

  (ii) There is competition between individual members of staff at a particular grade level, at grade 7 and above.

  Parliamentary Groups Inquiry
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects the Committee to conclude its inquiry into all-party and parliamentary groups; and if he will make a statement. [35212]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that at its meeting on 18 June, the Administration Committee agreed its report on all-party and parliamentary groups. The Committee makes several recommendations which, if approved by the House, would mean that the current written undertaking given by such groups seeking registration would be amended significantly to remove any existing imprecisions, and to be otherwise tightened up. Hon. Members may obtain copies of the report, HC (1995–96)494, from the Vote Office.
  262

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the take-up and effectiveness of launch aid; and if he will make a statement. [34998]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department already reviews regularly the returns from previous launch aid contracts.

  EU Research Programme
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the research projects in Britain which have been financed in whole or in part by the European Union's third research framework programme. [34948]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Full information on research projects funded in individual member states by the European Union's third framework programme for research and technological development, which ran from 1990 to 1994, is held only by the European Commission. It is not distributed to member states. UK researchers have, however, participated vigorously in the EU's framework programmes. Commission statistics show that 2,337 UK research teams participated in projects funded under the third framework—more than in any other member stale. The indications are that UK researchers are continuing to participate strongly in the fourth framework programme, which runs from 1994 to 1998.

  European Funding
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in respect of the Barmac N166 site objective 1 application. [34833]

  Mr. Eggar
  The approval of the European Commission is required under the terms of the seventh shipbuilding directive for public investment in Barmac's project as presently constituted.

  Since the end of February, there have been a number of discussions and meetings between the company, officials of the Scottish Office and those of my shipbuilding unit and oil and gas project supplies office. An informal meeting was held on 13 June between those DTI officials and those of the European Commission's directorate general IV responsible for interpreting and enforcing the seventh shipbuilding directive, at which the Commission asked for clarification of certain issues before approval of the grant could be considered.

  A further meeting was held between the company and my officials on 24 June to review the progress of its application, the information requested by the Commission and the options open to Barmac.

  EU Internal Market
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the EU ministerial Council on the internal market on 28 May; and what matters were voted upon. [35113]
  263
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the deputy UK permanent representative and I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 28 May.

  The Council reached common position by qualified majority voting on the sweeteners directive—Germany and Sweden opposed. The Council also reached unanimous political agreement on the common position on the directive on temporary authorisations for foodstuffs. Common positions on comparative and misleading advertising, exchange of information on measuring air pollution, monitoring of waste and protection of passengers in frontal collisions were agreed by A point procedure.

  In accordance with UK non-co-operation in EU business, we blocked four measures requiring unanimity: two Council resolutions—administrative co-operation and legislative simplification in the internal market; a set of Council conclusions, accounting strategy; and an A point, Council decision on implementation of a Community action programme to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry.

  Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1996
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated saving to business from the Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1996. [34678]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The draft order contains three proposals to reduce the burdens on business:

  verification of weighing or measuring equipment by manufacturers and others;

  third party testing of equipment;

  pre-test stamping of equipment.

  The total savings will depend on how many businesses take up these options. Assuming take-up by about half of the businesses that already have equipment verified, it is estimated that businesses might save £4.3 million per annum in fees formerly paid to trading standards officers, to which can be added savings in businesses' indirect costs less the cost of operating one or other of the new options.

  Radiation Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Clifford Chance report on nuclear privatisations made of the number of workers likely to pursue damages claims for radiation-induced illness in the years(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; and what was the estimated cost of meeting these claims. [34327]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 June 1996]:I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him during the debate on 18 June, Official Report, column 780.

  It is inevitable that some of those affected by radiation-induced illnesses, such as cancer, will work in the nuclear industry, but it is scientifically impossible to distinguish between a radiation induced cancer and a naturally occurring one.
  264

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the constituencies he has visited in the past three months on official business and the constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [34356]

  Mr. Gummer
  During the past three months, I have visited:

  Battersea

  Brighton, Pavilion

  Ipswich

  Coventry, South-East

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  Dorset, West

  Guildford

  Spelthorne

  Rutland and Melton

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  Barnsley, East

  Doncaster, Central

  Brentford and Isleworth

  Twickenham

  Northavon

  Milton Keynes—North-East

  Birmingham—Selly Oak

  Brighton, Kempton

  Hove

  Braintree

  Ludlow

  City of London and Westminster

  Cambridge

  Chichester

  Rushcliffe

  Sheffield, Central

  Sheffield, Brightside

  Don Valley

  Kensington

  Suffolk, Central

  Salisbury

  Milton Keynes, South-West

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  I have a number of visits planned over the next three months, but it is not my policy to make public details of my forward diary.

  Rendering Plants
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many animal rendering plants there are in Britain; what are the procedures for the treatment of their effluent; how many discharge their effluent into the domestic sewerage system; and how many spray their effluent on to agricultural land. [34509]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are 36 rendering plants in Great Britain, authorised under the Animal By-Products Order 1992. Treatment of effluent will normally include the removal of solids and will reflect conditions in trade effluent consents issued by sewerage undertakers for
  265
  discharges to sewer, or conditions in consents from the Environment Agency for discharges direct to receiving waters. No central records of the number of rendering plants discharging effluent to sewer, or spraying it on agricultural land, are held by my Department or the Environment Agency.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms exist to reallocate money from the Energy Saving Trust to the home energy efficiency scheme. [34666]

  Mr. Clappison
  Uncommitted resources may be redeployed between the different parts of my Department's environment protection programme in accordance with the Government's priorities.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Government funding has been made available to the Energy Saving Trust in the current financial year; what proportion of this funding has been committed to specific programmes; and what estimates he has made of the trust's actual expenditure during the period. [34667]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government will make up to £25 million available to the Energy Saving Trust in 1996–97. More than 95 per cent. of this is for specific projects within a programme of work that has been agreed with the trust, the remainder covers the trust's management and administration costs. It is too early yet to estimate the outturn expenditure.

  Waste Disposal
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received opposing the implementation of a tax on waste disposal. [34587]

  Mr. Clappison
  The consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals for the introduction of a new tax on the disposal of waste to landfill was published on 21 March 1995 by seven Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment. Of the 720 responses that were received, 166 opposed the introduction of the tax.

  Although this Department has received further representations about the introduction of the landfill tax, it keeps no central record of the number of representations that have been submitted.

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring of plume grounding at Castle Cement in Clitheroe the Environment Agency has carried out since the earlier testing of air quality by the National Physical Laboratory. [34738]

  Mr. Clappison
  Observations of the plumes are made on a regular basis by Environment Agency inspectors. However, the agency does not consider that further monitoring would provide any additional useful information, since the monitoring carried out by the National Physical Laboratory during August and September 1995, using a mobile laboratory and 266
  differential scanning lidar, provided sufficient information for the Environment Agency to evaluate the position and to determine appropriate action. As a result, Castle Cement was required to submit proposals to the Environment Agency to resolve the problem of plume grounding, and these proposals are required to be implemented by 31 December 1996. Castle Cement has appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the implementation time scale.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was given to each London borough council in revenue support grants settlement in relation to homelessness in the current financial year. [34594]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is not possible to specify a portion of revenue support grant—RSG—for revenue expenditure on homelessness because RSG is not hypothecated to particular services.

  Energy Efficiency Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed the assessment of his Department's energy efficiency voucher scheme; what has been the total cost to his Department of this initiative; how many householders have installed practical energy efficiency measures benefiting from discounts offered under the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [34865]

  Mr. Clappison
  The assessment is not complete, and I can not add to the answer given to the hon. Member on Wednesday 22 May,Official Report, columns 222–23.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of community charge still outstanding and owed to local authorities; and how much has been written off. [34858]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest information relates to 31 March 1995. As at that date, we estimate that community charge arrears totalled £1,200 million, and write-offs totalled £430 million.

  Albert Dock, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to the Government office on Merseyside by the Albert dock residents association concerning its lease when the Merseyside development corporation is wound up. [34461]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government office for Merseyside has received three letters during the past two years from the Albert dock residents association concerning that lease and other issues.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residents have had court proceedings taken against them by the Albert Dock company for leasing their apartment between 1 January 1989 and 1 January 1995. [34384]
  267
  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is a confidential matter between the Albert Dock Company and each and every occupier, and I am unable to provide this information.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the clawback clauses included in the terms of the sale of the leases of properties by(a) the Albert Dock Company, (b) Barratt and (c) other companies within the Merseyside development corporation. [34487]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The detailed terms of each and every sub-disposal by the Albert Dock Company, Barratt and, indeed, any other developer within the corporation's area is really a matter of negotiation between a purchaser of an interest and the seller of that interest. It is a confidential matter, and I am unable to provide the information required.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value of the National Rivers Authority's receipts from water abstraction licensing and changes in each year of its operation. [34845]

  Mr. Clappison
  The receipts from water abstraction licensing and charges generated by the National Rivers Authority in each of the years of its operation are set out in the table.

  National Rivers Authority: Income from water abstraction licensing and charges 1989–90 to 1995–96

  £ million

  1989–90

  79.2

  1990–91

  58.3

  1991–92

  64.6

  1992–93

  77.0

  1993–94

  77.3

  1994–95

  64.7

  1995–96

  80.3

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research he has evaluated as to the size of filter pore needed to prevent possible contamination of potable water from abattoir discharges; [34776]

  (2) what information he has collated as to how many water companies are requiring abattoirs involved in the national BSE cull to provide fine filter systems; [34777]

  (3) what is his policy with regard to the provision of fine filter systems at abattoirs dealing with cattle from the national BSE cull; and if he will make a statement. [34778]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has advised that filtration systems in abattoirs that are capable of removing particulate matter from effluent are adequate to prevent the infective agent being carried into the aquatic environment. The Environment Agency and water companies, who have statutory responsibilities for authorising discharges from abattoirs, ensure that the required standards are applied at relevant abattoirs. In addition, waste water receives further treatment at sewage treatment works. Natural 268
  processes within catchment areas and drinking water treatment processes form a further multiple barrier providing adequate protection for drinking water supplies.

  Water Abstraction
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the income from water abstraction licensing and changes came from(a) water undertakers, (b) industrial concerns and (c) private individuals last year. [34846]

  Mr. Clappison
  Last year—1995–96–87 per cent. of the income from water abstraction licensing and charges came from the water undertakers. Industrial concerns and private individuals accounted for the remaining 13 per cent. The Environment Agency does not keep central records enabling it to distinguish between the last two categories.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new licences for water abstraction have been granted in each year since 1989 and in 1996 to date. [34847]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total number of new licence applications determined each year in England and Wales since March 1989 are as follows:

  Year (April to March)

  Licences determined

  1989–90

  1,041

  1990–91

  1,599

  1991–92

  1,781

  1992–93

  1,849

  1993–94

  1,489

  1994–95

  1,313

  1995–96

  1,339

  1996–97 to date

  399

  These determinations include those of applications for impoundment. Records of applications granted are not kept centrally.

  Torbay Ring Road
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the findings of the inspector's report on state 3/4 of the Torbay ring road; and if he will make a statement. [35128]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The public local inquiry into this called in application closed on 10 June 1996, after 32 days sitting. Details of the expected time scale for announcing the decision will be published when the inspector's report is received by the Government officer for the south-west later this year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for special grants to local authorities following the Court of Appeal's judgment on 21 June in respect of regulations withdrawing benefits from asylum seekers. [35447]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 24 June that the Government intend to amend the Asylum and Immigration Bill so as to exclude from eligibility for
  269
  benefit certain asylum seekers and certain other persons from abroad. Other provisions in the Bill would make similar changes to eligibility for assistance under the homelessness legislation at about the same time as the benefit rules are changed. Any remaining costs to local housing authorities should be minimal.

  Because housing benefit payments are now available to persons housed under the homelessness legislation since 5 February, the Government have decided that the proposed persons from abroad housing benefit special grant to local housing authorities is no longer required.

  There is likely to be some continuing burden on social services departments in connection with supporting children in need and their families, and the Government's commitment to assist social services authorities with those costs, given earlier this year, remains unchanged. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health intends to lay a revised special grant report proposing a special grant to social services authorities. The terms of this grant are likely to be similar to the persons from abroad children's grant in the special grant report (No. 19) which was laid before Parliament on 6 June. The special grant report (No. 19) has been withdrawn.

  Sulphur Protocol
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he plans on proposals for meeting the United Kingdom's commitments under the second sulphur protocol of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—UNECE. [35348]

  Mr. Clappison
  Because of the rapid progress which is being made in the United Kingdom in reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide—one of the main constituents of acid rain—we are on course to meet our international obligations under the second UNECE sulphur protocol. We published last Friday—28 June—a consultation paper setting out our preliminary conclusions on how this will be achieved. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Under the terms of the protocol, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing national emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1980 levels. This target is to be met through intermediate reductions of at least 50 per cent. by 2000 and 70 per cent. by 2005.

  The paper shows that, in the light of current programmes for reducing emissions, particularly from power stations, the targets for 2000 and 2005 should be met without the need for additional measures. Over the longer term, we propose to keep the position under review in the light of any measures which may be required to meet short-term air quality standards—on which we shall shortly be publishing a consultation draft of a national air quality strategy—and any new initiatives in this area which may be agreed by the European Community.

  The paper also reviews the performance of the existing national plan, which gives effect in the United Kingdom to the requirements of the EC large combustion plant directive, and sets out proposals for changes in its future operation. The aim of these changes will be to ensure future allocations of emissions quota under the national plan are more closely in line with regulatory consents under integrated pollution control.
  270
  The Environment Agency has introduced new flexibilities in the revised authorisations for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales which allow the generators to switch emissions between stations, provided that no adverse impact on the environment occurs. The agency is now examining how these arrangements can be extended to allow emissions to be similarly adjusted between different industrial plants by mutual agreement of the operators. Under the revised national plan for large combustion plant, there is no longer any gain in providing a scheme of transferable sulphur emissions quotas as was originally envisaged.

SCOTLAND

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved; [33508]

  (2) how many (a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33509]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information about injuries is set out in the table:

  Year

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Information technology related (all minor)

  1995–96

  Nil

  4

  219

  2

  1994–95

  Nil

  10

  203

  3

  1993–94

  Nil

  14

  249

  0

  1992–93

  Nil

  11

  242

  0

  1991–92

  Nil

  4

  271

  0

  During the past five years, the Health and Safety Commission has become involved in six cases—two in 1991–92 and four in 1993–94.

  A central record of health and safety problems is not kept, since many are minor and dealt with routinely by line management. On average, however, my Department's health and safety adviser deals with about 15 queries a week.

  Council Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on council housing in(a) Scotland and (b) Dundee in (i) 1989–90 and (ii) 1995–96, expressed in 1995–96 prices. [33845]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The table gives estimated expenditure in 1995–96, and actual expenditure in 1989–90 expressed in 1995–96 prices. It should be noted that expenditure in any year depends, in part, on the success of local authorities in generating capital receipts.
  271
  In 1989–90, the level of capital receipts generated by Scottish local authorities, including Dundee, considerably exceeded the estimated amount for 1995–96.

  Total capital expenditure on Council Housing in Dundee and Scotland (£ million)

  Dundee

  Scotland

  1989–90 expenditure (at 1995–96 prices)

  27.2

  625.0

  1995–96 estimated expenditure

  15.6

  425.1

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about(a) the expenditure programmes and (b) the level of central Government funding provided to Perth and Kinross council and Angus council; and if he will make a statement. [34239]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have received a number of representations about the revenue budgets set by Perth and Kinross and Angus councils and about the level of central Government funding which supports those budgets. On each occasion, I have taken the opportunity to point out that it is for each council to determine its own spending priorities within the total level of resources available to it. I have also drawn attention to the very generous level of Government support for Scottish local authorities.

  Perth and Kinross council was able to increase its expenditure by £5.8 million, or 4.60 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget figure without breaching its capping limit; Angus council had scope to increase its expenditure by £4.7 million, or 4.47 per cent. In both cases, the increases were before any account was taken of the scope for efficiency savings.

  Perth and Kinross council will receive Government support totalling £115.5 million in the current year, which is 20 per cent. more per head of population than the average level of support for English authorities. Angus council will receive support totalling £100.3 million, which is 23 per cent. more than the average English figure.

  Agricultural Wages
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many permits issued to individuals who are incapacitated for the purposes of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 for the payment of lower minimum rates are currently in force; and what is their distribution by rates of pay. [34584]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are seven permits in force. They are distributed as shown in the table.

  Number of permits

  Classification of worker

  Full minimum weekly wage

  4

  General farm worker

  £150.55

  1

  Tractor worker

  £168.55

  1

  Stockworker

  £180.60

  1

  Supervisory

  £181.30

  272
  Actual rates of pay vary in the range of 25 to 90 per cent. of the full minimum weekly wage, reflecting the degree of disability experienced by the worker.

  Business Rates
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent local assessors are permitted to take account of local economic circumstances when making assessments for business rates. [34588]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Assessors are entirely independent of both local and central Government in the exercise of their statutory duties, and reach decisions on the rateable value of business premises in accordance with statute and case law. Economic circumstances in each area will affect rateable values to the extent that they will affect the rental evidence used by assessors in setting appropriate rateable values.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing a differential business rate for rural and urban areas. [34589]

  Mr. Forsyth
  I am well aware of the burden rates place on Scottish businesses, both rural and urban. That is why the Government have been pursuing a policy of harmonisation, to bring Scottish business rates to the same level as apply in England.

  We are also very sympathetic to the problems of village shops and post offices. Research has shown that, while for most businesses rate bills are relatively small in relation to total turnover, they impose a more substantial burden on the smallest businesses, particularly in the retail sector. Shops and post offices in villages often exist on very low turnovers and, for them, the rates bill can represent a significant burden.

  In the White Paper "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership" the Government announced their plans to bring forward a scheme to reduce the burden of rates on general stores and post offices which fulfil a special role in the life of the rural community, and I recently issued a consultation paper on the operation of such a scheme.

  In line with the Government's aim to harmonise rating across the country, the intention is to introduce the scheme in Scotland, England and Wales simultaneously.

  Statutory Measures
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many statutory measures his Department introduced in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) between 1 January 1996 and 1 May 1996 which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation. [35029]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This information is not available in the form requested, but a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was placed in the House Library by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.
  273

  Firearms (Circular Letters)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library an index of all Scottish Office circular letters, to police authorities since 1967 relevant to the Firearms Acts of 1968, 1988, 1992, and 1994 indicating the number and reference of the circular together with the date of issue and title; [34838]

  (2) if he will place in the Library an index of all Scottish Office circular letters, to chief officers of police since 1967 relevant to the administration of the Firearms Acts of 1968, 1988, 1992 and 1994 indicating the number or reference of the circular together with the date of issue and title. [34840]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of circulars relating to firearms in the numbered series are as listed:

  Index of Scottish Office circular letters to chief constables since 1967

  Year

  Number of circular

  Date of issue

  Title

  1967

  24/67

  30 August 1967

  Firearms Certificates for Flare Signal Pens

  1967

  39/67

  22 November 1967

  Firearms Form 9A

  1968

  25/68

  19 July 1968

  Firearms Act 1968

  1969

  12/69

  19 March 1969

  The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Scotland) Rules 1969

  1975

  16/75

  1 July 1975

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1975

  1976

  24/76

  16 September 1976

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1976

  1976

  28/76

  10 December 1976

  The Removal of Firearms to Northern Ireland

  1977

  2/77

  20 January 1977

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) No 2 Order 1976

  1977

  13/77

  25 May 77

  Firearms (Removal to Northern Ireland) Order 1975

  1979

  4/79

  20 February 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1979

  1979

  5/79

  6 March 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1979

  1979

  8/79

  18 April 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) 1979

  1979

  14/79

  3 May 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1979

  1983

  10/83

  20 July 1983

  1. Firearms (Certificates granted in Great Britain and Air Weapons lawfully held in Great Britain Regulations (Northern Ireland) SI No 132

  2. Firearms (Removal to Northern Ireland) Order 1975 SI 1975 No 760

  1983

  11/83

  12 September 1983

  Firearms Act 1982

  1986

  7/86

  19 August 1986

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1986

  1994

  4/94

  24 May 1994

  Firearms Certificate Returns

  274

  Index of Scottish Office circular letters to police authorities since 1967

  Year

  Number of circular

  Date of issue

  Title

  1975

  23/75

  1 July 1975

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Older 1975

  1976

  36/76

  16 September 1976

  The Firearms (Variations of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1975

  1977

  2/77

  20 January 1977

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) (No 2) 1976 Order 1976

  1978

  6/78

  16 March 1978

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1978

  1979

  8/79

  6 March 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1979

  1979

  11/79

  18 April 1979

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1979

  1980

  3/80

  2 June 1980

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1980

  1986

  4/86

  19 August 1986

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1986

  1988

  3/88

  23 June 1988

  Firearms Amnesty: Appeal for Surrender of Guns

  1989

  1/89

  9 January 1989

  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

  1989

  6/89

  31 May 1989

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Second Commencement Order

  1989

  10/89

  22 September 1989

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Visitors Permit Scheme Removal of Arms and Ammunition to Northern Ireland

  1990

  4/90

  9 May 1990

  Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1990

  1991

  1/91

  8 February 1991

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Removal of Arms and Ammunition to Northern Ireland

  1991

  3/91

  23 April 1991

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Removal of Arms and Ammunition to Northern Ireland

  1992

  13/92

  28 October 1992

  Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992— Guidance to Police

  1993

  4/93

  24 June 1993

  Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Scotland) Amendment Rules

  1994

  12/94

  31 August 1994

  The Firearms Amendment Act 1994

  1996

  3/96

  23 April 1996

  Firearms Amnesty: Appeal for Surrender of Guns

  Child Abuse Inquiries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to public funds of(a) the Fife inquiry and (b) the report of the inquiry into child care policies in Fife. [35219]
  275
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The costs incurred by the Scottish Office in relation to the inquiry were £830,000. They include direct running expenditure for Scottish Office staff, of £239,356, wholly seconded to the staff on the inquiry. The cost of printing the report of the inquiry was £15,000. Information on the costs to public funds incurred by others involved in the inquiry is not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of the Orkney child abuse inquiry by Lord Clyde. [35140]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The costs incurred by the Scottish Office in relation to the inquiry were £3,380,000. They include direct running expenditure for Scottish Office staff, estimated at £157,000, wholly seconded to the staff of the inquiry. The cost of printing the report of the inquiry was £10,500. Information on the costs to public funds incurred by others involved in the inquiry is not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on training and development in the civil service. [35442]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce that I have presented to Parliament today the White Paper "Development and Training for Civil Servants: a Framework for Action". I have also placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of tables detailing progress in the civil service towards gaining investors in people status.

  The Government place great importance on increasing the skills of the UK work force in order to meet the challenges set out in the recent competitiveness White Paper, Cm 3300. The civil service has a vital role to play in delivering national competitiveness. The White Paper published today sets out a framework for achievement this necessary step change in training and development in the civil service.

  The White Paper has three key themes: a strengthened commitment to the achieving of the investors in people standard across the civil service; a drive to raise the levels of skills and awareness of civil servants; and an emphasis on civil servants taking responsibility for their own development and careers in a supportive partnership between top managers, line managers and the individual.

  In addition to key targets being monitored centrally for initiatives in the senior civil service and its feeder grades, Departments and agencies will be required to draw up action plans with their own stretching targets in the specific areas listed in the White Paper. There will be an annual progress report to Ministers on the collective performance of the civil service, which will be published.
  276
  The proposals in the White Paper will strengthen the civil service and give greater opportunities to individual civil servants. This White Paper is an important step in ensuring that the civil service is fully equipped to face the challenges of the future.

  Health Information
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he has taken since March to establish an independent committee to review the supply and dissemination of information within the services dealing with people in need of treatment; care and control. [34601]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following widespread consultation we published on 7 March guidance for the National Health Service—"The Protection and Use of Patient Information Between Agencies". Specific guidance on these matters is also contained in "Building Bridges". Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000; [33490]

  (2) on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved; [33488]

  (3) how many (a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities; [33489]

  (4) what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of this Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and additionally those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33491]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 27 June,Official Report, columns 189–92.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit in Lyon.
  277

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Council what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33458]

  Mr. Newton
  Nil.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved. [33456]

  Mr. Newton
  No such problems have been reported. I am not responsible for any agencies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) primary and (b) secondary legislative measures would be required to allow the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty to be implemented. [34586]

  Mr. David Davis
  We anticipate that legislation may be required to implement certain provisions of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We shall consider the precise form and nature of any legislation in the light of the outcome of the negotiations.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with British high commissioners the role and perception of the BBC World Service in the countries in which they serve; and if he will make a statement. [34592]

  Mr. Hanley
  All FCO posts overseas, including the high commissions, are asked in an annual information return to assess the impact of the BBC World Service in the country to which they are accredited. The last such exercise took place in April this year. The results show the BBC World Service is highly valued in Commonwealth countries.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Kashmir with the Indian Government; and what specific problems were addressed. [34599]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed Kashmir in general terms with the previous Indian Foreign Secretary in London in November.
  278

  Mr. Mohd Bashir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a decision to be taken on an application made by Mr. Mohd Bashir, date of birth 8 January 1971, to the British post in Dubai to join his wife in the United Kingdom. [34813]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the embassy at Dubai for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Mr. Amanat Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a decision to be taken on the application made by Amanat Ali ref: Imm/D2604 to the British post in Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom; when Mr. Ali was interviewed; and if he will make a statement. [34812]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the British representatives at the European Parliament as to the refusal of Mr. Denktash to allow members of the European Parliament to visit the Karpass area in occupied northern Cyprus and if he will make a statement. [34768]

  Mr. David Davis
  MEPs attending the 9th meeting of the EU/Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee discussed the issue of the Karpass with EU ambassadors in Nicosia 3 to 5 March. The Turkish Cypriot leadership is well aware of our views on the need to revoke the remaining restrictions on the basic freedoms in the Karpass. High commission officials regularly visit the Karpass.

  UNESCO
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO. [34821]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received nine letters from Members of Parliament, organisations and members of the public in the last six months about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO. In addition there have been three parliamentary questions in the same period.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the financial implications of the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO. [34828]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We estimate that it would cost the United Kingdom approximately £11 million annually to rejoin UNESCO. In addition there would be extra staffing costs which have yet to be calculated.
  279
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current management and functioning of UNESCO. [34831]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have frequently acknowledged the progress made by UNESCO in putting its house in order since we left in 1985. But we believe that there is still scope for further reform. In particular, we are keen to see greater focus of programmes, greater decentralisation, tighter budgetary discipline and more transparency in management practices.

  Visa Applications (Language Students)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to speed up the processing of visa applications made by language students in Moscow seeking to learn English in the United Kingdom. [34974]

  Mr. Hanley
  All applications for UK visas have to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules. The visa section at Moscow, like all our other entry clearance issuing posts, processes all straightforward visa applications within 24 hours. However I inspected Moscow's visa section and approved plans to enlarge and improve the old premises at a cost of £700,000, better to accommodate visa applicants. The renovated visa section opened on 13 May and provides waiting space for 160 persons and new counter positions for eight visa officers at a time, out of a total of 17.

TREASURY

  Promotion (Women)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures her Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31546]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information in respect of the Chancellor's Departments and agencies is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  As part of a package of measures designed to ensure equality of opportunity within the department, the Treasury has targets to measure the progress of women and ethnic minority staff. Amongst these targets are objectives (i) to achieve a similar pattern of promotion for men and women which is related to their representation in the 'feeder grade'; (ii) to increase the proportion of women in the higher grades over time; and (iii) in the longer term, for women to be represented in the most senior grades in the same proportions as they are recruited into the Treasury in the 'feeder grades'.

  While all promotions are made on the basis of merit, further measures to encourage the promotion of women include: action to address the perceived 'long hours culture' within the Treasury; the introduction of an open system of postings within the Department with the presumption that all posts are open to alternative working
  280
  patterns, except where a valid case is made to the contrary; and flexible working hours made available to more than one third of the staff. The Treasury is also a member of Opportunity 2000.

  Customs and Excise

  The Department has implemented the following measures during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions.
  The board led by Chairman Valerie Strachan is committed to developing professionalism and responsibility. The Departmental strategy includes.
  "investing in and supporting the continuous development of our people as a key element".
  Agreeing clear personal objectives and performance measures and rewarding people according to their contribution is another key factor. This links in with the new appraisal system and revised competencies. These serve to ensure that promotion is on merit.
  The new appointments system has removed the seniority requirement. This is particularly important to women who may have had a break in their service for family reasons. Training needs are being met to equip people with skills and knowledge which also enhances development.
  Mrs. Strachan, the chairman, is seen as a role model for women within the organisation and outside. She supports the Department's commitment to Opportunity 2000 and has recently agreed to be a member of the target team which plays a vital role in determining the overall direction of Opportunity 2000.

  The Department has also made the following progress in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years.

  Balancing work and family
  Providing a wide range of options to help women return to work after the birth of a child or as their family grows up;.
  A full range of non-traditional working patterns is now in place;.
  Career break and domestic absence schemes.

  This kind of flexibility allows women to plan their careers around their individual needs and family responsibilities.
  Child care provision, including workplace nurseries, buying nursery places and play schemes.
  Reimbursement of extra child care and possibly elder care expenses incurred when attending residential training courses.
  Positive action training.
  Membership of key organisations like Opportunity 2000, and demonstrating our commitment to the membership by setting forecast figures for women at higher executive officer level and above by the years 1996 and 2000.
  Establishing a comprehensive equal opportunities policy and putting into place strategies and practices which make those opportunities a reality.

  Inland Revenue

  During the last 12 months, the Inland Revenue has taken the following measures to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions:
  As part of "Lifting the Barriers"—an initiative aimed at meeting the Department's strategic objective to increase the representation of women and ethnic minority people—at senior levels:.
  "Diversity in Action" a new advanced equal opportunities training course for senior managers was introduced;

  281
  "Springboard", a three-month personal development course for women, was piloted;
  Mentoring schemes were piloted.
  A career tracking project which looked at the careers of men and women who entered the Department in 1975 and 1985 was carried out to establish whether there were any barriers or stepping stones to progression which hindered or helped certain groups of people. Recommendations are still being considered.
  A review of the existing arrangements whereby staff can be reimbursed additional child care costs if they have to attend A training course which affects their normal working hours was commenced.
  A series of pilots on alternative working patterns focused on homeworking and extensions to flexible working hours. And guidance to managers and staff on job sharing, part-time working, flexible working hours, and alternative working patterns generally was issued. Since the publicity there has been a marked increase in term-time working.
  A report into the equality aspects of the Inland Revenue's performance management system was completed by independent consultants. The main conclusion was that there was nothing inherent in the system design which would inevitably lead to differing impacts on various groups.
  Extensive equal opportunities information was included in the "Guide to Working in the Inland Revenue", available to all members of staff.

  The Inland Revenue has made the following progress since 1991:
  Two women became non-executive directors on the management board.

  The biggest increase at senior management level during the last five years has been at grade 7 level where women increased their representation from 12 per cent. to 24.3 per cent. The first woman controller (Grade 4) was appointed in January 1994.

  Valuation Office Agency (VOA)

  The Valuation Office Agency follows the Inland Revenue's strategic objective of improving the representation of women at senior levels and supports the "Lifting the Barriers" initiative. The VOA issued an equal opportunities programme of action for 1996–97 in May 1996, which includes goals for women's representation by the year 2002–3. Over the last 12 months they have analysed a sample of promotion boards to identify whether there was any basis or discrimination against women. No bias or discrimination was identified.

  Paymaster

  Paymaster promotes people to vacant posts on the basis of a competency framework and merit. During the past twelve months two women have been appointed to grade 7 posts and joined the chief executive's team, the senior management team in the agency. This increased women's representation from zero to almost 25 per cent. In addition, the agency has appointed a woman as a non-executive director who provides independent advice to the management board.

  Royal Mint

  A woman was appointed at assistant director level—Grade 7—in the last 12 months—the first female ever to be appointed at this level in the Royal Mint.
  282
  The total number of females in executive senior management posts has increased from three to four over the last five years. Also in 1993 one female non-executive director was appointed.

  Within the last year a new policy of recruiting to a post and not a grade was introduced. Monitoring of fairness of opportunity takes place at each stage of recruitment and promotion processes. The same applies to our appraisal scheme which emphasises individual objectives scored against job evaluation factors. The Mint tries to ensure that at least one member of recruitment/selection panels is female. The proportion of women in senior positions has risen in the last five years from 7.5 per cent. to 10 per cent.

  National Savings

  The recent reorganisation of National Savings has had the effect of restricting the number of promotions and recruitment.

  Despite these factors, development of equal opportunities policies has continued with a highly successful awareness training course for managers being introduced, and the seniority requirement for promotion being reduced to two years, both within the past year. Self-nomination for promotion arrangements which have been effective for two years have also had an effect in helping women to progress with the organisation.

  National Savings also operates workplace nurseries and school holiday play schemes. Special unpaid leave is also available if needed during school holidays to enable staff to be with their family.

  Office for National Statistics

  As part of its programme for action on equal opportunities, the Office for National Statistics actively encourages women.

  Over the past 12 months, ONS—and its predecessor departments, the Central Statistical Office and the Office for Population Censuses and Surveys—has operated a range of family-friendly policies including holiday play schemes, a nursery, flexible working hours and career breaks aimed at encouraging experienced members of staff to continue their careers alongside their domestic responsibilities. Other initiatives pursued by the Department in 1995–96 included:
  offering women-only training courses to meet demand;
  actively encouraging women to apply for posts in grades above executive officer, while ensuring that selection was based on merit; and
  monitoring the success rates of women against white males in recruitment, performance promotability assessment, promotion and internal postings.

  Information about the number of promotions in earlier years is only available for the CSO. Restructuring of CSO led to fewer promotion opportunities overall. Because the new Office for National Statistics was created on 1 April 1996, analysis of monitoring data has not yet been undertaken. ONS is presently developing a new equal opportunities programme of action for 1996–97. The programme will include proposals for monitoring, analysis of the results and for action to remedy any significant disparities highlighted.
  283

  Works of Art
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of the conditionally except works of art list in uncollected inheritance tax(a) in 1995 and (b) since the list started, inflation adjusted. [34221]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated overall cost to the Exchequer of granting conditional exemption from inheritance tax/capital transfer tax to works of art and chattels is about £55 million in 1994–95 and around £700 million over the period 1984–85 to 1994–95, at constant 1994–95 prices using the GDP market deflator. Comparable information for earlier years to 1977–78 when the list started is not available. And there are no separate estimates of the cost of exempting items included in the list.

  The exemption is conditional, not absolute. Its broad effect is to defer payment of tax on the qualifying items for so long as the conditions of the exemption are met. the figure of £700 million given above does not take into account any deferred tax subsequently paid.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have been asked by the Inland Revenue to remove items from the exempt works of art list as a result of denial of access(a) in 1995 and (b) since the list has existed. [34223]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1995 one owner has had items removed from the list because of a failure to provide public access. The capital taxes office has no record of any previous such removal of items.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average inflation adjusted gross yearly income of individuals owning conditionally exempt works of art in(a) 1995, (b) 1980 and (c) the first year of the relevant list. [34220]

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

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been received by the Inland Revenue regarding denial of access to conditionally exempt works of art(a) in 1995 and (b) since the scheme came into existence. [34222]

  Mr. Jack
  The capital taxes office has received no complaints from members of the public regarding denial of access to conditionally exempt works of art. If anyone feels that he or she has been unreasonably denied such access, they should write to that office.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to equalise the inheritance tax treatment of surviving partners in long-term homosexual couples with the treatment of the surviving partner in heterosexual marriages; and if he will make a statement. [34949]

  Mr. Jack
  There are no such plans. Inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses is not available to unmarried couples.
  284

  Actors and Actresses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many actors and actresses are currently unemployed. [35008]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In May 1996, 13,033 of the claimant unemployed in the United Kingdom usually worked as actors, entertainers, stage managers, producers or directors. Figures for actors alone cannot be separately identified.

  National Savings
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set National Savings on its creation as an executive agency of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [35472]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  National Savings has today been established as an executive agency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Its main aim is to support the Government's management of its debt and its policies for personal savings by attracting and retaining investments from the retail market efficiently and cost effectively. It will be set clear targets to continue to improve value for money for the taxpayer and the level of service to customers. Accordingly, I have set the following performance targets for its first year, 1996–97.

  (i) To work within the terms of the 1996–97 funding remit1

  (ii) To manage National Savings so as to deliver its aims within the resources allocated by Parliament.

  (iii) To improve efficiency by 6 per cent. in 1996–97.

  (iv) To develop a consistent agency-wide unit costing system drawing on the development of resource accounting by end March 1997.

  (v) To achieve a 97 per cent. outturn against all national savings published timeliness targets.

  (vi) To set up a consistent system by end March 1997 to measure accuracy of those transaction processes that most affect customers (repayment and purchase).

  (vii) To show 85 per cent. of customers surveyed are either satisfied or very satisfied.

  1 The funding remit sets out the costs and volume assumption that National Savings works to. It is not published because of commercial confidentiality.

  I have today placed copies of the agency's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Following open competition Peter Bareau has been selected as the new agency chief executive. He will take up post on 15 July 1996.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and for United Kingdom as a whole for the last three years in constant prices the cost to the Exchequer of enforcement of current laws on illegal drugs, broken down by the costs of(a) policing, (b) prosecutions, (c) medical treatment of abusers and (d) border controls. [33930]
  285
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The overall expenditure of the Government on tackling drug misuse across the United Kingdom in 1992–93 was estimated to have been £520 million. The comparable figures for 1993–94 was estimated as £526 million. These are the most recent figures available. The information in the form and breakdown requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next edition of the "Abortion Statistics Monitor" will be published; and what factors account for the interval in publication between it and its predecessor. [34891]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The most recent edition of the "Abortion Statistics Monitor", covering legal abortions for the December 1995 quarter, was published on 27 June 1996. The next edition, which will cover the March 1996 quarter, has an expected publication date of 1 October 1996. Publication dates are determined by the date of receipt of HSA4 notification forms by the chief medical officers at the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, and the statistical processing and analyses of the notifications by the Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many legal abortions were performed in England and Wales in each month of 1995. [35091]

  Mrs. Knight
  The data presented for 1995 in the table are provisional as they are based on quarterly returns. Finalised annual figures for 1995 are expected to be published in an annual monitor on legal abortions performed in England and Wales on 10 September 1996.

  Total terminations performed in England and Wales

  1995

  residents and non-residents

  January

  13,913

  February

  13,938

  March

  14,890

  April

  12,138

  May

  13,403

  June

  14,191

  July

  13,803

  August

  13,825

  September

  13,224

  October

  13,521

  November

  13,372

  December

  12,229

  Total

  162,447

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34146]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 June 1996 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Official Report, column 119.
  286

  Utility Prices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will express as an index where the year of privatisation equals 100 the utility component of the retail prices index including value added tax in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest available period for (i) gas prices, (ii) electricity prices, (iii) electricity and gas prices, (iv) water prices and (v) gas, electric and water prices. [30343]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]:The information is as follows:

  Period

  Gas

  Electricity

  Electricity and gas

  Water

  Gas, electricity and water

  Year of privatization

  1986

  1990

  1990

  1989

  1990

  1979

  44

  44

  42

  36

  41

  May 1996

  125

  121

  118

  194

  127

  Although the gas/water/electricity prices has risen to 127 compared to 100 in 1990, a wider range of utility prices, which also includes the price of telephone services, rail fares and postage, has risen to only 121.3. In real terms, this is an increase of only one and half percentage point.

  Note:

  The components of the retail prices index for electricity and gas, and for gas, electricity and water, assume a privatisation year of 1990—the year that electricity utilities were fully privatised.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the spending per pupil(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in each local education authority in England. [34674]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table sets out, for each local education authority, net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintained(a) pre-primary/primary schools and (b) secondary schools in England for 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil 1994–95

  (a) Pre-primary and primary £

  (b) Secondary £

  Corporation of London

  3,635

  0

  Camden

  2,057

  2,790

  Greenwich

  2,028

  2,772

  Hackney

  2,249

  3,138

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,482

  3,316

  Islington

  2,055

  2,657

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,397

  3,327

  Lambeth

  2,573

  3,782

  Lewisham

  2,097

  2,677

  Southwark

  1,898

  2,681

  Tower Hamlets

  2,393

  3,194

  Wandsworth

  2,268

  3,053

  Westminster

  2,440

  2,825

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,891

  2,353

  287

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil 1994–95

  (a) Pre-primary and primary £

  (b) Secondary £

  Barnet

  1,763

  2,415

  Bexley

  1,536

  2,232

  Brent

  1,718

  2,033

  Bromley

  1,634

  2,231

  Croydon

  1,725

  2,165

  Ealing

  1,969

  2,457

  Enfield

  1,761

  2,359

  Haringey

  2,300

  2,986

  Harrow

  2,043

  2,598

  Havering

  1,715

  2,570

  Hillingdon

  1,777

  2,625

  Hounslow

  1,931

  2,582

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,730

  2,518

  Merton

  1,931

  2,663

  Newham

  1,711

  2,623

  Redbridge

  1,678

  2,553

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,884

  2,373

  Sutton

  1,860

  2,514

  Waltham Forest

  1,792

  2,395

  Birmingham

  1,721

  2,356

  Coventry

  1,705

  2,418

  Dudley

  1,575

  2,205

  Sandwell

  1,666

  2,244

  Solihull

  1,605

  2,225

  Walsall

  1,664

  2,314

  Wolverhampton

  1,648

  2,341

  Knowsley

  1,575

  2,227

  Liverpool

  1,634

  2,603

  St. Helens

  1,521

  2,247

  Sefton

  1,487

  2,227

  Wirral

  1,567

  2,294

  Bolton

  1,646

  2,261

  Bury

  1,492

  2,032

  Manchester

  1,558

  2,435

  Oldham

  1,621

  2,293

  Rochdale

  1,552

  2,225

  Salford

  1,507

  2,151

  Stockport

  1,566

  2,152

  Tameside

  1,447

  2,046

  Trafford

  1,477

  2,319

  Wigan

  1,474

  2,130

  Barnsley

  1,550

  2,102

  Doncaster

  1,444

  2,025

  Rotherham

  1,719

  2,220

  Sheffield

  1,612

  2,110

  Bradford

  1,681

  2,041

  Calderdale

  1,651

  2,104

  Kirklees

  1,607

  2,256

  288

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil 1994–95

  (a) Pre-primary and primary £

  (b) Secondary £

  Leeds

  1,645

  2,223

  Wakefield

  1,590

  2,046

  Gateshead

  1,638

  2,257

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,660

  2,314

  North Tyneside

  1,636

  2,145

  South Tyneside

  1,623

  2,062

  Sunderland

  1,576

  2,142

  Isles of Scilly

  2,471

  4,484

  Avon

  1,613

  2,336

  Bedfordshire

  1,674

  2,231

  Berkshire

  1,630

  2,238

  Buckinghamshire

  1,636

  2,256

  Cambridgeshire

  1,540

  2,160

  Cheshire

  1,529

  2,176

  Cleveland

  1,505

  2,172

  Cornwall

  1,615

  2,202

  Cumbria

  1,541

  2,034

  Derbyshire

  1,596

  2,290

  Devon

  1,554

  2,203

  Dorset

  1,510

  2,061

  Durham

  1,757

  2,122

  East Sussex

  1,692

  2,359

  Essex

  1,734

  2,321

  Gloucestershire

  1,274

  1,937

  Hampshire

  1,645

  2,177

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,643

  2,063

  Hertfordshire

  1,717

  2,264

  Humberside

  1,652

  2,304

  Isle of Wight

  1,607

  2,030

  Kent

  1,555

  2,276

  Lancashire

  1,661

  2,345

  Leicestershire

  1,612

  2,274

  Lincolnshire

  1,588

  2,384

  Norfolk

  1,600

  2,342

  North Yorkshire

  1,577

  2,180

  Northamptonshire

  1,618

  2,265

  Northumberland

  1,528

  1,944

  Nottinghamshire

  1,692

  2,396

  Oxfordshire

  1,680

  2,285

  Shropshire

  1,605

  2,413

  Somerset

  1,660

  2,113

  Staffordshire

  1,565

  2,104

  Suffolk

  1,690

  2,182

  Surrey

  1,744

  2,234

  Warwickshire

  1,665

  2,349

  West Sussex

  1,668

  2,240

  Wiltshire

  1,548

  2,125

  England

  1,661

  2,270

  289

  Kirklees Borough Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the amount of grant for Kirklees metropolitan council for the education revenue budget for each year since 1979–80. [34798]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 June 1996]: It is not possible to identify a portion of revenue support grant for the education revenue budget since RSG is not hypothecated to particular services. Details of the education standard spending assessment for Kirklees from 1990–91 to 1996–97 are set out in the following list. The previous system of local government finance that applied before 1990–91 was different in structure and coverage from the current system and comparable figures are therefore not available.

  1990–91: £128.823 million

  1991–92: £148.129 million

  1992–93: £157.647 million

  1993–94: £140.873 million

  1994–95: £138.275 million

  1995–96: £136.679 million

  1996–97: £141.523 million

  School Nursery Units
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many nursery units have been provided at Church-aided schools through the private finance initiative; [34829]

  (2) how many nursery units have been provided at local education authority schools through the private finance initiative; and if she will make a statement. [34830]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are aware that many local education authorities and voluntary aided schools are exploring the use of the private finance initiative or similar arrangements for education projects, including nursery units. PFI in schools and nursery units is at an early stage, and as yet we are not aware of any nursery units provided through the PFI.

  Unemployment Benefit Rules
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the professions where unemployed people are able to seek employment in their chosen occupation while receiving unemployment benefit without being asked to seek alternative employment; and if she will make a statement; [35003]

  (2) what is the maximum time during which actors and actresses are able to claim unemployment benefit before being asked to seek alternative employment; and if she will make a statement. [35102]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  290
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr Martin Redmond, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking for a list of the professions where people who are unemployed are able to seek employment in their chosen occupation whilst receiving unemployment benefit, without being asked to seek alternative employment.

  Under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1989, people may limit themselves to seeking and accepting work in their usual occupation and at their usual rate of pay for a period of up to 13 weeks from the date they claim unemployment benefit. After this, people claiming benefit are expected to broaden their jobsearch and to accept work for which they are capable, even if that work is not in their usual field. Anyone who takes up such an offer of employment is, of course, still free to continue to look for work in their chosen occupation.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the visit of a Minister from her Department to the area covered by the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC to discuss measures to reduce unemployment in the travel-to-work areas of Doncaster and Mexborough. [34984]

  Mr. Paice
  My noble Friend the Minister of State undertook the most recent visit of a Minister from the Department to the area covered by the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council on 8 May 1996, in his capacity as a sponsor Minister. He visited sites in the Barnsley north-east corridor city challenge area and attended the launch of the Dearne Valley college, at the University of Sheffield. The visit was not specifically to discuss measures to reduce unemployment in the travel to work areas of Doncaster and Mexborough. However, he did meet a representative of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC during the visit. He will be visiting the Doncaster area again, on 1 July 1996, to hold a reception for excellent, good and improving schools in the Yorkshire and Humberside region identified by Ofsted inspections.

  Secondary Schools
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when she last met the chief inspector to discuss admission policy for secondary schools;[34771]

  (2) what advice she received from Office of Standards in Education on the re-introduction of admission by selection to secondary schools. [34772]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend meets the chief inspector regularly, most recently on 5 June, to discuss a range of education matters.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she or her ministerial colleagues have recently visited Germany to study the selection methods under which pupils are allocated to each type of secondary school in that country; and if she will make a statement. [35085]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No such visits have recently taken place. The White Paper "Self-government for Schools", Cm 3315, stresses the value of many different kinds of selection and specialisation in extending diversity and so giving parents more choice.
  291

  School Security
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons have been(a) challenged and (b) apprehended for being found in (i) a school or college building and (ii) the precincts of a school or college, without any lawful authority, in each eduction authority area for each month in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [34843]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many claimants in 1995–96 were referred to(a) jobplan workshops, (b) restart courses and (c) workwise and worklink; and for each how many attended and what were the outcomes; [35276]

  (2) how many claimants had reductions in their income support for non-attendance or failure to complete (a) jobplan workshops, (b) restart courses and (c) workwise and worklink. [35275]

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

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions to her about Jobplan, Workwise and Worklink and Restart Courses.

  The attached tables show how equal many claimants were referred to Jobplan, Workwise and Worklink and Restart Courses in 1995–96, how many attended and the outcomes.

  The responsibility for adjudication on people who fail to attend or complete these programmes rests with the Benefits Agency (BA). In approximately 90% of cases that are adjudicated upon a reduction

  Jobmatch pilot

  Period

  London (ES)

  North West England (ES)

  North London TEC

  Lincolnshire TEC

  Total

  Weeks 1–12

  118.00

  82.00

  79.00

  59.00

  338.00

  Weeks 13–24

  334.00

  125.00

  131.00

  61.00

  651.00

  Weeks 25–36

  782.00

  182.00

  162.00

  69.00

  1,195.00

  Weeks 37–48

  651.00

  85.00

  110.00

  41.00

  887.00

  Weeks 49–60

  571.00

  137.00

  141.00

  53.00

  902.00

  Total

  2,456.00

  611.00

  623.00

  283.00

  3,973.00

  Information is not yet available on the employment status and experience of participants in the period after the jobmatch allowance ceases. A follow-up survey of participants is being conducted from which results will be available next year.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many restart interviews took place in 1995–96; and from these how many claimants(a) were placed in a job, (b) claimed other benefits and (c) entered other programmes and signed off the claiming benefit. [35281]
  292
  of either 40% or 20% of personal Income Support is applied. Details of the total number of disallowances by programme are included in the table.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1

  1995–96

  Jobplan

  Restart courses

  Workwise/link

  Referrals

  339,419

  190,866

  65,252

  Starters

  165,012

  104,686

  27,635

  Outcomes

  Jobs

  7,542

  4,301

  2,971

  ES/TEC/LEC programmes

  41,811

  21,899

  7,158

  Other

  9,022

  4,589

  1,796

  Total outcomes

  58,375

  30,789

  11,925

  BA decisions

  Deductions in personal IS

  37,891

  24,505

  11,231

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants are currently participating in the voluntary jobsearch element of the project work pilots. [35284]

  Mr. Forth
  The most recent figures available, covering the period from the start of the pilots up to 13 June, show a total of 2,012 people in the Hull and Medway and Maidstone pilot areas have had their initial restart interview, and entered the first 13 weeks of the pilot process.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary' of State for Education and Employment how many claimants have participated in each of the four jobmatch pilots in each quarter since inception; and what have been the outcomes of those who completed. [35283]

  Mr. Forth
  The following table gives the number of long-term unemployed people who have participated in each of the four jobmatch pilots. The table shows the number of new participants in each 12 week period since the pilots began on 3 April 1995 and until 24 May 1996.

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Restart interviews which took place in 1995/96 and the outcomes from them. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  293
  I have set out the information you have requested in the table below. It may be helpful if I explain the scope and purpose of the Restart interviews which are offered at regular six monthly intervals as part of an advisory and information service aimed at helping people back into work. These interviews provide clients with the opportunity to discuss with a Client Adviser the steps they are taking to find work, how to access the employment and training opportunities that are available to them, and the course of action which, if followed, will offer the best prospects of returning to work.

  1995–96

  Total

  Total Restart Interviews

  3,271,561

  Job Placings

  54,903

  Family Credit and Other Benefit Starts

  64,124

  Programme Starts1

  764.886

  Sign Offs as a direct result of Advisory action

  117,644

  1 Jobclub, Business Start-Up, Restart Course, Training for Work, JIG, Work Trials, JSS, Jobplan, Job Review Workshop, Workwise, Community Action.

  While the primary aim of this service is to help people back into work, advisers also have a duty to make sure those claiming benefit understand and comply wit the conditions under which they are paid. These conditions require people to be available to start work immediately; not to place such restrictions on the work they are willing to do as to leave them with no real prospects of finding a job; and to take those steps, each week, which offer the best prospects of obtaining work.

  As part of this process, advisers ensure that people are claiming the most appropriate benefit. If, during an interview, discussions between the client and the adviser identify that an alternative benefit is more appropriate, then the adviser will ensure a smooth transition to the correct benefit.

  I should emphasise that the figures shown in the table represent only the immediate result of Restart interviews. Many other people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. Independent researchers who have studied the Restart interview programme have all concluded that this indirect effect is extremely significant.

  I hope this in helpful.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants were(a) referred to 1–2–1 interviews in 1995–96, (b) attended and completed these interviews and (c) received sanctions for non-attendance or failure to complete their programme. [35280]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many people were referred to and completed 1–2–1 interviews in 1995–96 and how many received benefit sanctions for non-attendance or failure to attend the interviews. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.

  You will see the information set out in the table. It may also be helpful if I explain that 1–2–1 was piloted in 1994/95 and introduced nationally from April 1995 for 18–24 year olds unemployed a year. It involves placing people on a caseload operated by an ES adviser for up to six interviews. This caseload approach provides an extended period for advisers to support clients' job search and to help them develop realistic plans to return to work. Clients are given information about jobs and other opportunities and extensive job search advice and help, including help with the preparation of CVs, the completion of application forms and interview techniques. The interviews also provide an opportunity to confirm that clients understand and are meeting the conditions under which benefit is
  294
  paid. In April 1996 the initiative was expanded; to provide 239,000 opportunities from the previous 95,000. The extra places has enabled help to be extended to clients over 25 and people at other unemployment durations.

  1995–96

  Total

  1–2–1 Cases opened

  67,557

  1–2–1 Cases completed

  40,921

  Number of Benefit Sanctions applied

  5,423

  For those 1–2–1 is unable to help, a linked four week course, Workwise, provides further help with job search and confidence building. Workwise is also made available immediately, in preference to 1–2–1, for those clients to whom it is more appropriate.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the performance of the Employment Service against its targets in 1995–96. [35289]

  Mr. Forth
  The Employment Service performed very well in 1995–96, meeting or exceeding 10 of the 12 targets set in the annual performance agreement. A total of 1,935,300 unemployed people were placed into jobs, against an annual target of 1.9 million. This represents 58,500 more placings than in 1994–95. Performance against all the targets for 1995–96 is set out in the following table:

  Employment service performance against target April 1995 to March 1996

  Annual performance targets

  Target levels

  Performance

  1. To place 1.9 million unemployed people into work at a planned unit cost of £185, assuming 2.65 million vacancies are notified

  1.9 million

  1,935,300

  2. 29.5 per cent, of total unemployed placings achieved to be long-term claimants

  29.5 per cent. (560,500)

  29.2 per cent (565,800)

  3. 27 per cent, of total unemployed placings achieved to be people in inner cities

  27 per cent. (513,000)

  27.5 per cent. (531,400)

  4. 55 per cent, positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 12 month advisory interview

  55 per cent.

  57 per cent.

  5. 45 per cent, positive outcomes for unemployed claimants invited to a 24 month advisory interview

  45 per cent.

  49 per cent.

  6. 80 per cent, of starts on training for work to be referrals from the Employment Service

  80 per cent.

  83 per cent.

  7. 9.5 per cent, of initial claim enquiries not to be pursued as new claims

  9.5 per cent.

  10.8 per cent.

  295

  Employment service performance against target April 1995 to March 1996

  Annual performance targets

  Target levels

  Performance

  8. 185,000 submissions to adjudication where there is an arguable case, with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work

  185,000

  273,900

  9. At a planned unit cost per claimant of £15.80 for all benefit claims

  —despatch 75 per cent, of first payments of unemployment benefit within 12 days of claim

  75 per cent.

  74.6 per cent.

  —97 per cent, of unemployment benefit payments by value to be correct

  97 per cent.

  96.7 per cent.

  10. 4 per cent, of total unemployed placings achieved to be people with disabilities

  4 per cent. (76,000)

  4.5 per cent. (87,400)

  11. 82,000 claims to be withdrawn of those suspected of obtaining benefit by deception following fraud investigation

  82,000

  88,500

  12. To achieve £58 million in efficiency savings

  £58 million

  £74.63 million

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for career development loans there have been in each year since 1990–91; and what is the projection for the current year. [35277]

  Mr. Paice
  The following table sets out the information requested:

  Year

  Loans approved

  Loans rejected

  1990–91

  8,054

  1,767

  1991–92

  10,432

  4,260

  1992–93

  10,230

  3,978

  1993–94

  12,159

  4,966

  1994–95

  15,169

  4,790

  1995–96

  13,287

  5,129

  The target for 1996–97 is 16,000 approved applications.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unemployed recipients of career development loans entered full-time employment on completion of their training. [35279]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the number of trainees in work following training is obtained from a follow-up survey of trainees, which has been conducted since the start of the scheme in 1988. On the basis of this ongoing survey, 61 per cent. of career development loans supported trainees who were unemployed prior to training have found work within three months of completing their course.
  296
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many recipients of career development loans have been served with default notices; and what proportion are unemployed. [35278]

  Mr. Paice
  At 31 May 1996, the number of career development loans which have been defaulted is 9,619 out of 78,874 loans issued. Information about numbers of defaulters who are unemployed is not available.

  Project Work Pilots
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which organisations have been awarded contracts to run work experience placements for the project work pilots. [35285]

  Mr. Forth
  The Employment Service agreed contracts with nine organisations. In the Hull pilot they are:

  Q-Mat

  The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers

  GrandMet Trust

  Instant Muscle

  Forum for Work

  and in the Kent pilot:

  Community Link

  Career Ahead

  Training Network

  GrandMet Trust

  Participants will be referred to placements with these organisations later this month.

  Training for Work Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the weekly average number of working hours of participants in the training for work scheme; what is the current level of training premium they receive; when this figure was last reviewed; and what plans she has to increase this figure. [35149]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no figures available for the weekly average number of working hours for training for work trainees. The Government's agreement with training and enterprise councils stipulates that trainees shall have planned training of 21 hours or more in each seven-day period. Trainees receive an allowance based on the benefit they were receiving the day they joined the programme plus a premium of £10 per week. Training allowances are increased annually in line with benefit payments. The £10 premium was introduced in 1988. My right hon. Friend has no plans to increase this premium.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances claimants of jobseeker's allowance will have the right to a copy of their jobseeker's agreement prior to the new claim interview. [35287]

  Mr. Forth
  A jobseeker's agreement can be drawn up only after a full discussion between the jobseeker and an Employment Service adviser. This will normally take place at the new claim interview, and until then the jobseeker will be treated as having an agreement. People who are already claiming when the jobseeker's allowance
  297
  is introduced in October 1996 will also initially be treated as having an agreement, and the actual agreement will be drawn up at their next advisory interview. If a new claim for JSA is made within 14 days of a previous period of entitlement, the previous agreement will continue to have effect, but otherwise there are no circumstances in which an agreement can exist prior to the new claim interview.

  Community Action
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants attended community action in each year since 1993; and what outcomes were achieved by leavers in each year. [35282]

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

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about participants and outcomes on the Community Action programme.

  The information you requested is in the tables attached.

  Community Action started in July 1993 and recruitment to the programme ceased at the end of December 1995. Data relates to the three operational years over which the programme operated.

  Information on outcomes is based on follow up surveys of leavers. Consequently, data is not yet available for participants who have left the programme more recently.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Community action participants

  Operational year

  Number of starters

  1993–94

  23,389

  1994–95

  47,646

  1995–96

  28,770

  Unit cost £

  Primary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Isles of Scilly

  2,511

  2,873

  3,155

  3,140

  3,281

  3,347

  3,574

  Tower Hamlets

  2,372

  2,799

  2,986

  3,035

  2,975

  3,035

  3,052

  Lambeth

  2,311

  2,750

  2,950

  3,084

  2,886

  3,066

  3,024

  Hackney

  2,373

  2,760

  2,918

  3,126

  2,976

  3,076

  2,991

  Southwark

  2,174

  2,545

  2,695

  2,789

  2,805

  2,947

  2,926

  Islington

  2,147

  2,548

  2,701

  2,824

  2,861

  2,888

  2,865

  Camden

  2,065

  2,380

  2,522

  2,724

  2,744

  2,900

  2,841

  Hammersmith

  2,108

  2,444

  2,593

  2,815

  2,716

  2,904

  2,808

  Lewisham

  2,000

  2,368

  2,537

  2,637

  2,685

  2,777

  2,803

  City of London

  1,827

  2,172

  2,264

  3,015

  3,133

  2,901

  2,736

  Greenwich

  1,878

  2,224

  2,377

  2,424

  2,583

  2,711

  2.716

  Westminster

  2,133

  2,473

  2,593

  2,741

  2,622

  2,750

  2,667

  Wandsworth

  2,027

  2,414

  2,562

  2,674

  2,549

  2,683

  2,654

  Haringey

  2,035

  2,407

  2,576

  2,670

  2,618

  2,589

  2,631

  Kensington

  2,111

  2,500

  2,611

  2,755

  2,645

  2,852

  2,628

  Newham

  2,020

  2,361

  2,529

  2,586

  2,603

  2,581

  2,620

  Brent

  2,004

  2,320

  2,458

  2,542

  2,454

  2,500

  2,554

  Waltham Forest

  1,886

  2,186

  2,316

  2,404

  2,440

  2,434

  2,484

  Ealing

  1,848

  2,139

  2,294

  2,398

  2,356

  2,350

  2,378

  Hounslow

  1,726

  2,009

  2,134

  2,165

  2,233

  2,260

  2,341

  Manchester

  1,777

  2,052

  2,150

  2,206

  2,214

  2,258

  2,320

  Enfield

  1,693

  1,969

  2,088

  2,126

  2,208

  2,234

  2,289

  Croydon

  1,691

  1,961

  2,097

  2,143

  2,202

  2,243

  2,277

  Barking

  1,689

  1,946

  2,074

  2,095

  2,219

  2,231

  2,273

  Redbridge

  1,630

  1,877

  2,008

  2,093

  2,172

  2,164

  2,241

  Knowsley

  1,682

  1,904

  2,050

  2,084

  2,201

  2,186

  2,231

  Merton

  1,675

  1,931

  2,056

  2,121

  2,163

  2,184

  2,216

  298

  Table 2: Community action outcomes

  Percentage

  Operational year

  Entries into employment

  Other outcomes1

  1993–94

  16.8

  9.3

  1994–95

  14.5

  12.3

  1995–961

  14.0

  9.1

  1 Other outcomes are entries into training for work or full-time education.

  2 Data for April to November 1995 (latest available).

  Learning for Work Programme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of evaluation for the learning for work programme. [35286]

  Mr. Paice
  Copies of the evaluation reports were placed in the Library on 1 February.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by order of the sum involved, the figure per child represented by the 1996–97 education standard spending assessment for(a) primary and (b) secondary school children in each local education authority in England and Wales; and what were the figures for each year since 1979–80. [34442]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: The information requested for English local education authorities from 1990–91 to 1996–97 is set out in the following table. Comparable figures are not available for the previous system of local government finance that applied before 1990–91. Figures for Welsh local education authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  299

  Unit cost £

  Primary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Liverpool

  1,717

  1,967

  2,061

  2,113

  2,141

  2,110

  2,203

  Barnet

  1,670

  1,937

  2,069

  2,130

  2,161

  2,197

  2,203

  Hillingdon

  1,568

  1,822

  1,923

  1,983

  2,120

  2,133

  2,195

  Harrow

  1,629

  1,888

  1,995

  2,019

  2,110

  2,147

  2,194

  Birmingham

  1,737

  1,974

  2,072

  2,131

  2,093

  2,083

  2,173

  Sutton

  1,535

  1,777

  1,902

  1,972

  2,085

  2,093

  2,162

  Bexley

  1,524

  1,795

  1,908

  1,972

  2,068

  2,064

  2,124

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,109

  Kingston

  1,558

  1,809

  1,917

  1,957

  2,052

  2,064

  2,108

  Havering

  1,490

  1,732

  1,828

  1,878

  2,057

  2,023

  2,104

  Newcastle

  1,603

  1,831

  1,908

  1,949

  2,012

  2,045

  2,104

  Wolverhampton

  1,697

  1,924

  2,003

  2,030

  1,997

  1,995

  2,081

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,080

  Hertfordshire

  1,483

  1,716

  1,842

  1,884

  1,970

  2,010

  2,074

  Bromley

  1,551

  1,793

  1,883

  1,938

  2,039

  2,013

  2,074

  Isle of Wight

  1,506

  1,751

  1,875

  1,940

  2,018

  2,016

  2,070

  Bradford

  1,627

  1,864

  1,971

  2,022

  1,993

  1,986

  2,070

  Bedfordshire

  1,543

  1,773

  1,896

  1,976

  2,011

  1,995

  2,057

  Essex

  1,477

  1,691

  1,815

  1,882

  1,972

  1,989

  2,055

  Sandwell

  1,614

  1,818

  1,910

  1,960

  1,976

  1,986

  2,051

  Coventry

  1,583

  1,792

  1,892

  1,909

  1,948

  1,984

  2,049

  Salford

  1,569

  1,756

  1,853

  1,919

  1,971

  1,975

  2,047

  Berkshire

  1,505

  1,738

  1,855

  1,906

  1,953

  1,988

  2,047

  East Sussex

  1,480

  1,698

  1,825

  1,941

  1,986

  2,000

  2,043

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,042

  Richmond

  1,572

  1,826

  1,932

  1,982

  2,001

  2,015

  2,040

  Surrey

  1,475

  1,704

  1,828

  1,857

  1,921

  1,998

  2,040

  Doncaster

  1,526

  1,754

  1,861

  1,905

  1,943

  1,934

  2,039

  Kent

  1,477

  1,695

  1,807

  1,886

  1,960

  1,968

  2,032

  Wirral

  1,551

  1,788

  1,869

  1,891

  1,959

  1,948

  2,024

  Bucks

  1,498

  1,720

  1,826

  1,890

  1,962

  1,966

  2,021

  Rochdale

  1,537

  1,750

  1,805

  1,863

  1,917

  1,932

  2,017

  South Tyneside

  1,545

  1,756

  1,836

  1,825

  1,923

  1,932

  2,012

  City of Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,011

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,010

  Oldham

  1,551

  1,790

  1,877

  1,866

  1,910

  1,919

  2,008

  Gateshead

  1,480

  1,712

  1,828

  1,886

  1,952

  1,937

  2,006

  Sunderland

  1,521

  1,736

  1,805

  1,833

  1,925

  1,919

  2,001

  Sheffield

  1,503

  1,725

  1,815

  1,874

  1,936

  1,922

  1,996

  Walsall

  1,539

  1,725

  1,813

  1,829

  1,881

  1,894

  1,991

  Hampshire

  1,469

  1,678

  1,788

  1,867

  1,929

  1,930

  1,989

  West Sussex

  1,437

  1,656

  1,766

  1,813

  1,918

  1,932

  1,987

  Calderdale

  1,506

  1,710

  1,808

  1,869

  1,905

  1,896

  1,986

  Oxfordshire

  1,473

  1,696

  1,798

  1,872

  1,934

  1,933

  1,985

  Cornwall

  1,489

  1,700

  1,799

  1,831

  1,878

  1,893

  1,984

  Durham

  1,496

  1,704

  1,787

  1,805

  1,879

  1,884

  1,983

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,982

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,981

  Rotherham

  1,479

  1,700

  1,796

  1,819

  1,856

  1,871

  1,978

  Nottinghamshire

  1,501

  1,723

  1,821

  1,851

  1,872

  1,883

  1,973

  Kirklees

  1,527

  1,746

  1,853

  1,914

  1,912

  1,900

  1,971

  Norfolk

  1,472

  1,682

  1,789

  1,815

  1,863

  1,881

  1,971

  Lincolnshire

  1,505

  1,713

  1,809

  1,850

  1,874

  1,873

  1,969

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,965

  Lancashire

  1,491

  1,705

  1,805

  1,822

  1,867

  1,877

  1,964

  Cambridge

  1,458

  1,663

  1,764

  1,802

  1,847

  1,876

  1,962

  Bolton

  1,517

  1,712

  1,815

  1,863

  1,869

  1,866

  1,958

  Devon

  1,454

  1,661

  1,762

  1,817

  1,865

  1,879

  1,958

  Cumbria

  1,455

  1,664

  1,763

  1,820

  1,862

  1,856

  1,957

  Sefton

  1,463

  1,679

  1,769

  1,788

  1,879

  1,875

  1,955

  Bamsley

  1,451

  1,672

  1,765

  1,793

  1,854

  1,869

  1,955

  Leicestershire

  1,476

  1,687

  1,785

  1,821

  1,855

  1,864

  1,954

  Shropshire

  1,489

  1,685

  1,774

  1,811

  1,850

  1,862

  1,952

  Leeds

  1,499

  1,719

  1,813

  1,846

  1,868

  1,864

  1,947

  North Tyneside

  1,451

  1,684

  1,797

  1,779

  1,828

  1,845

  1,946

  St. Helens

  1,433

  1,656

  1,729

  1,750

  1,851

  1,845

  1,945

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,940

  Northumberland

  1,435

  1,641

  1,743

  1,784

  1,838

  1,825

  1,935

  Somerset

  1,439

  1,643

  1,745

  1,781

  1,833

  1,846

  1,933

  Northamptonshire

  1,454

  1,655

  1,759

  1,796

  1,823

  1,836

  1,927

  Wiltshire

  1,446

  1,657

  1,750

  1,787

  1,824

  1,835

  1,921

  300 301

  Unit cost £

  Primary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,427

  1,621

  1,712

  1,734

  1,798

  1,827

  1,914

  Gloucestershire

  1,440

  1,635

  1,731

  1,772

  1,819

  1,836

  1,912

  Derbyshire

  1,431

  1,618

  1,706

  1,739

  1,801

  1,812

  1,911

  Wakefield

  1,435

  1,668

  1,761

  1,771

  1,816

  1,825

  1,910

  Dorset

  1,401

  1,602

  1,714

  1,771

  1,828

  1,833

  1,909

  Bury

  1,408

  1,595

  1,681

  1,699

  1,786

  1,813

  1,909

  Tameside

  1,486

  1,694

  1,779

  1,785

  1,827

  1,831

  1,908

  Warkwickshire

  1,433

  1,635

  1,723

  1,754

  1,801

  1,822

  1,906

  Trafford

  1,454

  1,647

  1,745

  1,758

  1,798

  1,830

  1,905

  Wigan

  1,400

  1,588

  1,687

  1,727

  1,814

  1,809

  1,905

  Cheshire

  1,418

  1,611

  1,703

  1,746

  1,818

  1,817

  1,903

  Suffolk

  1,425

  1,628

  1,726

  1,762

  1,807

  1,820

  1,901

  Dudley

  1,411

  1,604

  1,700

  1,722

  1,802

  1,813

  1,896

  Staffordshire

  1,409

  1,609

  1,704

  1,744

  1,792

  1,805

  1,894

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,890

  York

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,888

  Bath and north east Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,880

  Solihull

  1,410

  1,600

  1.721

  1,752

  1,808

  1,798

  1,872

  Stockport

  1,385

  1,586

  1,669

  1,689

  1,779

  1,775

  1,863

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,863

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,834

  Avon

  1,428

  1,634

  1,728

  1,779

  1,835

  1,838

  —

  Cleveland

  1,569

  1,795

  1,894

  1,908

  1,942

  1,940

  —

  Humberside

  1,513

  1,724

  1,817

  1,849

  1,891

  1,891

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1,445

  1,649

  1,738

  1,756

  1,805

  1,827

  —

  England

  1,550

  1,780

  1,889

  1,940

  1,985

  2,000

  2,053

  Inner London

  2,148

  2,530

  2,692

  2,812

  2,777

  2,891

  2,865

  Outer London

  1,755

  2,025

  2,146

  2,206

  2,229

  2,238

  2,296

  Mets

  1,510

  1,733

  1,841

  1,897

  1,961

  1,973

  2,038

  Shires

  1,462

  1,670

  1,766

  1,801

  1,848

  1,857

  1,944

  Isles of Scilly

  1,506

  1,710

  1,808

  1,869

  1,905

  1,896

  1,986

  Unit cost £

  Secondary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Isles of Scilly

  3,558

  4,155

  4,601

  4,545

  4,570

  4,381

  4,794

  Tower Hamlets

  3,386

  4,079

  4,385

  4,425

  4,178

  4,034

  4,051

  Lambeth

  3,298

  4,007

  4,331

  4,497

  4,052

  4,463

  4,431

  Hackney

  3,387

  4,020

  4,283

  4,558

  4,180

  4,359

  4,207

  Southwark

  3,100

  3,704

  3,953

  4,062

  3,937

  4,090

  3,933

  Islington

  3,061

  3,708

  3,961

  4,114

  4,017

  3,963

  3,889

  Camden

  2,943

  3,462

  3,696

  3,966

  3,850

  3,648

  3,596

  Hammersmith

  3,005

  3,556

  3,802

  4,101

  3,811

  3,777

  3,701

  Lewisham

  2,849

  3,443

  3,718

  3,837

  3,766

  3,778

  3,769

  City of London

  2,594

  3,147

  3,306

  4,382

  4,392

  9,055

  7,422

  Greenwich

  2,674

  3,231

  3,480

  3,524

  3,621

  3,589

  3,620

  Westminster

  3,041

  3,598

  3,802

  3,991

  3,677

  3,637

  3,470

  Wandsworth

  2,889

  3,511

  3,756

  3,892

  3,572

  3,617

  3,551

  Haringey

  2,902

  3,504

  3,778

  3,889

  3,674

  3,583

  3,599

  Kensington

  3,009

  3,638

  3,828

  4,011

  3,710

  4,071

  3,605

  Newham

  2,879

  3,436

  3,709

  3,766

  3,653

  3,439

  3,490

  Brent

  2,856

  3,375

  3,604

  3,701

  3,441

  3,448

  3,504

  Waltham Forest

  2,686

  3,178

  3,393

  3,498

  3,421

  3,261

  3,348

  Ealing

  2,632

  3,109

  3,360

  3,488

  3,302

  3,224

  3,246

  Hounslow

  2,456

  2,917

  3,122

  3,145

  3,128

  2,959

  3,072

  Manchester

  2,533

  2,985

  3,153

  3,211

  3,107

  3,072

  3,141

  Enfield

  2,407

  2,858

  3,054

  3,088

  3,091

  2,941

  3,034

  Croydon

  2,405

  2,846

  3,068

  3,112

  3,083

  3,050

  3,089

  Barking

  2,402

  2,824

  3,034

  3,042

  3,107

  2,951

  3,057

  Redbridge

  2,316

  2,722

  2,936

  3,038

  3,040

  2,884

  2,970

  Knowsley

  2,395

  2,767

  3,003

  3,032

  3,087

  2,986

  3,055

  Merton

  2,381

  2,802

  3,007

  3,080

  3,028

  2,904

  2,948

  Liverpool

  2,445

  2,860

  3,019

  3,075

  3,002

  2,821

  2,924

  Barnet

  2,374

  2,812

  3,027

  3,094

  3,024

  2,883

  2,897

  Hillingdon

  2,228

  2,642

  2,809

  2,878

  2,967

  2,838

  2,930

  302 303

  Secondary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Harrow

  2,315

  2,739

  2,916

  2,930

  2,952

  2,898

  2,951

  Birmingham

  2,475

  2,871

  3,037

  3,101

  2,934

  2,794

  2,907

  Sutton

  2,180

  2,576

  2,779

  2,860

  2,916

  2,722

  2,829

  Bexley

  2,163

  2,602

  2,787

  2,861

  2,893

  2,734

  2,831

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,859

  Kingston

  2,213

  2,622

  2,801

  2,839

  2,870

  2,720

  2,787

  Havering

  2,114

  2,508

  2,668

  2,722

  2,877

  2,686

  2,816

  Newcastle

  2,282

  2,659

  2,792

  2,832

  2,820

  2,717

  2,793

  Wolverhampton

  2,417

  2,796

  2,934

  2,952

  2,798

  2,691

  2,807

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,789

  Hertfordshire

  2,105

  2,486

  2,689

  2,732

  2,754

  2,663

  2,754

  Bromley

  2,203

  2,598

  2,750

  2,811

  2,851

  2,678

  2,744

  Isle of Wight

  2,138

  2,537

  2,739

  2,813

  2,819

  2,696

  2,755

  Bradford

  2,316

  2,708

  2,885

  2,940

  2,791

  2,679

  2,777

  Bedfordshire

  2,193

  2,570

  2,772

  2,867

  2,812

  2,664

  2,750

  Essex

  2,097

  2,449

  2,650

  2,729

  2,756

  2,647

  2,749

  Sandwell

  2,297

  2,641

  2,796

  2,849

  2,768

  2,642

  2,734

  Coventry

  2,253

  2,602

  2,769

  2,773

  2,728

  2,648

  2,731

  Salford

  2,232

  2,549

  2,711

  2,788

  2,762

  2,652

  2,747

  Berkshire

  2,137

  2,519

  2,709

  2,764

  2,730

  2,664

  2,733

  East Sussex

  2,101

  2,460

  2,666

  2,816

  2,776

  2,672

  2,728

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,698

  Richmond

  2,234

  2,648

  2,823

  2,875

  2,797

  2,635

  2,660

  Surrey

  2,093

  2,464

  2,667

  2,691

  2,684

  2,679

  2,723

  Doncaster

  2,169

  2,544

  2,720

  2,765

  2,717

  2,572

  2,719

  Kent

  2,098

  2,455

  2,638

  2,734

  2,740

  2,620

  2,714

  Wirral

  2,207

  2,597

  2,735

  2,746

  2,744

  2,606

  2,690

  Bucks

  2,127

  2,492

  2,666

  2,740

  2,741

  2,630

  2,715

  Rochdale

  2,187

  2,540

  2,639

  2,706

  2,684

  2,608

  2,711

  South Tyneside

  2,197

  2,549

  2,685

  2,649

  2,692

  2,562

  2,681

  City of Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,759

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,673

  Oldham

  2,206

  2,599

  2,746

  2,709

  2,674

  2,530

  2,646

  Gateshead

  2,104

  2,484

  2,673

  2,739

  2,733

  2,601

  2,691

  Sunderland

  2,163

  2,520

  2,640

  2,661

  2,695

  2,549

  2,673

  Sheffield

  2,137

  2,503

  2,655

  2,722

  2,711

  2,565

  2,679

  Walsall

  2,189

  2,503

  2,652

  2,656

  2,633

  2,501

  2,634

  Hampshire

  2,086

  2,432

  2,611

  2,707

  2,696

  2,575

  2,657

  West Sussex

  2,039

  2,398

  2,578

  2,628

  2,679

  2,571

  2,647

  Calderdale

  2,141

  2,481

  2,643

  2,714

  2,665

  2,527

  2,650

  Oxfordshire

  2,091

  2,456

  2,624

  2,714

  2,700

  2,575

  2,625

  Cornwall

  2,114

  2,463

  2,627

  2,654

  2,622

  2,522

  2,644

  Durham

  2,125

  2,471

  2,611

  2,618

  2,627

  2,512

  2,649

  North east Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,638

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,622

  Rotherham

  2,102

  2,466

  2,625

  2,640

  2,596

  2,462

  2,609

  Nottinghamshire

  2,134

  2,499

  2,662

  2,687

  2,618

  2,506

  2,630

  Kirklees

  2,171

  2,533

  2,710

  2,779

  2,675

  2,539

  2,637

  Norfolk

  2,090

  2,437

  2,612

  2,632

  2,601

  2,508

  2,630

  Lincolnshire

  2,137

  2,482

  2,642

  2,682

  2,616

  2,483

  2,630

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,595

  Lancashire

  2,119

  2,472

  2,639

  2,644

  2,611

  2,502

  2,616

  Cambridge

  2,070

  2,409

  2,576

  2,613

  2,580

  2,508

  2,615

  Bolton

  2,158

  2,485

  2,654

  2,705

  2,616

  2,488

  2,603

  Devon

  2,064

  2,407

  2,574

  2,635

  2,605

  2,506

  2,609

  Cumbria

  2,066

  2,410

  2,575

  2,639

  2,600

  2,470

  2,598

  Sefton

  2,079

  2,435

  2,586

  2,596

  2,630

  2,492

  2,590

  Barnsley

  2,061

  2,425

  2,580

  2,602

  2,594

  2,489

  2,117

  Leicestershire

  2,097

  2,446

  2,608

  2,642

  2,593

  2,483

  2,601

  Shropshire

  2,114

  2,441

  2,589

  2,625

  2,583

  2,479

  2,596

  Leeds

  2,131

  2,494

  2,652

  2,680

  2,613

  2,480

  2,597

  North Tyneside

  2,063

  2,444

  2,628

  2,582

  2,557

  2,483

  2,620

  St. Helens

  2,035

  2,402

  2,527

  2,539

  2,590

  2,467

  2,609

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,650

  Northumberland

  2,036

  2,377

  2,544

  2,587

  2,566

  2,421

  2,582

  Somerset

  2,041

  2,379

  2,547

  2,582

  2,558

  2,489

  2,580

  Northamptonshire

  2,064

  2,398

  2,569

  2,604

  2,547

  2,448

  2,568

  Wiltshire

  2,053

  2,401

  2,555

  2,590

  2,546

  2,451

  2,561

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,026

  2,348

  2,500

  2,513

  2,511

  2,439

  2,556

  Gloucestershire

  2,044

  2,369

  2,528

  2,569

  2,541

  2,435

  2,542

  Derbyshire

  2,032

  2,345

  2,491

  2,522

  2,516

  2,415

  2,555

  304 305

  Unit cost £

  Secondary

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Wakefield

  2,038

  2,418

  2,574

  2,569

  2,539

  2,421

  2,536

  Dorset

  1,988

  2,321

  2,502

  2,569

  2,554

  2,440

  2,536

  Bury

  2,001

  2,313

  2,456

  2,464

  2,498

  2,405

  2,517

  Tameside

  2,113

  2,458

  2,601

  2,590

  2,556

  2,428

  2,530

  Warwickshire

  2,034

  2,369

  2,516

  2,543

  2,516

  2,433

  2,543

  Trafford

  2,066

  2,389

  2,550

  2,551

  2,515

  2,420

  2,518

  Wigan

  1,989

  2,302

  2,464

  2,505

  2,537

  2,391

  2,523

  Cheshire

  2,013

  2,334

  2,487

  2,532

  2,542

  2,408

  2,529

  Suffolk

  2,022

  2,358

  2,520

  2,553

  2,522

  2,422

  2,538

  Dudley

  2,005

  2,326

  2,484

  2,498

  2,521

  2,408

  2,526

  Staffordshire

  2,000

  2,332

  2,489

  2,528

  2,504

  2,398

  2,520

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,517

  York

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,533

  Bath and north east Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,462

  Solihull

  2,002

  2,319

  2,514

  2,542

  2,527

  2,376

  2,468

  Stockport

  1,967

  2,299

  2,437

  2,449

  2,484

  2,374

  2,482

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,462

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,442

  Avon

  2,028

  2,369

  2,524

  2,582

  2,566

  2,460

  —

  Cleveland

  2,231

  2,606

  2,772

  2,772

  2,719

  2,589

  —

  Humberside

  2,150

  2,500

  2,656

  2,684

  2,644

  2,509

  —

  North Yorkshire

  2,050

  2,387

  2,537

  2,544

  2,518

  2,422

  —

  England

  2,192

  2,569

  2,746

  2,800

  2,765

  2,655

  2,728

  Inner London

  3,058

  3,676

  3,939

  4,091

  3,894

  3,889

  3,834

  Outer London

  2,493

  2,935

  3,136

  3,203

  3,120

  2,993

  3,067

  Mets

  2,144

  2,510

  2,688

  2,751

  2,742

  2,630

  2,722

  Shires

  2,076

  2,420

  2,580

  2,612

  2,582

  2,472

  2,589

  2,507

  Isles of Scilly

  2,141

  2,481

  2,643

  2,714

  2,665

  2,527

  2,650

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted since 1979 of a crime involving violence against the person served the greater part of their sentence in an open prison. [34428]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners convicted since 1979 of a crime involving violence against the person who had served the greater part of their sentence in an open prison.

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

  Green Issues
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the green issues mentioned in the list of ministerial responsibilities for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [34343]

  Mr. Howard
  Green issues in the Home Office are the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch. They consist of the green housekeeping strategy, which sets out the Department's policy on conserving 306
  natural resources and reducing environmental pollution. The strategy is supported by action plans incorporating recycling and energy efficiency schemes and a range of other green housekeeping initiatives.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times during the last 12 months prison officers were required to work a double shift at Doncaster prison; and what was the reason for the requirement; [35006]

  (2) how many prison officers have been seconded during the last 12 months to Doncaster prison; from which prison establishment they came; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was informed of the seconded prison officers working at Doncaster prison when it visited the prison; [35014]

  (3) how many prison officers have been seconded during the last 12 months from Doncaster prison; to which prison establishment they went; and if Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons was informed of the Doncaster seconded prison officers when it visited the prison. [35012]

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

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about staffing at Doncaster prison.
  307
  Premier Prison Services' policy is not to operate double shifts and there is no record of staff working double shifts, neither have any prison officers been seconded to Doncaster prison in the last 12 months. However, five prisoner custody officers, who were attending a control and restraint course at the national training centre on 15 November 1995, were seconded to Full Sutton prison for two days to assist in quelling a disturbance. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons was made aware of this incident and the use of Premier Prison Services' staff during the inspection in March 1996.

  Royal Family (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost in each of the past five years in policing events attended by members of the royal family. [35018]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of illicit drugs have been made by police and customs from 1990 to date; and what is the estimated value of the drugs seized. [35051]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested on the number of seizures of controlled drugs made by police and customs from 1990 to 1994 is contained in tables 1.1 and 2.2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1994", copies of which are in the Library.

  In addition, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise informed us that the following number of seizures of controlled drugs were made by it during 1995:

  Heroin: 185

  Cocaine: 496

  All synthetic drugs: 291

  of which amphetamines: 158

  MDMA: 133

  Cannabis (all forms): 6,049.

  Data for 1995 for police forces will be published later in the year.

  Chiefs of Police Conference
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the paper presented by Judge Goldstein to the conference of chiefs of police on 17 June; and if he will make a statement. [34656]

  Mr. Sackville
  Courts in this country have powers to ensure that, in appropriate cases, drug misusing offenders receive treatment as part of a community sentence. Treatment for minor offenders is also arranged through arrest referral schemes set up between the police and drug treatment agencies.

  In the light of Judge Goldstein's paper on the American system of drug courts, the scope for maximising the use of non-custodial drug treatment options is currently under review.
  308

  Racial Discrimination (Drugs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has recently undertaken of the extend of racial discrimination in respect of drugs enforcement and penalties. [34658]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police have conducted ethnic monitoring of stops and searches since April 1993, and ethnic monitoring was extended from 1 April this year to include arrests and cautions, among other matters. Drugs enforcement is not separately identified in ethnic monitoring.

  International Association of Women Police Training Conference
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will renew his offer of grant aid to the International Association of Women Police training conference in Birmingham on 31 August; and if he will make a statement. [34887]

  Mr. Maclean
  No such offer of grant has ever been made or withdrawn. This was confirmed in writing to the organisers of the conference last year.

  Missing Patients
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since March to ensure that all police forces have formal missing patients procedures in co-operation with local hospitals and social services departments to include a system for inquiry into cases of repeated absconding by patients with restriction orders. [34608]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the national health service executive are currently discussing this issue.

  Police (Training)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since March to ensure that police forces nationally adopt training and procedures for dealing with mentally ill people comparable to those currently practised by the Metropolitan police. [34603]

  Mr. Maclean
  The national director of police training circulated the Metropolitan police distance learning document "Understanding Mental Disorder" to all police forces in 1995. A further Metropolitan police document was cited as an example of good practice.

  The national director has invited the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to conduct a series of conferences at police training centres around the country, dealing with the vulnerability of the mentally disordered suspect.

  Prisoners' Records
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since March to review the confidentiality of prison medical records. [34605]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service accepted the recommendation of the independent inquiry report into the case of Jason Mitchell that the question of confidentiality
  309
  of prison medical records should be fully reviewed. It will, as that report recommended, shortly be consulting the General Medical Council and other professional bodies for their views.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken since March in respect of the role of C3 division acting in relation to information relating to(a) patients' index offences, (b) ensuring that the procedures of C3 division are in line with the Home Office practice in relation to discretionary lifer powers, (c) reviewing the notes for guidance of social supervisors to take account of potential conflicts in the roles of social workers arising from changes in community care, mental health and criminal justice legislation and (d) updating the case worker guide to require information from all who will bear responsibility for patients after care. [34631]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since March, the role of the mental health unit—formerly C3 division—of the Home Office in these four areas of its caseworking functions in respect of restricted patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 has been reviewed. We have concluded that the proposal that the mental health unit should act as a repository of information about patients' index offences should be addressed as part of a wider review of risk assessment already under way. No changes in the mental health unit's practices in relation to the other elements of the question are proposed. Comparison between mental health review tribunals and discretionary lifer panels, and the statements provided to each, are not valid; the social supervisor's role in respect of restricted patients is not subject to the conflict of role implied in the question; and the caseworker guide already requires information from all parties who will be responsible for the supervision of conditionally discharged patients in the community.

  Vehicle Purchases (Metropolitan Police)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Mercedes vehicles the Metropolitan police has purchased in the current financial year and in each of the past two years. [34866]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner that the Metropolitan police have not purchased any Mercedes vehicles in the current financial year, that six were acquired for evaluation in 1994–95, and that 40 were purchased in 1995–96.

  Crown Court Witness Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support services are made available by the Crown court witness service to victims and other witnesses. [34881]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Crown court witness service is run by Victim Support and funded by the Home office to help victims and witnesses through the stress of attending court. It provides a range of services, including general information, pre-trial familiarisation visits, explaining how the court works, supporting witnesses before, during and after they have given evidence, and linking witnesses to other sources of support.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) victims and (b) other witnesses have used Coventry Crown court witness
  310
  service since its establishment; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of witnesses appearing in Coventry Crown court. [34882]

  Mr. Maclean
  Victim Support advises that the Coventry Crown Court witness service has helped 777 people since September 1994. The Crown Prosecution Service advises that information about the total number of witnesses could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Appropriate Adult System
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study has been undertaken since March of the appropriate adult system in criminal justice; and what plans he has to extend its role. [34611]

  Mr. Maclean
  An appropriate adults review group was set up in 1994 in response to a recommendation of the royal commission on criminal justice. The group reported last year. The Home Office is consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers before issuing guidelines to the police service in response to the report. The review group did not recommend an extension of the role of appropriate adults.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims are outstanding for compensation under the pay book scheme for firearms recommended for compensation under the terms of the Firearms Act 1988; and what is the value claimed in each case. [34836]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The Department has considered all claims made under the Government buy-in scheme for weapons which became prohibited by virtue of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and has advised the claimants of the outcome. Offers have been made to all claimants entitled to receive compensation.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the agenda and minutes of a meeting held at the Home Office on 30 November 1987 between officials of the firearms division and representations of the International Shooting Sportspersons Liaison Committee. [35291]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have been unable to locate details of the meeting referred to. Routine papers are destroyed after five years.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an index of all Home Office letters, circulars, guidance and memorandums to the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and for Scotland since 1967 relevant to the administration of the Firearms Acts of 1968, 1988., 1992 and 1994 indicating the number or reference of the letter or document, together with the date of issue and title. [34837]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office does not issue guidance on firearms administration to either the Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales or to the Association of Chief Police Officers for
  311
  Scotland. An index of correspondence and letters of consultation with these two organisations does not exist and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an index of all Home Office circular letters to police authorities since 1967 relevant to the administration of the Firearms Acts of 1968, 1988, 1992 and 1994 indicating the number or reference of the circular together with the date of issue and title. [34839]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police authorities receive copies of Home Office circulars to chief officers of police, an index to which is already in the Library. I am not aware of any other documentation relating to firearms administration which has been issued to police authorities.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library an index of all Home Department circular letters, to chief officers of police since 1967 relevant to the administration of the Firearms Acts of 1968, 1988, 1992 and 1994 indicating the number or reference of the circular together with the date of issue and title. [34841]

  Mr. Maclean
  Copies of those circular letters to chief officers relating to firearms administration which are readily available have already been supplied to the hon. Member. No comprehensive index of any such letters exists and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bombs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he intends to take to prevent the sale of materials which can be used to formulate explosive devices and bombs. [34842]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are extensive legal controls on the manufacture and possession of explosives, and these are kept under constant review. It would not be practical to restrict all materials which might be used in the manufacture of explosives. Many have other legitimate uses.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the representations he or Ministers in his Department have received from hon. Members on the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh; and if he will give the political affiliation of the hon. Members. [34956]

  Mr. Howard
  Two hundred and thirty-two letters have been received from 197 Members of Parliament about the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh. One hundred and twenty-five were received from Labour Members, 86 from Conservative Members, 14 from Liberal Democrat Members, two each from Ulster Unionist and Plaid Cymru Members, and one each from Members representing the Social Democratic and Labour party, Democratic Unionist party and the Scottish nationalists. In addition, 16 parliamentary questions and one early-day motion have been tabled by eight Labour Members.
  312
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests have been made on behalf of Mr. Raghbir Singh for him to make compassionate or family visits under escort; and how many were agreed to. [34987]

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. Singh has made two requests to make a compassionate or family visit. On 31 January, he was granted permission to attend his father-in-law's funeral. On 3 June, an application to attend his niece's wedding was rejected.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average time between the reception of letters over the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh and the issue of replies; and if replies to correspondents who were not hon. Members have been signed by Ministers. [34957]

  Mr. Howard
  A full answer is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Correspondence from members of the public is not routinely answered by Ministers.

  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners were found to be free of illegal drugs in each of the prisons in which drug tests have been undertaken in the past two years. [34955]

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

  Letter from Alan Walker to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of prisoners found to be free of illegal drugs in each of the prisons in which drug tests have been undertaken in the past two years.

  Mandatory drug testing was introduced in eight first phase establishments from February 1995. From September 1995 to March 1996 the process of implementation to all other establishments was undertaken. Data on the full prison estate is therefore only available from April 1996 to date.

  The attached table shows the percentage of prisoners providing a sample under the random mandatory drug testing programme which was found to be negative for drugs for each of the prisons from their date of commencement for mandatory drug testing to 10 June 1996. The number of prisoners tested to date at each prison is also shown.

  A copy of this table has been placed in the Library.

  Establishment

  Numbers tested

  Percentage negative

  Acklington

  210

  58.57

  Albany

  220

  91.82

  Aldington

  67

  68.66

  Ashwell

  93

  59.14

  Askham Grange

  57

  85.96

  Aylesbury

  96

  80.21

  Bedford

  107

  62.62

  Belmarsh

  385

  75.84

  Birmingham

  578

  64.36

  Blakenhurst

  199

  66.83

  Blantyre House

  55

  94.55

  Blundeston

  140

  64.29

  Brinsford

  233

  64.38

  Bristol

  705

  69.5

  313

  Establishment

  Numbers tested

  Percentage negative

  Brixton

  288

  87.15

  Brockhill

  41

  60.98

  Buckley Hall

  136

  52.94

  Bullingdon

  301

  60.80

  Bullwood Hall

  35

  77.14

  Camp Hill

  44

  68.19

  Canterbury

  196

  72.94

  Cardiff

  70

  51.76

  Castington

  180

  85.56

  Channings Wood

  80

  87.50

  Chelmsford

  143

  56.64

  Coldingley

  175

  61.11

  Cookham Wood

  92

  94.57

  Dartmoor

  177

  78.53

  Deerbolt

  185

  82.16

  Doncaster

  242

  66.94

  Dorchester

  77

  45.45

  Downview

  169

  95.27

  Drake Hall

  106

  67.92

  Durham

  321

  53.58

  East Sutton Park

  46

  84.78

  Elmley

  502

  64.34

  Erlestoke House

  126

  66.67

  Everthorpe

  292

  68.84

  Exeter

  83

  73.58

  Featherstone

  202

  47.03

  Feltham

  627

  64.91

  Ford

  130

  86.92

  Frankland

  150

  58.67

  Full Sutton

  166

  62.65

  Gloucester

  31

  64.52

  Gartree

  113

  69.91

  Glen Parva

  356

  77.81

  Garth

  363

  63.36

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  148

  80.41

  Guys Marsh

  119

  68.07

  Haslar

  86

  98.84

  Hatfield

  93

  91.40

  Haverigg

  378

  75.93

  Hewell Grange

  73

  90.41

  Highdown

  307

  67.10

  Highpoint

  255

  67.45

  Hindley

  166

  75.30

  Hollesley Bay

  133

  72.18

  Holloway

  632

  78.16

  Holme House

  391

  48.85

  Hull

  166

  67.47

  Huntercombe

  142

  78.17

  Kingston

  69

  84.06

  Kirkham

  168

  77.98

  Kirklevington Grange

  36

  86.11

  Lancaster

  128

  67.92

  Lancaster Farms

  264

  79.92

  Latchmere House

  100

  94.00

  Leeds

  79

  63.29

  Leicester

  74

  63.51

  Lewes

  157

  63.70

  Leyhill

  213

  84.04

  Lincoln

  243

  66.26

  Lindholme

  530

  65.10

  Littlehey

  384

  78.65

  Liverpool

  217

  66.82

  Long Lartin

  169

  63.31

  Low Newton

  55

  49.09

  Maidstone

  322

  72.95

  Manchester

  330

  70.91

  Moorland

  332

  82.92

  Morton Hall

  60

  88.33

  The Mount

  125

  68.00

  New Hall

  84

  80.95

  Northallerton

  155

  71.61

  North Sea Camp

  77

  77.92

  Norwich

  117

  57.26

  314

  Establishment

  Numbers tested

  Percentage negative

  Nottingham

  78

  63.85

  Onley

  213

  92.96

  Oxford

  36

  88.89

  Parkhurst

  68

  73.53

  Pentonville

  997

  61.08

  Portland

  242

  89.67

  Preston

  258

  60.85

  Ranby

  262

  59.54

  Reading

  97

  71.13

  Risley

  582

  65.30

  Rochester

  447

  94.85

  Send

  86

  77.91

  Shepton Mallet

  75

  48.00

  Shrewsbury

  52

  80.77

  Stafford

  356

  71.07

  Standford Hill

  93

  72.04

  Stocken

  156

  76.28

  Stoke Heath

  401

  85.29

  Styal

  203

  84.73

  Sudbury/Foston

  316

  84.18

  Swaleside

  358

  61.73

  Swansea

  85

  47.06

  Swinfen Hall

  99

  71.72

  Thorn Cross

  150

  77.33

  Usk

  147

  93.20

  The Verne

  23

  56.52

  Wakefield

  849

  79.15

  Wandsworth

  337

  90.21

  Wayland

  805

  65.34

  Wealstun

  202

  68.32

  Wellingborough

  118

  64.41

  Werrington

  60

  81 67

  Wetherby

  61

  95.08

  Whatton

  160

  92.50

  Whitemoor

  187

  81.82

  Winchester

  287

  72.82

  Wolds

  131

  73.28

  Woodhill

  205

  71.22

  Wormwood Scrubs

  372

  75.81

  Wymott

  174

  90.23

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated saving to business from the Deregulation (Employment in Bars) Order 1996. [34677]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We understand that public houses have high rates of staff turnover and recruitment costs of more than £100 million a year. Extension of apprenticeship schemes to 16 and 17-year-olds should provide high quality, well trained and motivated recruits. Many would be likely to remain in the industry, thereby leading to significantly lower recruitment costs and to efficiency savings.

  Morgan Report
  Ms Janet Report
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 524, if he will list the local authorities engaged in crime prevention partnership as endorsed in the Morgan report. [35136]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  315

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the animals welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility; [34302]

  (2) if he will list (a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility. [34303]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]:The information requested is as follows:
  Domestic legislation

  Game Act 1831

  Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended)

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  Protection of Animals Act 1934

  Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended)

  Cockfighting Act 1952

  Abandonment of Animals Act 1960

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

  Conservation of Seals Act 1970

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  Farriers (Registration) Acts 1975 and 1977

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

  Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988

  Deer Act 1991

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  EU legislation
  Directive 86/609/EEC on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (and subsequent amendments)
  International treaties, conventions or other obligations
  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes
  European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals

  The Home Office is responsible for animal welfare issues relating to animal experimentation and to domestic, captive and wild animals listed in the legislation set out above.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by group, division or other work unit the number of grades of staff working within his Department on animal welfare issues. [34304]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  The relevant work is undertaken by 1.8 senior executive officers, 2.7 higher executive officers, 1.5 executive officers, 8.5 administrative officers, 6.1 administrative assistants and secretarial support, and is overseen by a grade 6 officer as part of his wider responsibilities. The animal (scientific procedures) inspectorate comprises: one chief inspector, three superintendent inspectors, 15 inspectors and secretarial support.
  316

  Prisons (Capacity)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the certified normal accommodation for each gaol in England and Wales and what was the actual population for the last day for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [33438]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question requesting details of the actual population and certified normal accommodation for each jail in England and Wales.

  The attached table shows the actual population and the in use certified normal accommodation (CNA) on 24 June 1996.

  In use CNA and population on 24 June 1996

  In use

  Population

  Acklington

  662

  634

  Albany

  436

  430

  Aldington

  146

  141

  Ashwell

  404

  385

  Askham Grange

  126

  124

  Aylesbury

  230

  222

  Bedford

  309

  351

  Belmarsh

  661

  606

  Birmingham

  653

  1,000

  Blakenhurst

  649

  713

  Blantyre House

  106

  111

  Blundeston

  408

  397

  Brinsford

  473

  479

  Bristol

  474

  503

  Brixton

  480

  595

  Brockhill

  159

  72

  Buckley Hall

  350

  342

  Bullingdon

  644

  646

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  124

  Camp Hill

  384

  415

  Canterbury

  184

  264

  Cardiff

  322

  525

  Castington

  300

  288

  Channings Wood

  594

  574

  Chelmsford

  248

  399

  Coldingley

  288

  286

  Cookham Wood

  120

  137

  Dartmoor

  599

  592

  Deerbolt

  420

  401

  Doncaster

  771

  868

  Dorchester

  147

  207

  Dover

  316

  295

  Downview

  287

  283

  Drake Hall

  285

  262

  Durham

  598

  828

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  Eastwood Park

  135

  118

  Elmley

  637

  620

  Erlestoke

  270

  272

  Everthorpe

  435

  408

  Exeter

  253

  443

  Featherstone

  564

  551

  Feltham

  845

  850

  Finnamore Wood

  56

  0

  Ford

  498

  442

  Frankland

  447

  416

  Full Sutton

  572

  556

  Garth

  513

  515

  317

  In use CNA and population on 24 June 1996

  In use

  Population

  Gartree

  360

  357

  Glen Parva

  792

  847

  Gloucester

  211

  249

  Grendon

  245

  224

  Guys Marsh

  300

  298

  Haslar

  158

  144

  Hatfield

  180

  165

  Haverigg

  450

  434

  Hewell Grange

  174

  193

  High Down

  649

  637

  Highpoint

  679

  676

  Hindley

  531

  439

  Hollesley Bay

  397

  346

  Holloway

  517

  580

  Holme House

  714

  665

  Hull

  349

  359

  Huntercombe

  240

  233

  Kingston

  106

  103

  Kirkham

  644

  609

  Kirklevington

  100

  100

  Lancaster

  218

  212

  Lancaster Farms

  438

  423

  Latchmere House

  177

  159

  Leeds

  824

  895

  Leicester

  207

  330

  Lewes

  312

  293

  Leyhill

  386

  384

  Lincoln

  434

  656

  Lindholme

  670

  656

  Littlehey

  584

  570

  Liverpool

  1,073

  1,265

  Long Lartin

  372

  354

  Low Newton

  192

  268

  Maidstone

  484

  525

  Manchester

  967

  1,115

  Moorland

  620

  626

  Morton Hall

  192

  188

  Mount

  588

  579

  New Hall

  207

  211

  North Sea Camp

  203

  153

  Northallerton

  152

  200

  Norwich

  319

  408

  Nottingham

  218

  212

  Onley

  520

  500

  Oxford

  122

  71

  Parkhurst

  378

  282

  Pentonville

  726

  850

  Portland

  526

  511

  Prescoed

  120

  95

  Preston

  311

  441

  Pucklechurch

  0

  0

  Ranby

  517

  512

  Reading

  203

  224

  Risley

  790

  744

  Rochester

  424

  358

  Send

  137

  133

  Shepton Mallett

  158

  198

  Shrewsbury

  172

  303

  Spring Hill

  210

  198

  Stafford

  434

  589

  Standford Hill

  384

  383

  Stocken

  396

  389

  Stoke Heath

  312

  312

  Styal

  239

  247

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  488

  487

  Swaleside

  512

  509

  Swansea

  151

  212

  Swinfen Hall

  191

  191

  Thorn Cross

  240

  178

  Usk

  126

  168

  Verne

  552

  546

  Wakefield

  727

  673

  Wandsworth

  804

  860

  318

  In use CNA and population on 24 June 1996

  In use

  Population

  Wayland

  574

  554

  Wealstun

  573

  548

  Wellingborough

  352

  310

  Werrington

  114

  112

  Wetherby

  120

  120

  Whatton

  216

  216

  Whitemoor

  518

  533

  Winchester

  462

  535

  Wolds

  320

  335

  Woodhill

  669

  598

  Wormwood Scrubs

  715

  1,093

  Wymott

  799

  718

  52,612

  54,960

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those parliamentary constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [33860]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have visited the following constituencies on official business in the last three months:

  South Antrim

  East Belfast

  North Belfast

  West Belfast

  North Down

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  For security reasons I am unable to state those constituencies I intend to visit in the next three months.

  Pacific Institute
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of(a) the department of economic development, (b) the local enterprise development unit, (c) the Industrial Development board and (d) the Training and Employment Agency have been involved in courses of seminars delivered by the Pacific Institute. [34087]

  Mr. Ancram
  The numbers attending courses or seminars organised by the Pacific Institute are as follows:

  (a) Department of Economic Development HQ—3 staff;

  (b) The Local Enterprise Development Unit—Nil;

  (c) The Industrial Development Board—20;

  (d) The Training and Employment Agency—7.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's definition of a farm holding in relation to BSE. [34336]
  319
  Mr. Ancram
  The Department defines a farm holding in relation to BSE as an independent agricultural establishment in which bovine animals are regularly kept or bred.

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiation) Act 1996
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to give effect to the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiation) Act 1996. [35347]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [pursuant to his answer, 8 May Official Report c.190]: Elections were held on 30 May, and the initial resulting meetings of both the negotiations and the forum have taken place.

  Parliamentary approval for the consequential expenditure is being sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Northern Ireland Office's administration, law, order, protective and miscellaneous services vote (class XV vote 1). Pending that approval further urgent expenditure to cover the costs of the elections and the initial costs of setting up and servicing the forum and negotiations estimated at £3,800,000 will be met by a further repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  EU Collection Centres
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many EU approved collection centres there were in Northern Ireland in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [33770]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 21 June]: There were 19 such centres in Northern Ireland in both these years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what inter-departmental collaboration is undertaken to identify and restrict systematic housing benefit fraud by organised crime syndicates. [30449]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department's investigators collaborate with other agencies where appropriate, where offences may have been committed by the same individuals against more than one agency. The Department is also represented on a number of inter-agency bodies which share intelligence on organised criminal activity. Information is shared on all benefits, including housing benefit.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the introduction of a national housing benefit computer system; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the development of the system. [33791]

  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in March this year that he was inviting the local authority associations to join in a study of how local authority systems can be linked, to share information with each other and with the new Benefits Agency computer system. In particular, this study would examine the merits 320
  of introducing a unified computer system covering all local authorities' housing benefit work. This work is in its early stages and a further announcement will be made in due course when the study team has reported its findings.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the distribution and average levels of hours of work, earnings and amounts of benefit paid under the disability working allowance. [33829]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the tables:

  Distribution and average hours worked

  Hours worked

  Number of cases

  All families

  8,340

  16–20

  2,371

  20–24

  1,647

  24–28

  832

  28–30

  108

  30–32

  531

  32–36

  516

  36–40

  1,293

  40 or more

  1,042

  Average hours worked

  26.93

  Gross weekly earnings of disability working allowance recipients

  Gross weekly earnings of main earner

  Number of cases

  All families

  8,340

  Under £40.00

  1,192

  £40.00-£79.99

  3,204

  £80.00-£119.99

  1,946

  £120.00-£159.99

  1,193

  £160.00 and over

  805

  Average gross weekly earnings (£)

  87.05

  Amounts and average weekly payments of disability working allowance

  Amount of disability working allowance in payment (£ per week)

  Number of cases

  All families

  8,340

  Under £10.000

  289

  £10.00-£19.99

  595

  £20.00-£29.99

  925

  £30.00-£39.99

  1,164

  £40.00-£49.99

  1,885

  £50.00-£59.99

  640

  £60.00 and over

  2,842

  Average weekly disability working allowance (£)

  54.42

  Note:

  Exact numbers are quoted.

  Source:

  Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims as at January 1996.
  321
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the most recent available figures showing(a) the number of people receiving disability working allowance and (b) an estimate of the number of potentially eligible non-claimants. [33832]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  Number of people claiming disability working allowance (January 1996)

  Estimated number of potentially eligible non-claimants (autumn 1993)1

  8,340

  20,000

  1Based on research undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute, published in October 1994; should be treated with caution due to small sample sizes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving disability working allowance which includes(a) the £10 allowance for working more than 30 hours a week and (b) the disabled child's premium. [34272]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As at January 1996, 3,382 received the £10 premium for working 30 hours or more a week; and 72 the disabled child's premium.

  Source:

  Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been recouped by the compensation recovery unit during the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, by amount and type of benefit. [34274]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 27 June 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much has been recouped by the Compensation Recovery Unit during the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 by amount and type of benefit.

  The information is given in the attached table.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  £

  Benefit type

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Invalidity benefit

  31,506,196.35

  51,912,225.48

  45,957,227.95

  Incapacity benefit

  Nil

  Nil

  21,806,993.44

  Unemployment benefit

  236,168.62

  355,419.58

  518,384.73

  Sickness benefit

  3,027,307.11

  4,391,479.21

  5,039,440.94

  Income support

  5,188,320.46

  7,999.922.25

  10,150,965.02

  Attendance allowance

  495,364.16

  876,537.69

  839,317.51

  Statutory sick pay

  13,874,752.39

  17,268,020.16

  15,281,003.03

  Mobility allowance

  942,886.54

  1,039,547.38

  821,166.41

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  7,899,333.58

  12,511,359.68

  16,429,575.75

  322

  £

  Benefit type

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Constant attendance allowance

  136,815.64

  244,809.00

  266,496.25

  Reduced earnings allowance

  4,894,461.35

  5,236,865.95

  4,176,652.21

  Retirement allowance

  3,506.55

  5,302.25

  601.76

  Family credit

  914.68

  625.82

  Nil

  Severe disablement allowance

  828,476.30

  1,520,197.28

  1,978,326.60

  Old cases act benefit

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Disability living allowance

  2,486,917.53

  6,601,000.90

  10,823,763.54

  Disability working allowance

  18,940.81

  53,767.19

  89,306.95

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  23,894.90

  61,817.02

  53,128.88

  Data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Adult Dependants Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the spending on increases to benefits for adult dependants during 1995–96 in respect of(a) incapacity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) unemployment benefit. [34243]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated expenditure on adult dependency increases in 1995–96

  £ million

  Incapacity benefit

  770

  Severe disablement allowance

  5

  Unemployment benefit

  85

  Estimates rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female claimants of (i) severe disablement allowance, (ii) incapacity benefit and (iii) unemployment benefit also claim an allowance for an adult dependant; and if he will indicate the average amount of benefit payable in each case. [34214]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Benefit

  (a) Males to whom an adult dependency increase is payable

  Average amount in payment £

  (b) Females to whom an adult dependency-increase is payable

  Average amount in payment £

  Severe disablement allowance

  3,000

  20.69

  1,000

  21.15

  Incapacity benefit

  361,000

  31.75

  5,000

  34.16

  Unemployment benefit

  53,000

  27.78

  1,000

  27.11

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Severe disablement allowance and incapacity benefit figures are taken from a 5 per cent, sample of cases recorded on the incapacity benefit computer system and exclude a small number of clerically paid cases. The figures are for claimants in receipt of an adult dependency increase at 29 February 1996.

  3 Unemployment benefit figures are taken from a 5 per cent, sample of unemployed claimants taken on 8 February 1996.

  323

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the costs of raising the invalid care allowance to(a) the level of unemployment benefit and (b) the level of retirement pension. [34227]

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost, at 1996–97 rates, of raising the rate of invalid care allowance to the levels of unemployment benefit and retirement pension is £150 million a year and £330 million a year respectively.

  Note:

  The rate of invalid care allowance is equivalent to the rate of retirement pension, category B (lower) based on spouse's contributions.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been disqualified from invalid care allowance during 1995–96 broken down by reason for disqualification. [34226]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Disallowed claims 1995–96

  Reason

  Numbers

  Claimant under 16

  8

  Claimant over 65

  2,072

  Qualifying benefit not in payment

  21,818

  Caring less than 35 hours a week

  201

  Gainfully employed

  1,891

  In receipt of other benefits1

  3,119

  Other reasons

  20,099

  Total

  49,208

  Awards terminated 1995–96

  Reason

  Numbers

  Death of disabled person

  23,694

  Ceased caring

  19,002

  Qualifying benefit ceased

  4,130

  Overlapping benefits1

  8,607

  Gainfully employed

  5,390

  Other reasons2

  6,575

  Total

  67,398

  Notes:

  1Underlying entitlement to invalid care allowance may remain with consequent entitlement to carers premium within the income-related benefits if appropriate.

  2"Other reasons" includes disallowances on grounds of residence/presence, full-time education, more than one carer claiming for same disabled person, and carer claiming for more than one disabled person.

  Source:

  Invalid care allowance unit, based on 100 per cent. count of cases subject to amendment.

  Freeline Service
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of his Department's freeline service. [34634]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 21 June,Official Report, column 629.
  324

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many IB50 questionnaires have been(a) issued and (b) returned; and how many people have been examined for the all-work test in the year ended April 1996. [34268]

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

  April 1995-March 1996

  Questionnaires issued: 1,317,715.

  August 1995-March 19961

  Examinations conducted: 328,551.

  Notes:

  1Separate figures for the number of people who have been examined for the all work test have been kept only since August 1995.

  1. Data are provisional and subject to change.

  2. No records are kept of questionnaires returned. However, a recent sampling exercise indicates that 93 per cent. of questionnaires are returned within the six weeks time limit.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been disallowed(a) incapacity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance, (c) income support with a disability premium and (d) credits, have subsequently signed on as unemployed during the year ended April 1996 and received (i) unemployment benefit, (ii) income support and (iii) both. [34267]

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

  Up to the end of March 1996 there were 40,257 claims for unemployment benefits from people who have been found capable of work under the provisions of the Incapacity for Work Act 1994.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of(a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance are currently earning below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [34319]

  Mr. Heald
  There are 133,000 family credit awards and 2,752 disability working allowance awards where the main earner earns less than lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Notes:

  1. The exact number is quoted for disability working allowance. Number of family credit claims is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The lower earnings limit referred to for the purposes of this question is the amount for April 1995-April 1996 which was £58.00 per week.

  3. Data for family credit and disability working allowance, is for October 1995 and January 1996 respectively.

  Source:

  1. Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  2. Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  3. Social security statistics 1995.
  325

  Overpayments
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recoverability determinations of overpayment have been made by adjudication officers under section 71 of the Social Security Admissions Act 1992 and equivalent previous provisions in each year since 1988; what amounts of such overpayments were recovered in cash terms and at constant prices, in each year since 1988 for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the annual recovery of overpayments which would be achieved under the provisions of the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill. [34784]

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

  The Benefit Agency's 1996–97 target for recovering benefit overpayments is £91.5 million. In addition, £43.5 million is expected to be recovered under the agency's security and control programme, although the full amount will not be recovered during 1996–97.

  The provisions of the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill 1996 would not increase the amount of overpaid benefit recovered. It has been introduced following a decision by a social security commissioner on overpayment recovery. The Bill reinstates the long standing policy and practice of correcting benefit in payment immediately an overpayment is discovered and allowing a decision on the overpayment to be made at a later date.

  Amount recovered2

  Year

  Number of recoverable determination1

  £ million cash prices

  £ million 1996–97 prices

  1991–92

  87,337

  24.3

  27.99

  1992–93

  256,078

  43.5

  48.15

  1993–94

  405,984

  79.6

  85.62

  1994–95

  590,218

  116.0

  122.47

  1995–96

  546,861

  122.1

  125.46

  1 The number of determinations includes recoveries under sections 71 and 74 of the Act. Although separate records are not held for section 71, they would constitute the bulk of recoverable overpayments.

  2 Includes a small amount arising from recovery of "official error" overpayments which cannot be disagregated as separate records are not held.

  Records of overpayment recovery are not held prior to 1991–92.

  Industrial Injury Pensions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many industrial injury pensions were paid in the last complete year for which figures are available; what proportion was for industrial diseases; of these how many were for(a) pneumoconiosis, (b) asbestosis, (c) occupational deafness and (d) chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [34950]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  326
  As at 1 April 1995 the number of industrial injuries disablement benefit assessments in payment was 237,208. Of these, 44,544 assessments or 18.78 per cent. were in respect of prescribed industrial diseases.

  Assessments in payment at 1 April 1995

  Number

  Pneumoconiosis1

  12,913

  Asbestos-related diseases2

  1,794

  Occupational deafness

  14,201

  Chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema

  3,536

  Notes:

  1 Pneumoconiosis, prescribed disease D1, includes pneumoconiosis, silicosis and asbestosis. information relating to asbestosis cases alone could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2 The figures relating to asbestos related diseases include assessments relating to diffuse mesothelioma, prescribed disease D3; carcinoma of the lung, prescribed disease D8, and bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, prescribed disease D9.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency: Based on a 10 per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns. A recipient may be in receipt of more than one pension assessment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of industrial injury pensions paid in the last complete year for which figures are available relate to workers or former workers in(a) coal mining, (b) construction and (c) heavy engineering. [34951]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in format requested.

  As at 1 April 1995, the number of industrial injuries disablement benefit assessments in payment was 237,208. Of these, 14.76 per cent. or 35,014 relate to workers, or former workers in the coal mining industry, including deep coal mining, opencast coal working and the manufacture of solid fuel and 12.48 per cent. or 29,594 relate to workers, or former workers, in the construction industry.

  Information relating to heavy engineering is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency—based on a 10 per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns. A recipient may be in receipt of more than one pension assessment.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the impact on(a) housing benefit and (b) mortgage interest payments of a benefit sanction for non-compliance with a jobseeker's direction during the two-week and four-week periods under the jobseeker's allowance. [35288]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Sanctions will have no effect on housing benefit. Entitlement to mortgage interest payments will depend on whether a jobseeker can demonstrate that he is in hardship. Mortgage interest payments will continue where jobseeker's allowance is awarded under the hardship provision during the sanction.
  327

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to appoint an independent regulator of the funeral industry. [34411]

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

  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what powers he has to regulate the funeral industry; and what self-regulatory structures exist; [34423]

  (2) what powers he has to limit the prices charged by the funeral industry. [34422]

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

  I have no powers to limit prices charged by the funeral industry. Competition is the best regulator of prices. On self-regulation, I understand that codes of practices are operated by the relevant trade associations—the National Association of Funeral Directors, the Funeral Standards Council and the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors.

HEALTH

  Dental Practices, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in each London borough council accepted NHS patients in 1995. [33105]

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

  General Dental Service: number of dentists who had additions to their register, by London local borough council for year ending 31 December 1995

  Local authority

  Number of dentists

  All local authority districts

  3,294

  City of London

  11

  Barking and Dagenham

  41

  Barnet

  169

  Bexley

  79

  Brent

  138

  Bromley

  136

  Camden

  143

  Croydon

  148

  Ealing

  146

  Enfield

  105

  Greenwich

  77

  Hackney

  65

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  93

  Haringey

  121

  Harrow

  89

  Havering

  74

  Hillingdon

  96

  Hounslow

  105

  Islington

  78

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74

  Kingston upon Thames

  71

  Lambeth

  113

  Lewisham

  114

  Merton

  62

  Newham

  70

  Redbridge

  98

  Richmond upon Thames

  84

  Southwark

  111

  Sutton

  90

  328

  General Dental Service: number of dentists who had additions to their register, by London local borough council for year ending 31 December 1995

  Local authority

  Number of dentists

  Tower Hamlets

  76

  Waltham Forest

  85

  Wandsworth

  145

  City of Westminster

  187

  Additions to the register include instances of patients registering with a dentist after a break in attendance and instances of reinstatement of registrations that have been cancelled in error. Some dentists have contracts in more than one London Borough Council area. Where appropriate, these dentists have been included in the calculation for each London Borough Council area in which they are under contract.

  Counts relate to registrations for which payments were authorised during the year. Payments are made one month in arrears.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those parliamentary constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [33863]

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the past three months, I have visited the following constituencies:

  Kensington

  City of London and Westminster, South

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Leeds, Central

  Ealing, Southall

  Bow and Poplar

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  Cambridge

  Rutland and Melton

  Meriden

  Chelsea

  Leicester, East

  Coventry, South-west

  Coventry, South-east

  Coventry, North-east

  City of Chester

  Halton

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Harrogate

  The constituencies which I expect to visit in the next three months are as follows:

  Leicester, South

  City of London and Westminster, South

  Chelsea

  Hartlepool

  Stratford upon Avon

  Wigan

  Burgner Report
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Burgner report on the responses to "Moving Forward" will be published. [34494]
  329
  Mr. Bowis
  More than 500 submissions were received in response to the Government's consultation paper "Moving Forward". Mr. Burgner is now assessing these, and will be reporting his conclusions to me in due course.

  Social Services Inspectorate (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the work of the social services inspectorate in West Yorkshire over the past 10 years; [34337]

  (2) what reports he has received from the social services inspectorate in the last 10 years in respect of individuals in West Yorkshire who had not received the service and assistance to which they were entitled under Government regulations; and if he will make a statement; [34338]

  (3) if he will publish the reports from the social services inspectorate covering West Yorkshire for the past 10 years in respect of cases where local authorities social services departments have not complied with Government regulations or guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [34339]

  Mr. Bowis
  The work of the social services inspectorate—SSI—is described fully in the annual reports of the chief inspector, copies of which are available in the Library. In the regions, the SSI is primarily concerned with promoting departmental policy on the provision of social services, and monitoring and reporting on the work of social services departments. It is not part of its normal duties to report to Ministers on individual cases.

  Since 1990, the inspectorate has carried out a number of formal inspections across the range of children's and adult services in each of the five metropolitan districts in West Yorkshire. Reports of these inspections are publicly available. Information on inspections carried out before 1990 is not available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 509, what are the services for people seeking asylum on which his Department is spending an additional £25 million in 1996–97. [34789]

  Mr. Bowis
  The £25 million has been earmarked for a special grant to compensate social services departments for additional expenditure they may incur in support of children in need, as a result of changes or prospective changes to social security benefits for asylum seekers.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that in-patient units whose patients include offenders with disturbed personalities have access to psychodynamic expertise. [34616]

  Mr. Bowis
  All patients should have access to an appropriate range of multi-disciplinary psychological assessments, interventions and therapies. These need to 330
  be more broadly based than the dynamic psychotherapies. Assessing and meeting the need for these different therapies is a matter for local health and social services.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he has taken since March(a) to review and (b) to enhance the clinical training and experience in psychodynamic and forensic aspects of psychiatry of trainees in general psychiatry; [34624]

  (2) what action he has taken since March to ensure that general psychiatrists taking up consultant posts with responsibility for secure beds have had a period of training in forensic psychiatry; [34621]

  (3) what action he has taken since March to ensure that all trainees in general psychiatry spend a period of training under the supervision of a forensic psychiatrist. [34623]

  Mr. Bowis
  The standard and content of specialist medical training in psychiatry is the responsibility of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The Department of Health holds regular meetings with the college to discuss the content of training and areas of mutual concern.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that professional clinical assessments by staff, other than those in psychiatry and nursing, are included in case conference reports, reviews and hospital transfers in respect of restricted patients. [34628]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is good practice to record any multidisciplinary assessments undertaken in respect of restricted patients. It is also usual for information to be transferred to the relevant agencies when patients leave hospital.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that medical members of mental health review tribunals receive a set of summary documents with reports from professionals responsible for the patient's care and treatment. [34606]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is good practice for the medical member to have sight of all documents concerning a patient and this is provided for in the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that offender patients are given regular interviews with responsible medical officers and clinicians. [34618]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is good clinical practice.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to meet the training needs of(a) existing and (b) new members of mental health review tribunals. [34622]

  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction last year of national induction training for all tribunal members was an important new initiative which was carried through by the tribunal training group. The group has been considering the opportunities for training for existing members, which currently takes the form of discussion at regular members' meetings. The members' handbook has also been revised and the group is looking at whether a training video could be commissioned.
  331
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that reviews of practice following major untoward events involving patients detained under the Mental Health Acts are conducted by managers without direct line responsibility for the case in question. [34630]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for local managers to decide who should conduct investigations into operational procedures following an untoward event.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken since March in consultation with relevant professional bodies to draw from the best practice in child protection and to develop an inter-agency approach to case management for mentally ill patients who are discharged into the community. [34615]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is already a considerable body of guidance and good practice on the case management of mentally ill patients who are discharged into the community. This includes guidance on the proper implementation of the care programme approach and inter-agency working.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that responsible medical officers seek the advice of a psychologist or other suitably qualified person, who is not a member of the clinical team responsible for the patient, in respect of behaviour modification programmes, particularly in the absence of valid patient consent. [34617]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Mental Health Act code of practice, which has been disseminated widely, emphasises the importance of an appropriately skilled individual supervising behaviour modification programmes. This individual may or may not be attached to the clinical team responsible for the patient.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place since March with(a) the Royal College of Psychiatrists, (b) the Royal College of Nursing and (c) other relevant bodies to plan for additional guidance to their memberships about the inquiries they should make in respect of criminal offences committed by patients detained under the Mental Health Acts. [34629]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is a matter for the professional organisations concerned to provide for additional guidance to their members.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions or guidance have been given to social services departments to ensure that case records are transferred with patients restricted under the Mental Health Acts. [34627]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health guide to arrangements for inter-agency working for the care and protection of severely mentally ill people, "Building Bridges", which was published in November 1995, includes guidance on the use and disclosure of patient information. It calls for all agencies caring for people with mental health problems, whether restricted under mental health legislation or not, to have procedures to ensure that records are transferred, or copied, according to agency procedures, quickly when a patient moves district and/or 332
  local authority. It urges authorities to set sensible targets for the transfer of records, recommending transfer within two days in urgent cases and two weeks for less urgent cases. Copies of "Building Bridges" were sent to NHS agencies and social services departments.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken following the House of Lords decision in Home Secretary v. Oxford regional mental health review tribunal (1988) AC120 to ensure that tribunals may adjourn an application to give time for further examination of a patient's mental health before any discharge decision is made. [34614]

  Mr. Bowis
  Tribunals already have powers to adjourn before a final decision on whether to discharge is taken.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to ensure that only approved social workers are assigned the task of social supervision of restricted patients. [34609]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities and probation services, from which social supervisors are drawn, are aware of their responsibility to ensure that only suitably qualified and experienced staff are appointed as social supervisors of restricted patients.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of mentally handicapped children currently in(a) local authority residential care, (b) private residential care and (c) voluntary residential care (i) in the north-west and (ii) nationally; and what are the corresponding figures for 10 years previously. [34105]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows centrally available information on children and, to enable comparison between years, figures for people of all ages in homes for children.

  Residents in residential care for children with learning disabilities as at 31 March

  Numbers

  All sectors

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector

  Private sector

  North West1

  19872 all ages1

  263

  224

  39

  0

  under 164

  125

  106

  19

  0

  1995 all ages3

  164

  152

  12

  0

  under 18

  153

  141

  12

  0

  England

  19872 all ages3

  1,530

  1,115

  307

  108

  under 164

  743

  579

  112

  52

  1995 all ages3

  1,328

  919

  282

  127

  under 18

  1,037

  777

  189

  71

  Source: DH annual return RAC5

  1North west standard statistical region.

  2Figures are not available before 1987.

  3Includes both children and adults receiving care in homes for children with learning disabilities.

  4Before 1994, information was collected on children under 16, so the figures cannot be compared directly.

  Clinical Psychologists
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken since March to ensure the funding of an adequate number of training places for clinical psychologists. [34620]
  333
  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive issued education and training planning guidance on 17 June 1996, EL (96)46, asking education and training consortiums to consider their future demand and the level of training investment needed to ensure an adequate supply of qualified clinical psychologists. The NHS executive maintains a national overview. The number of NHS-funded training places is planned to rise by 11.8 per cent. in 1996–97.

  Forensic Social Work
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target date has been set for relevant Government Departments to require all social supervisors of restricted patients to acquire competency in forensic social work. [34597]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for individual local authorities and probation services to identify the needs of their staff for training in forensic social work and to make appropriate arrangements. The competencies and training guidance in forensic social work which the Department of Health commissioned from the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, offers guidance to local authorities and probation services on how this can be achieved.

  Food Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made to the eligibility criteria for milk, vitamins and other foods listed in the Welfare Food Regulations 1988. [34860]

  Mr. Horam
  The only change to the eligibility criteria has been to reflect forthcoming changes in the social security scheme when those entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance will also be eligible to receive welfare foods.

  Local Authority and Health Services Staff
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has now published its advice on the role of local authority and health services staff as a single document. [34607]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department published guidance on inter-agency working, "Building Bridges", in November 1995, copies of which are available in the Library. The document provides advice to a range of professionals, including health and local authority social services staff, involved with the planning and delivery of services to severely mentally ill people.

  Homicide Inquiries
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March to advise authorities mandated to set up inquires under NHS executive guidance HSG(94)27 regarding giving families of victims the opportunity to be present at any homicide inquiry. [34619]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service executive already encourages health authorities to keep families of victims informed of an inquiry's progress and to afford them the opportunity to give evidence.
  334

  Regional Health Service Managers
  Mr. Bluhkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the records for staff on senior managers pay point 9 or above, employed by the former regional health authorities, were transferred to the national health service management executive on incorporation in April 1996; and if he will make a statement. [33613]

  Mr. Horam
  Employment records for regional health authority staff, including those at SMP9 or above, whose employment transferred to the Department of Health were retained in the regional offices when those offices became part of the national health service executive on the abolition of regional health authorities.

  Information Management Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to strengthen the senior management of the information management group. [35065]

  Mr. Horam
  The management of the national health service for coding and classification—a branch of the information management group—has been strengthened by the designation of two deputy directors. There are no other plans to change the management of the information management group.

  Statutory Measures
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statutory measures his Department introduced in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) between 1 January 1996 and 1 May 1996 which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation. [35031]

  Mr. Horam
  This information was included in the list of regulations placed in the House Library by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) evaluation arrangements, (b) business case, (c) value-for-money submission and (d) competitive tendering procedures were submitted to the Treasury for a computerised medical terms language prior to the selection of the Read codes system. [35071]

  Mr. Horam
  The decision to negotiate a purchase of the copyright for Read terms rested on a joint recommendation from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners following an evaluation of coding and classification systems undertaken by the joint computing group of these organisations.

  As to the matters of a business case and value for money, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health gave him on 18 October 1995, Official Report, columns 280–81.

  Since the Read codes were a unique product for which purchase was being negotiated, there could be no question of a tendering process.
  335

  Shellfish
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of illness in Devon have been reported as a result of eating shellfish within the last 12 months; how many of these cases emanated from plants licensed by the Government; and if each case has been notified to the local environmental health officer. [35068]

  Mr. Horam
  The public health laboratory service has received information on two cases of shellfish-related illness in Devon during the past 12 months. For the same period, there were 82 reported cases of illness in England and Wales associated with the consumption of shellfish, of which 70 cases were linked to shellfish originating from harvesting areas or purification plants in and around the south-western region.

  Shellfish purification plants are approved by local authority environmental health departments. Environmental health departments would normally be aware of illness linked to plants in their area.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of illness arising from consumption of shellfish have been reported in each of the last five years. [35070]

  Mr. Horam
  Cases of shellfish-related illness reported to the public health laboratory service were as follows:

  1991: 244

  1992: 186

  1993: 98

  1994: 104

  1995: 78.

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the exposure of young people to high alcohol brands of lemonades and cordials. [35023]

  Mr. Bowls
  The Government are aware of concerns about the appeal of certain alcoholic drinks to young people. We welcome the code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic drinks the Portman Group published in April. The Portman Group and other signatories will monitor the code, and we shall be following this carefully to see how effective it is in practice.

  St. Bartholomew's and Royal London Hospitals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his Department's current plans on(a) St. Bartholomew's and (b) the Royal London hospitals. [35207]

  Mr. Malone
  A statement which, among other issues, referred to St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital, was made to the House on 5 April 1995.

  Computer Aided Medical Systems plc
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to amend the financial arrangements between the NHS and its centre for coding and classification in Loughborough and Computer Aided Medical Systems plc. [35067]
  336
  Mr. Horam
  A study of the licensing arrangements between Computer Aided Medical Systems plc and the national health service has been commissioned with a view to their simplification and a reduction in their associated costs. the National Audit Office is examining the relationships between the NHS centre for coding and classicisations and Computer Aided Medical Systems plc. The arrangement referred to in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 4 June Official Report, at column 383, by which the same financial consultant oversaw the accounting and book-keeping of both bodies, has been changed. The consultant now deals only with the NHS centre for coding and classification.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in each of the last five years to discourage the use of(a) nicotine, (b) alcohol, (c) unnecessary medicinal drugs, (d) cannabis, (e) ecstasy and (f) heroin. [34895]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the amount spent on behalf of the Department of Health on publicity and prevention initiatives for smoking and drug and solvent misuse over the last five years. Initiatives for drug and solvent misuse cover cannabis, ecstasy and heroin. No medicinal product can be licensed if it does not have a medicinal purpose. The figures for alcohol relate to sensible drinking messages and messages to people who may be having alcohol problems.

  Financial year

  Smoking £

  Alcohol £

  Unnecessary medicinal drugs

  Drug and solvent misuse

  1992–93

  5,438,000

  1,613,000

  None

  4,965,023

  1993–94

  8,256,000

  1,548,000

  None

  5,296,284

  1994–95

  10,538,000

  819,000

  None

  4,443,396

  1995–96

  6,342,000

  825,000

  None

  5,000,000

  1996–97

  6,500,000

  825,000

  None

  5,000,000

  B-12 Unit, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the B-12 unit located at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust has independent provider status; and if he will make a statement. [34952]

  Mr. Malone
  The vitamin B-12 unit is part of the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school, located on the Chelsea and Westminster hospital site.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of deaths involving ecstasy use in the last five years were attributed to(a) overheating, (b) excess water intake and (c) other causes. [34892]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not possible to provide percentages in the way requested. The Office for National Statistics attributes these deaths to an underlying cause of abuse of ecstasy, or poisoning with ecstasy, not to any particular complication of the drug which may have been mentioned as having led to death.
  337

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that cannabis or further derivatives of cannabis are available to those suffering from multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, glaucoma and the effects of chemotherapy. [34894]

  Mr. Bowis
  Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, is already licensed for use in the treatment of certain conditions. Should any company wish to apply for a licence for medicines derived from cannabis, the Medicines Control Agency would consider this on the basis of the product's quality, safety and efficacy.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions to his Department have been referred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental agency for which he has responsibility so far in the 1995–96 parliamentary Session. [34953]

  Mr. Horam
  A search of the parliamentary database on POLIS—parliamentary on-line information system—database has identified a total of 22 such parliamentary questions which were answered up to and including 24 June in the 1995–96 parliamentary Session. This represents less than 1 per cent. of the total.

  Health Care Reforms
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which European countries(a) signed and (b) refused to sign the charter on reforming health care produced by the World Health Organisation conference on European health care reforms in Ljubljana on 17 to 20 June; [35141]

  (2) which European countries were represented at the World Health Organisation conference on European health care reforms in Ljubljana on 17 to 20 June by (a) health Ministers and (b) other officials; [35131]

  (3) if he will list the recommendations in the charter on reforming health care produced by the World Health Organisation conference on European health care reforms in Ljubljana on 17 to 20 June which the Government do not accept indicating the consideration underlying the Government's policy; and what other factors led the Government not to endorse the charter. [35142]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health does not have full details of the delegations which attended the Ljubijana conference. The charter on reforming health care was adopted by consensus.

  The charter was developed by the World Health Organisation principally for countries from central and eastern European and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union whose health care structures are less well developed than those of western European countries. The reform of the national health service has continued to evolve in line with published targets and standards. The Government will continue to pursue this course for securing the highest possible standard of health care for the people of this country.
  338

  Child Abuse Inquiries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to public funds of the Leeways report chaired by Elizabeth Lawson QC. [35127]

  Mr. Bowis
  This was an inquiry set up by the London borough of Lewisham. I have no information on costs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to public funds of the inquiry(a) into child care in Staffordshire and (b) the report "The Pindown Experience and the Protection of Children". [35126]

  Mr. Bowis
  The inquiry and report were funded by Staffordshire county council. I have no information on costs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) reports and (b) inquiries have been commissioned into child abuse by his Department since 1979. [35130]

  Mr. Bowis
  Two statutory inquiries into child abuse have been commissioned by the Secretary of State for Health since 1979: the Cleveland inquiry 1988 and the Leicestershire inquiry 1992.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to public funds of the residential staffs inquiry chaired by Lady Howe indicating separately the cost of the report, "The Quality of Care". [35138]

  Mr. Bowis
  The inquiry was set up by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services and published by the Local Government Board. I have no information on its costs.

  Royal London Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the contract for the private finance initiative—PFI—rebuilding of the Royal London hospital to be signed; if he will publish the terms of the contract; and what PFI funding will be provided. [35208]

  Mr. Malone
  The Royal Hospitals NHS trust issued an invitation to negotiate for this work in April, and formal responses to this invitation are due by 2 September. The trust will then choose a preferred bidder and work up a full business case for approval by the NHS executive and Her Majesty's Treasury. It is too early to say what the capital value of the scheme is likely to be, or when the contract is likely to be signed.

  The terms of the contract will be commercial in confidence.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the details of the replacement emergency facilities to be established at Edgware general hospital. [35073]

  Mr. Dorrell
  A working group was established last December to make recommendations to Barnet health authority about medical input to the casualty service at Edgware hospital. It is meeting on 4 July to finalise its recommendations, which will then be published. Proposals for implementing the working group's
  339
  recommendations will be made public when they are sent to members of the health authority on 24 July. The health authority will reach its decision on these proposals on 31 July.

  Health Service Staff Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 934, if he will update the figures on employment of non-NHS staff. [35206]

  Mr. Malone
  Figures for 1995–96 expenditure are not yet available.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 88, if it is his Department's policy that health authority inspection reports into private nursing homes should be available to the public. [35210]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 June,Official Report, column 88.

  Photo-chemical Fog (Deaths)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of excess deaths that occurred in each period of excessive photo-chemical fog in each of the past five years. [35026]

  Mr. Horam
  A recent study by Professor Ross Anderson, a member of the Department of Health's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants—COMEAP—has shown that day-to-day variations of ozone concentrations are, during the wanner months of the year, related to daily mortality figures. It is not possible, however, to provide a precise estimate of the excess deaths produced by exposure to these pollutants during recent years.

  The Department of Health has recently established a sub-group of COMEAP with the specific objective of improving estimates of the size of the effects of air pollutants on health in the United Kingdom. An initial report is expected in 1997.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish proposals to amend the legal aid scheme. [34017]

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce the total cost of legal aid. [33700]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor expects very shortly to announce his proposals for the reform of the legal aid scheme.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that legal aid is not available to nationals of 340
  countries which do not have reciprocal arrangements for United Kingdom nationals. [33695]

  Mr. Streeter
  It would not be right to place nationality restrictions on the availability of legal aid for those faced with criminal charges in this country. The Lord Chancellor will announce his proposals for fundamental reform of the legal aid system shortly. An important part of these reforms will be to ensure that the money available for civil legal aid goes to those in the greatest need.

  Mr. Flynn
  to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by decile the amounts paid from, and the number of recipients of, the legal aid fund in each of the last five years. [35027]

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

  Court Buildings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the process for revising the names of court buildings in England. [33696]

  Mr. Streeter
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. Any decision concerning the name of a magistrates courthouse remains that of the relevant committee. There is no fixed administrative or statutory procedure for revising the name of a county or Crown court building. However, the decision to make a name change would depend on a number of factors including, for example, location, historical connections and geographical jurisdiction.

  King Edward VIII (Records)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he estimates that all the records relating to the activities of King Edward VIII will be in the public domain. [33697]

  Mr. Streeter
  Withheld public records relating to the late Duke of Windsor are being re-reviewed by the Departments which hold them, and will be released in the Public Record Office at the appropriate time.

  Landowners
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for legislation to abolish the liability for landowners to meet the cost of chancel repairs. [33699]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Law Commission has recommended in its report "Property Law: Liability for Chancel Repairs", Law Commission No. 152, that the liability of individual landowners for chancel repairs should be abolished, and the Government have decided that the Church authorities should be consulted further before a decision is taken as to whether this recommendation should be implemented.
  341

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to amend the law in respect of mental incapacity. [33694]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government announced in January 1996 that they intend to publish a consultation paper on mental incapacity. Any decisions regarding legislation will be made in the light of the outcome of consultation.

  Magistrates Court, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he can report with plans to build a new magistrates court in Bolton; and if he will make a statement. [33698]

  Mr. Streeter
  Procedures for obtaining privately financed solutions to magistrates courts' accommodation needs are being finalised. Bolton metropolitan district council will be invited to submit proposals once a revised programme and the procedures are published.

  Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received on the operation of the solicitors disciplinary tribunal in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [33693]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department receives very few complaints about the solicitors disciplinary tribunal. The tribunal is entirely independent from the Lord Chancellor, although the Department has responsibility for the payment of allowances to the tribunal's lay members.

  Judicial Studies Board
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the status of the Judicial Studies Board. [35471]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have today placed in the Library a memorandum of understanding which gives the Judicial Studies Board greater autonomy in the organisation of judicial training, and greater responsibility for planning and financial control. It is right that the nature and content of judicial training should be primarily a matter for the judiciary, if it is to remain relevant to the judiciary's needs. I am convinced that the memorandum will, over time, help the board to enhance the quality of the training facilities made available to the judiciary, and to improve

  Dwellings started in Wales 1985–1995

  Number

  District

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Aberconwy

  85

  178

  156

  368

  256

  246

  225

  153

  288

  238

  311

  Alyn and Deeside

  258

  189

  275

  427

  276

  630

  417

  275

  364

  336

  367

  Arfon

  117

  99

  178

  175

  187

  93

  198

  162

  192

  82

  97

  Blaenau Gwent

  26

  229

  206

  111

  240

  181

  190

  171

  135

  103

  180

  Brecknock

  117

  118

  114

  285

  233

  148

  162

  80

  134

  159

  43

  Cardiff

  1,367

  1,404

  1,972

  1,943

  1,239

  976

  1,383

  901

  974

  1,358

  627

  Carmarthan

  123

  167

  268

  327

  343

  224

  169

  148

  285

  191

  163

  Ceredigion

  213

  219

  259

  429

  421

  277

  274

  176

  208

  212

  325

  Colwyn

  225

  267

  394

  476

  380

  280

  230

  140

  188

  232

  264

  Cynon Valley

  118

  87

  137

  122

  234

  235

  118

  281

  205

  163

  118

  Delyn

  151

  181

  227

  344

  389

  475

  470

  298

  217

  261

  160

  342
  the advice and assistance which the JSB gives towards the training of magistrates and chairmen and members of tribunals.

WALES

  Wheelchair Provision
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the wheelchair users and the organisations representing wheelchair users with whom he has consulted concerning the options that he is considering for the future of wheelchair provision in Wales; and if he will make a statement on progress on this issue. [34402]

  Mr. Hague
  Discussions on the future provision of wheelchair services in Wales are continuing. Once detailed options have been identified, the views of voluntary organisations representing wheelchair users will be sought.

  Sport (Schools)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many responses he has received on his consultation document, "Young People and Sport in Wales", and what views respondents expressed on the publication of sports results by schools in their annual report. [34425]

  Mr. Gwilyn Jones
  We have received several responses on the policy document "Young People and Sport in Wales" since its launch in September 1995. The document does not request views on the publication of sports results by schools in their annual report.

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education (Overseas Courses)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about the management of overseas courses by the Swansea Institute of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [34734]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of housing starts in each Welsh local authority in each of the past 11 years. [34893]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information is given in the table:
  343

  Dwellings started in Wales 1985–1995

  Number

  District

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Dinefwr

  109

  123

  117

  240

  154

  185

  182

  232

  156

  109

  90

  Dwyfor

  57

  109

  64

  109

  54

  79

  74

  142

  68

  41

  36

  Glyndwr

  128

  114

  197

  337

  127

  78

  177

  147

  118

  116

  102

  Islwyn

  98

  212

  105

  194

  125

  164

  82

  53

  60

  87

  215

  Llanelli

  211

  160

  98

  266

  191

  248

  203

  289

  413

  537

  324

  Lliw Valley

  113

  151

  111

  183

  537

  295

  469

  185

  225

  267

  153

  Meirionnydd

  54

  49

  26

  31

  66

  90

  44

  49

  64

  105

  63

  Merthyr Tydfil

  150

  109

  187

  167

  314

  156

  115

  97

  178

  189

  105

  Monmouth

  486

  351

  591

  569

  348

  260

  268

  285

  532

  461

  325

  Montgomeryshire

  267

  257

  290

  543

  423

  352

  259

  389

  359

  291

  343

  Neath

  62

  119

  183

  196

  318

  250

  174

  78

  234

  203

  193

  Newport

  887

  231

  768

  456

  693

  241

  271

  460

  222

  286

  333

  Ogwr

  432

  397

  416

  566

  413

  476

  479

  484

  576

  506

  453

  Port Talbot

  69

  63

  49

  157

  153

  169

  93

  70

  146

  95

  105

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  108

  190

  62

  198

  242

  298

  195

  237

  273

  355

  414

  Radnorshire

  64

  83

  128

  266

  220

  122

  150

  123

  177

  135

  50

  Rhondda

  32

  27

  94

  227

  174

  124

  174

  142

  120

  136

  39

  Rhuddian

  148

  159

  126

  183

  159

  128

  160

  140

  266

  173

  112

  Rhymney Valley

  200

  154

  236

  280

  342

  273

  238

  196

  184

  108

  481

  South Pembrokeshire

  87

  160

  199

  308

  357

  326

  146

  197

  359

  269

  181

  Swansea

  410

  367

  414

  814

  539

  321

  281

  421

  833

  1,204

  631

  Taff Ely

  395

  301

  618

  400

  565

  388

  328

  400

  386

  507

  634

  Torfaen

  374

  228

  322

  259

  296

  379

  288

  290

  336

  202

  258

  Vale of Glamorgan

  451

  624

  615

  497

  410

  343

  251

  464

  497

  410

  560

  Wrexham Maelor

  383

  388

  329

  431

  341

  498

  334

  464

  473

  342

  240

  Ynys Mon

  129

  137

  176

  156

  305

  246

  124

  98

  143

  120

  127

  Total

  8,704

  8,401

  10,707

  13,040

  12,064

  10,254

  9,395

  8,917

  10,588

  10,589

  9,222

  EU Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 65–66, if he will list for each of the last three years those applications to the European Union for financial support for education and training projects on which he has received information. [34488]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 June,Official Report, column 155.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Pembrokeshire NHS trust regarding the piloting of the Read codes computerised medical terms language in a clinical setting at Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest. [35066]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Child Abuse Inquiries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of the report into child abuse in north Wales by Nicola Davies QC. [35137]

  Mr. Hague
  The cost was £99,500.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of public funds of "Accommodating Children—A Review of Children's Homes in Wales" by the social services inspectorate of the Welsh Office. [35139]

  Mr. Hague
  Part of the survey work in respect of this report was undertaken by an outside consultancy and cost £20,000.
  344
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of public funds of(a) the Tymawr community home inquiry and (b) the report by Gareth Williams QC and John McCreadie. [35125]

  Mr. Hague
  The inquiry was undertaken by Gwent county council and I have no information in respect of costs.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down and Nancekuke
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former and present staff who have worked at the chemical warfare establishments at Porton Down and Nancekuke have claimed compensation since 1966 for injury or illnesses arising out of their employment at the establishments. [34468]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1989, two service personnel have submitted claims for compensation in respect of injury or illness arising out of their employment at Porton Down or Nancekuke. It is not possible to establish the number of service personnel who may have claimed in the period 1966 to 1989, or the number of civilian personnel who may have claimed since 1966 without disproportionate cost, since records of claims are not held in a way that would readily provide the data requested.

  RAF Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident
  345
  involving Royal Air Force Tornado serial number ZD743 in August 1995; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34648]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Tornado ZD743 is undergoing repair following damage to the underside of the fuselage when landing at RAF Bruggen on 9 March 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving Royal Air Force Harrier serial number ZG510 at Gioia del Colle, Italy; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34652]

  Mr. Soames
  Some damage to sensors in the nose area and canopy of RAF Harrier ZG510 was discovered after landing at Gioia del Colle on 7 August 1995. The equipment was repaired and the aircraft returned to service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving a Royal Air Force Wessex helicopter at Sennybridge training area in autumn 1995; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34654]

  Mr. Soames
  A RAF Wessex was involved in a landing incident at Sennybridge on 19 October 1995 as a result of an uncommanded yaw. The aircraft landed safely but heavily, causing the tailcone skin to tear. Following an engineering investigation, the damage was repaired and the aircraft returned to service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of repairing Royal Navy Sea Harrier serial number XZ440 following its accident in October 1989; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34646]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of repairing Royal Navy Sea Harrier XZ440 was some £1.5 million. The aircraft is currently undergoing conversion from FRS Mk1 to FA Mk2 standard. Once the avionic and equipment installation programme is complete, the aircraft will be returned to service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving Royal Air Force Jaguar serial number XX974; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34650]

  Mr. Soames
  A search of RAF flight safety records from the beginning of 1995 has revealed two occurrences of a technical nature involving RAF Jaguar XX974, none of which has resulted in any aircraft damage. The aircraft is still in service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving Royal Air Force Tornado serial number ZA365 during 1995; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34645]

  Mr. Soames
  A search of RAF flight safety records has revealed no accident or incident involving RAF Tornado ZA365 during 1995. A bird struck the fuselage of the aircraft during a training sortie over the Moray Firth on 23 June 1994. The damage to the panel and fuselage requires complex repair work. The aircraft has not yet returned to service.
  346
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving Royal Air Force Chinook serial number ZA681; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34649]

  Mr. Soames
  A bird struck the nose and windscreen area of RAF Chinook ZA681 during a training sortie from RAF Wittering to RAF Odiham on 5 December 1994. There was no damage to the aircraft, which is still in service.

  Mr.Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving a Royal Air Force Tornado at Bruggen on 23 February; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [34653]

  Mr. Soames
  A RAF Tornado suffered suspected gearbox failure and subsequent fire shortly after taking off from RAF Bruggen on 23 February 1996. The aircraft landed safely and the fire was extinguished. The aircraft is being examined and the extent of damage has yet to be formally assessed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of repairing Tornado serial number ZD844; and what are the estimated dates of completion of repairs and return of the aircraft to service. [34651]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated cost of repairing Tornado ZD844 is some £430,000. The forecast date for completion of the structural repairs is July 1997. Ii is expected that ZD844 will re-enter service following a major servicing later that year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current damage and repair status of Royal Air Force Jaguar serial number XZ396. [34647]

  Mr. Soames
  Jaguar XZ396 is a serviceable aircraft currently flying with a squadron based at RAF Coltishall. The aircraft has a small dent in the rear fuselage. The damage does not impair the structural integrity of the aircraft and repair has been deferred until the next scheduled major maintenance.

  Visiting Forces Act
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British citizens have been(a) detained, (b) arrested, (c) charged, (d) acquitted and (e) prosecuted by those acting under the Visiting Forces Act 1951 in each year since 1966 to date. [34310]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]:The service courts and service authorities of a country to which section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies may exercise over persons subject to their jurisdiction all the powers conferred on them by the law of that country. Citizens of the United Kingdom can be prosecuted or tried under this provision only if they are members of a force of the country concerned. My Department is not aware of any such cases.

  Surplus Equipment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the total receipts for the sale of surplus
  347
  equipment in each of the three services in each of the past five years. [35024]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Disposal Sales Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Navy

  11.842

  25.307

  42.403

  36.202

  45.706

  161.460

  Army

  16.077

  16.173

  16.607

  26.460

  24.098

  99.415

  RAF

  2.964

  4.965

  6.430

  8.937

  6.366

  29.662

  PE

  1.644

  1.296

  1.231

  1.504

  1.488

  7.163

  Total

  32.527

  47.741

  66.671

  73.103

  77.658

  297.700

  Naval Manning Agency
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the organisation of the naval secretary and director general of naval manpower. [35349]

  Mr. Soames
  I am delighted to announce that today the organisation of the naval secretary and director general of naval manpower is to be established as a Defence agency of the Ministry of Defence. It will be entitled the Naval Manning Agency, NMA.

  The NMA's owner will be the Second Sea Lord and Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command, with whom the chief executive's headquarters will be collocated within HM naval base, Portsmouth.

  The NMA is to ensure that sufficient manpower is available on the trained strength and effectively deployed in peace, crisis, major crisis and war.

  As the first chief executive, the naval secretary, Rear Admiral F.M. Malbon, will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. In maintaining the NMA's vital contribution to front line capability, the naval secretary, through the greater delegations and authority afforded by agency status, will actively seek to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation.

  The naval secretary has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  (1) Greater than 93 per cent. of officer billets to be filled.

  (2) Greater than 93.5 per cent. of naval rating/royal marines other ranks billets to be filled.

  (3) Total strength of naval personnel to be within 1 per cent. of the set requirement.

  (4) Greater than 60 per cent. of officers to receive more than four months' notice for change of appointment.

  (5) Greater than 98 per cent. of ratings/other ranks to receive more than the specified notice for change of employment.

  (6) The number of occurrences where minimum time ashore criteria are not met to be fewer than 150 per year.

  (7) To achieve a progressive annual 10 per cent. reduction in the number of manpower gaps.

  (8) To conduct two benchmarking exercises with comparable personnel management organisations per year.

  348
  Letter from Keith Ellenden to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 1 July 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about receipts from the sale of surplus equipment as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.

  Total receipts from the sale of surplus equipment in each of the three services in each of the past five years are shown below.

TRANSPORT

  Quiet Aircraft (Investment)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to ensure that investments in quiet aircraft by United Kingdom airlines are protected against the incursion of fifth freedom airlines. [33852]

  Mr. Norris
  All civil flights, including fifth freedom flights, operated from the UK must comply with the provisions of the EU directive and UK regulations governing the phasing out of noisier, "Chapter 2" jet aircraft. Scheduled fifth freedom services are agreed by negotiation with our bilateral partners, following consultation with UK airlines. On 19 June my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced new measures aimed at tightening controls on fifth freedom charter services operated from the UK by foreign airlines. Except where flights are permitted under EC legislation, the Government's policy is to allow passenger charters to be operated by fifth freedom carriers only where no UK airline can offer a suitable aircraft.

  Cycle Helmets
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory; and if he will make a statement. [34825]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government actively promote the benefits of cycle helmet wearing, but we have no plans to make them compulsory.

  Aviation Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 340, if he will list the aircraft type, registration number, flight destination and flight number of the Air Operation flight where the certificate of airworthiness was withdrawn; [34803]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of air operation certificates issued to Air Operations Europe. [34808]

  Mr. Norris
  [further to his answer, 17 June 1996, Official Report, c. 340]: The certificate of airworthiness for this aircraft was withdrawn after problems were found

  349
  during routine maintenance and the aircraft was therefore not allocated to any particular flight at the time. Details concerning aircraft and the air operator certificates of airlines are held by the relevant regulatory organisations—in this case the Swedish civil aviation authority.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inspections the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken on the DC10 operated by Excalibur Airways. [34807]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority carried out 12 inspections on the operation of the DC10 by Excalibur Airways in order to be satisfied that the operator was competent to operate the type for public transport in accordance with the company's air operator certificate. Since approval was given for such operations, a further two inspections have been carried out. The CAA advises me that this is a representative inspection profile.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many complaints were received by the Air Transport Users Council in each of the last five years; and how many of them in each year related to airline or aircraft safety; [34805]

  (2) if he will list the number and nature of complaints received by the Air Transport Users Council relating to services operated by Air Operations Europe for each of the last three years. [34806]

  Mr. Norris
  The hon. Member should seek this information from the Air Transport Users Council at 103 Kingsway, London WC2B 6QX.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the permits issued to Ghana Airways to fly into and out of the United Kingdom. [34804]

  Mr. Norris
  Ghana Airways operates scheduled passenger services between Ghana and the United Kingdom and applies for winter and summer seasonal permits to operate services. The current permit for summer 1996 allows the airline to operate four services per week between London and Accra and vice versa, in accordance with the air services arrangements agreed between our two countries.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 645, how many complaints had been received regarding the safety of aircraft registered in Bulgaria; and if he will list the airlines involved. [34810]

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1991, the Department has received 36 passenger complaints alleging various problems or deficiencies with flights using aircraft registered in Bulgaria. The Department asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent assessment in Bulgaria to ensure that International Civil Aviation Organisation standards were being applied. This assessment was carried out in February 1996.

  Two Bulgarian airlines operate passenger flights to the UK. They are Balkan Airlines and Air Via.

  Parking Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many appeals have so far been submitted 350
  to the parking appeals service adjudicators for London; how many of these have been determined; and how many have been successful. [34940]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is set out in the Parking Committee for London's annual report and accounts, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of drivers entitled to drive class 1 and class 2 heavy goods vehicles whose licences have been issued since 1991. [34811]

  Mr. Norris
  As explained in my reply of 17 June,Official Report, column 339, the terms class 1 and class 2 heavy goods vehicle are no longer used. The total number of large goods vehicle licences issued since 1991 is 1,019,355. Information on the number of drivers to whom these licences have been issued is not readily available.

  Traffic Area Offices (Cardiff and Manchester)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the business case for the closure of the traffic area offices in Cardiff and Manchester. [34809]

  Mr. Norris
  The strategic case for restructuring the traffic area network was set out in the "Efficiency Scrutiny of the Traffic Area Network" report published in June 1995. I have placed in the Library a further copy of the report and the costings for the current proposals.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each of the last three years the number of "s" endorsed prohibition notices issued by the vehicle inspectorate; [34801]

  (2) whether delayed prohibition notices count towards the enforcement targets set for the vehicle inspectorate by his Department; [34799]

  (3) in what circumstances (a) his Department and (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate are able to prohibit United Kingdom drivers from driving over their permitted hours when stopped at the roadside during roadside checks; [34802]

  (4) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of prosecutions undertaken by the vehicle inspectorate (a) in the Crown courts (b) in magistrates courts. [34800]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on prohibitions and prosecutions.

  In 1994–95, 3,219 of all prohibitions issued were endorsed "S". Information for previous years can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Delayed prohibition notices do count towards the enforcement targets set for the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI).
  351
  VI does not have the power to prohibit United Kingdom drivers from driving over the permitted hours when stopped at the roadside during roadside checks.

  Information for the last five years on the number of prosecutions taken by VI at a) Crown Court and b) Magistrates' Court can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Severn Crossings
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 32, what repair work has had to be undertaken on the approach roads to the original Severn bridge as a result of defective steelwork; and what has been the effect on traffic flows. [34946]

  Mr. Watts
  No repair work has been undertaken on the approach roads to the original Severn bridge as a result of defective steelwork.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of traffic used each of the Severn river crossings in each week since its opening. [34886]

  Mr. Watts
  In each of the first three weeks of the new Severn crossing being opened, approximately 75 per cent. of traffic has used the new bridge and 25 per cent. the old.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the difference between the total costs of the second Severn crossing(a) under the present arrangements and (b) financed entirely by public funds; and if he will make a statement. [35028]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimate he has made of the difference between the total costs of the Second Severn Crossing (a) under the present arrangements and (b) financed entirely by public funds.

  A comparison of the 4 private sector bids submitted in 1989 with the estimated cost of procuring the Crossing using public funds showed that the bid submitted by the winning tenderer. Severn River Crossing Plc, was cheaper and represented the best value of money. Utilising the private sector also meant that the Crossing could be provided much earlier than would have been possible if it had to compete for scarce road programme funds.

  Permanent Way
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries have occurred in each year since 1979 arising from unauthorised access to the permanent way by (i) children under 16 years and (b) adults. [34735]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of fatal accidents and serious injuries to children under 16 years and adults arising from unauthorised access to the permanent way is shown in the following table:

  Fatal accidents

  Serious injuries

  Year

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  1979

  121

  13

  363

  41

  24

  65

  1980

  127

  13

  140

  45

  10

  55

  1981

  129

  18

  147

  34

  12

  46

  1982

  120

  10

  130

  30

  20

  50

  1983

  131

  15

  146

  37

  27

  64

  352

  Fatal accidents

  Serious injuries

  Year

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  1984

  127

  19

  146

  42

  30

  72

  1985

  137

  13

  150

  49

  22

  71

  1986

  152

  10

  162

  50

  22

  72

  1987

  129

  15

  144

  48

  15

  63

  1988

  164

  16

  180

  58

  17

  75

  1989

  141

  8

  149

  34

  13

  47

  1990

  153

  15

  168

  64

  21

  85

  1991

  28

  2

  30

  5

  4

  9

  1991–92

  143

  7

  150

  44

  19

  63

  1992–93

  127

  5

  132

  46

  12

  58

  1993–94

  114

  7

  121

  46

  10

  56

  1994–95

  128

  6

  134

  52

  9

  61

  Total

  2,171

  192

  2,363

  725

  287

  1,012

  1. Figures exclude suicides and attempted suicides.

  2. Figures for 1979 to 1990 cover calendar year 1 January to 31 December.

  3. Figures for 1991 cover the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991.

  4. Figures to 1992–93 to 1994–95 cover the financial year 1 April to 31 March.

  Statistics for 1995–96 are not yet available and will be published in the Health and Safety Executive's annual report on railway safety in Great Britain, copies for which are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will produce a report on the total(a) costs of and (b) number of calls received by, separately identifying non-effective calls, to the cones hotline in each year of its existence. [35025]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 26 March 1996 at column 547 and on 10 July 1995 at column 403.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of operating the royal train in 1995–96; on how many occasions it was used; and by whom. [33656]

  Mr. Watts
  The total cost to the Exchequer of royal travel by train in 1995–96 was £1.9 million, including train preparation, maintenance and British Transport police security. The train was used on 31 occasions by Her Majesty the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal and the Duchess of Kent.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 613, which members of the royal family used the royal train in 1994–95; and for what specific purpose in each case. [33735]

  Mr. Watts
  During 1994–95 the train was used by Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal and the Duchess of Kent. On each occasion, the train was used in connection with their public duties.
  353

  Central Railway
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the complete set of documents submitted to him by Central Railway plc under the Transport and Works Act 1992. [35072]

  Mr. Watts
  Central Railway plc, at our request, provided the Library with a complete set of the application documents shortly after their TWA application was made on 20 May. I understand that the Library reference number for the documents is TW27.

  Wheel Loss
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will conduct a survey of wheel loss incidents to determine the number of wheels lost off trucks and buses in the United Kingdom every year. [34870]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked my Department to investigate, together with the vehicle inspectorate, ways of improving the collection and collation of data to give a more accurate assessment of the incidence of wheel loss.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those wheel fixings that his Department has assessed as conforming to the British standard. [34871]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not monitor or assess the quality of wheel fixing components.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned in respect of the products on the market which claim to prevent wheel loss. [34879]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has not commissioned any research into products which claim to prevent wheel loss. It is a matter of departmental policy that we do not test, approve or otherwise endorse any proprietary products.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will fund research into wheel loss. [34878]

  Mr. Norris
  The mechanism of wheel loss has been extensively researched through the British Standards Institution and my Department is closely involved with the relevant committee of the institution. Recommendations regarding the manufacturing quality of fixings and care and maintenance have been made based on the outcome of this research, to which the Department of Trade and Industry contributed some £35,000.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into road traffic accidents involving heavy commercial vehicles and attributable to lost wheel syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [35152]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has not directly commissioned any research. However, we have been represented for many years on the British standards committee for wheels and tyres. This committee commissioned research by the Motor Industry Research Association into the problems of wheel loss from commercial vehicles. This research complemented work by Exeter university on behalf of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers and the Department of Trade and Industry, which contributed some £35,000 to the funding.
  354
  An analysis of the vehicle inspectorate's accident and defect database shows that since 1982 there have been 323 accident cases involving the loss of wheels from commercial vehicles. Of the cases where the inspectorate prepared a defect report, almost three-quarters were shown to be related to maintenance or abuse.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on regional celebrations for the millennium. [33671]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Eight out of the nine flagship landmark projects for which funding has been approved are outside London. The Government are putting in place machinery to co-ordinate the many projects and events that are being planned around the UK to celebrate the millennium. My Department will lead this co-ordination. The millennium exhibition, which the Millennium Commission intends to support with up to £200 million, includes plans for a regional programme. The commission also welcomes funding applications for large-scale capital projects around the country.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice she has given to those selecting millennium projects for lottery funding concerning the regional distribution of their awards. [33678]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission wants to ensure a good geographical spread of awards. It expects to fund 12 landmark projects in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in each of the English regions. The commission will award funds to a number of smaller projects throughout the country.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding the national site for the millennium celebration. [33682]

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the millennium project at Greenwich. [33683]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  As chairman of Millennium Commission and as Secretary of State for National Heritage, I have received letters from Members of Parliament and the public about the siting of the millennium exhibition. The decision to award the exhibition to Greenwich was made by the millennium commissioners.

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the community-based credit unions in Scotland which have received national lottery awards indicating the average sum awarded; and if she will make a statement. [33672]

  Mr. Sproat
  No community-based credit union in Scotland has received a national lottery award, but the National Lottery Charities Board announced on 11 June an award of £63,590 to the credit union development initiative in Middlesbrough.
  355

  Good Causes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of her Department's role in promoting greater public involvement in the good causes supported by lottery funding; and if she will make a statement. [33673]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Distributing bodies have undertaken wide public consultation to know the views of the public when setting the rules for distribution of funds.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she next expects to discuss the programmes to promote minority languages with her European Union counterparts. [33674]

  Mr. Sproat
  The European Ariane programme—which has as one of its aims the support of translation of literary works between Community languages, with priority being given to lesser-used ones—was discussed at the Culture Council on 11 June, and a common position was formally adopted by Ministers on 27 June. There are no plans for further ministerial discussions.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy for the Arts Council; and if she will make a statement. [33677]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government set the legal, financial and institutional framework within which the Arts Council of England operates. Ministers make appointments to the council and determine the overall structure of arts funding and management.

  Within this framework, the council's role, in accordance with its royal charter, is to develop and improve the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts, and to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public. It achieves these objectives through grants to individual arts organisations from public expenditure and from its share of the proceeds of the national lottery.

  National Lottery
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the average amount spent weekly by each household on the national lottery. [33680]

  Mr. Sproat
  Family expenditure survey figures published in May showed that the average household spends just over £2 on the lottery draw each week.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the operation of the national lottery. [33681]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The lottery continues to be successful. It has raised more than £2 billion for the good causes. The distributing bodies have made 9,162 grants for a total of over £1.8 billion.

  Camelot has now paid out 100 million prizes.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received about the distribution of lottery moneys; and if she will make a statement. [33679]
  356
  Mrs. Bottomley
  People are interested in all aspects of the national lottery, including the distribution of funds to the good causes. The lottery is an important part of national life.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the total budget allocated to English Heritage in the current financial year. [33684]

  Mr. Sproat
  English Heritage has budgeted for expenditure of £126.3 million in 1996–97, of which £107.3 million is to be provided by Government grant in aid. This sum includes specific provision of £2 million each for the Albert memorial and Eltham palace. The allocation for 1996–97 is 11 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1990–91.

  National Volunteers Week
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support her Department gave to national Volunteers Week. [33685]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department gave support to Volunteers Week in a number of ways. Financial support was given to the volunteer centre to co-ordinate the week. My right hon. Friend also participated in a number of events organised for the week, including the initial launch and a conference, "A Route to Opportunity", and the launch of business in the community's challenge 96, and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service's initiative for MPs to give an hour of their time to a WRVS project in their constituency.

  Arts Support
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has held on increasing private sector support for the arts. [33686]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Business support is now a major component of the arts economy. I meet representatives from the business sector regularly to discuss a range of issues, including support for the arts. I also aim, through functions such as the pairing scheme receptions which I host regularly, to encourage even greater private sector involvement in the arts and in the community more generally.

  Euro 96
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contribution her Department made in cash and percentage terms to the organisation of Euro 96. [33675]

  Mr. Sproat
  Euro 96 has been organised on a self-financing basis. The Department and its agencies have provided more than £400,000 to support the local authorities, cultural programme organised alongside the football. The DNH-sponsored national music festival has also focused this year on Euro 96, with Department support increased by £40,000 to £100,000.
  357

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps are taken to monitor the use of national lottery funding by sports clubs. [33676]

  Mr. Sproat
  All national lottery distributors are required to monitor their awards to ensure that lottery funds are being used for the purpose the grant was given and that the projects supported represent value for money.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nigerian Ministerial Delegation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of the current visit of the Nigerian ministerial delegation to the United Kingdom. [34827]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Nigerian ministerial delegation was invited to the United Kingdom by the Commonwealth ministerial action group for talks about the Commonwealth's concerns on human rights and the transition to civilian government in Nigeria.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hormone-implanted Beef Imports
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what reports he has received of imports of hormone-implanted beef entering the United Kingdom in the last year; [26275]

  (2) when he expects to answer the question of the hon. Member for Delyn for answer on 22 April, ref 26275. [35095]

  Mrs. Browning
  I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  The import from third countries of meat and meat products derived from animals treated with hormonal growth promoters has been banned since 1988, as has the use of these substances within the European Community. Third countries wishing to import to the Community must submit guarantees to the European Commission regarding their plans for monitoring for these substances. Member states are responsible for implementing and policing the Community ban in respect of their own national production.

  We have not received any reports in the last year of the importation of meat derived from animals to which illegal hormones have been administered. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the state veterinary service would immediately investigate any such allegations.

  Plant Genetic Resources
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will(a) endorse and (b) financially support the global plan of action on plant genetic resources to be discussed at the Food and Agriculture Organisation's fourth international technical conference at Leipzig; and if he will make a statement. [33351]
  358
  Mr. Boswell
  The global plan of action was unanimously adopted last week by the FAO fourth international technical conference, at which the UK was represented by officials from my Department and the Overseas Development Administration. The UK supports the global plan of action as a useful framework on which to base future action, and will play a full and active part in its implementation and follow up processes.

  Through the ODA, the UK already provides significant resources for many of the areas identified in the global plan.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he plans to(a) increase and (b) stabilise and maintain the variety of plant genetic material used within agricultural systems in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the European Community and (iii) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [33353]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are well aware of the need to maintain diversity of plant genetic resources for future food security, and are already taking active steps to ensure the conservation and future sustainable use of such resources, both nationally and internationally through the implementation of the principles enshrined in the convention on biological diversity, through the reform of the common agricultural policy, and through the development of the FAO global system for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Government will continue to support the principles of sustainable development in line with their strategy for sustainable development, which was published in 1994.

  Sustainable Agriculture Policies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support sustainable agriculture policies in international meetings this year with particular reference to the Food and Agriculture Organisation international undertaking, the World Trade Organisation and the convention on biological diversity; and if he will make a statement. [33352]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is already fully committed to the principles of sustainable development, in line with the Government's strategy for sustainable development which was published in 1994. This commitment extends to international forums where such issues are discussed.

  Departmental Agencies (Scientists)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the separate agencies operating under his Department, with the names of the scientists appointed to each and the percentage of the membership those scientists represent. [33881]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry has six executive agencies.:

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS)

  Central Science Laboratory (CSL)

  Meat Hygiene Service (MHS)

  Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

  I have asked agency chief executives to reply direct to the hon. Member on the remaining part of his question.
  359
  Letter from Phillip Needham to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question in which you ask for the names of the scientists appointed to each Agency and the percentage of membership those scientists represent. [33881]

  The information for ADAS is as follows:

  Assistant Scientific Officer: 199

  Scientific Officer: 87

  Higher Scientific Officer: 28

  Total: 314

  Percentage of membership of total staff: 18

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about names of scientists and the percentage of membership those scientists represent in his executive agencies in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [33881]

  I am placing copies of CSL's Annual Science Review 1994, which includes a staff listing, in the House Libraries. The percentage of scientific staff in CSL is 72%.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to scientists employed by Agencies under MAFF's control has been passed to me for reply with respect to this Executive Agency.

  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was launched on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcement of the hygiene, inspection and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales.

  The MHS headquarters are based in York where the Chief Executive and the supporting functions of Operations, Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology are based. MHS services are managed by six regional offices. The Head of Operations as well as two of the Regional Managers are qualified Veterinary Surgeons. The MHS also employs Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) to supervise meat inspection staff working in plants. The MHS directly employs 37 OVSs and in addition contracts out work to 110 full time equivalent vets to supplement them. 7 vets are also used on a casual basis. This represents 12% of the total MHS workforce.

  I am sure you will appreciate that, for security reasons, the MHS is unable to disclose the names of its employees.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning the names of scientists appointed to PSD, and the percentage of the membership that these scientists represent. [3388]

  I regret that, for reasons of security, I am unable to provide the names of the scientific staff employed by PSD. However, I can advise that PSD employs 134 scientists, which is 63% of the total staffing of the agency.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on scientists in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  360
  There are currently 1,049 staff employed by the VLA. The VLA's aim is to provide MAFF with an effective and efficient service of specialist veterinary, scientific and technical support, consultancy and surveillance in the fields of animal health and welfare, food safety and the environment. To support this work, the majority of VLA employees are scientists and veterinarians.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about scientists employed in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [33881]

  There are currently 33 scientists employed in the VMD, representing 30% of the staff. The names of VMD's scientific and other senior staff are set out in the April 1996 edition of MAVIS to assist companies in their dealings with the Agency. Copies of MAVIS are in the House Library.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to increase the age of calves slaughtered under the calf compensation scheme, as part of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy culling programme, to 21 days. [34101]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Agriculture Council agreed at its meeting on 24 to 27 June that the age limit for calves under the scheme should be increased to 20 days in appropriate cases to be agreed by the Commission. We will be seeking to implement this change in the United Kingdom as soon as the necessary legislative provisions are in place.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review compensation schemes for animals under 30 months of age in the current BSE culling programme; and if he will make a statement. [34102]

  Mr. Baldry
  Adult animals under 30 months of age are not covered by any measures of the sort described. The slaughter premium for calves is prescribed in Council Regulation 805/68, as amended.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the letters of 7 and 30 May from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich inquiring about the scientific basis of the cattle cull. [34434]

  Mr. Boswell
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the letters of 7 and 30 May on 28 June 1996.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to monitor the activities of dealers taking advantage of the cow slaughter schemes; and what action he takes in the event of abuse. [34266]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: The activities of dealers are not monitored on a regular basis under the over-30 months slaughter scheme. We have, however, announced arrangements which will ensure that livestock markets get a fair share of the throughput of cattle to be slaughtered. We have also made clear that abuses of the scheme will not be tolerated.
  361
  Any allegations of abuse of the scheme rules made to the intervention board or to the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be investigated.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an inquiry to investigate the possible linkage between the Canterbury Mills animal rendering plant at Godmersham, Kent, the farm where the first BSE-infected herd was discovered in Ashford in 1985, and the cluster of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases in the Ashford area. [34510]

  Mrs. Browning
  Extensive epidemiological studies into BSE show no correlation between the incidence of BSE and any geographical features, including the location of rendering plants. The epidemiological surveillance of CJD is the responsibility of the national CJD surveillance unit funded by the Department of Health and the Scottish

  Details of permits of exemption

  England

  Value of permit (per cent, of minimum rate/£/week)

  AWC

  0–49 £0-£75.97

  50–59 £77.52-£91.47

  60–69 £93.02-£106.98

  70–79 £108.53-£122.48

  80–89 £124.03-£137.99

  90–100 £139.53-£155.04

  Total number of permits

  Avon, Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex and Hertfordshire

  —

  1

  5

  2

  2

  2

  12

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  6

  Cheshire and Staffordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Cleveland, Durham and North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northants and Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  6

  Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire and West Midlands

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kent, Surrey and East and West Sussex

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  6

  Lancashire, Manchester and Merseyside

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  8

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  5

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear and Cumbria

  2

  1

  —

  1

  17

  —

  21

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South and West Yorkshire

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  5

  Wales

  Value of permit (Percentage of minimum rate/£/week)

  AWC

  0–49 £0-£75.97

  50–59 £77.52- £91.47

  60–69 £93.02-£106.98

  70–79 £108.53-£122.48

  80–89 £124.03-£137.99

  90–100 £139.53- £155.04

  Total number of permits

  Gwynedd and Clwyd

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Gwent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dyfed

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Mid, South and West Glamorgan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Powys

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  362
  Office. The unit publishes annual reports and has considered geographical clustering of CJD cases, but has failed to find any of statistical significance. The unit continues to investigate cases of suspected CJD, including any of the new variant, and would report any significant findings.

  Wages
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many permits issued to individuals who are incapacitated for the purposes of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 for the payment of lower minimum rates are currently in force; and what is their distribution by(a) region and (b) rates of pay. [34585]

  Mr. Boswell
  Permits of exemption are issued by agricultural wages committees. The tables show the total number of permits issued by each committee, in England and Wales, grouped according to their value as a percentage of the current minimum rate for an adult full-time ordinary worker.
  363

  Calf Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves were exported to Europe in the first three months of 1996. [34600]

  Mr. Boswell
  Provisional overseas trade statistics show that 57,000 calves were exported from the United Kingdom to EC countries in the first three months of 1996.

  Fishing Fleet (Luxembourg)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals the Fisheries Minster for Luxembourg has made to cut that country's fishing fleet; [34590]

  (2) what is the current size of the Luxembourg fishing fleet. [34591]

  Mr. Baldry
  Luxembourg does not have a fishing fleet.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reviews of the state veterinary service he has undertaken over the last 10 years; in which year each review was carried out; and if he will make a statement. [35058]

  Mrs. Browning
  Reviews of the state veterinary service—SVS—initiated by the Minister over the past 10 years are:1989-Next steps initiative

  This resulted in the Central Veterinary Laboratory—CVL—separating from the state veterinary service and being established as a next steps agency in 1990.

  1990—Review of the investigation service

  The outcome was a reduction in a number of centres from 19 to 13 + one veterinary inspection unit.

  1993—Review of the animal health and veterinary group (which included the SVS)

  As a result of this review, the veterinary investigation service merged with the CVL in October 1995, as an enlarged agency—Veterinary Laboratory Agency—and the veterinary field service has undergone a structural reorganization.

  Throughout, the Government have ensured that their commitment to preserving the front-line resources and capabilities of the state veterinary service has been maintained.

  Poultry Slaughter
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many head of poultry have been slaughtered under the control and eradication of salmonella regulations. [34994]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since the start of the compulsory slaughter policy for salmonella infected flocks on 1 March 1989 until 28 June 1996, 3,706,938 birds in 414 flocks have been compulsorily slaughtered.

  Rendering Plants
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what temperature requirements he imposes on rendering plants for the heating of animal material; and if he will make a statement. [35059]
  364
  Mrs. Browning
  The various temperature requirements which have to be met by rendering plants are laid down in Council directive 90/667/EEC, implemented in Great Britain by the Animal By-Product Order 1992, as amended, and the Specified Bovine Material (No. 2) Order 1996.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many questions for ordinary written answer tabled for answer between 20 March and 20 June did not receive an answer within once week.

  Mr. Boswell
  Of the 356 written questions tabled to the Department in the period concerned, 179 did not receive an answer within one week.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in 1996–97. [35437]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency the following strategic performance targets for 1996–97:

  Financial performance
  full cost recovery for all Veterinary Laboratories Agency services.
  to comply with budgetary controls resulting from the public expenditure survey and the supply estimates

  Efficiency
  an overall efficiency gain of 3 per cent.

  Service delivery
  85 per cent. of ROAME research and development milestones achieved

  Service quality
  achievement of a satisfactory report from a visiting group
  achievement of laboratory accreditation for bacteriology department (salmonella and E.Coli serotyping) and analytical chemistry unit (extension of the scope of accreditation to include additional tests).

  Details of performance in 1995–96 will be set out in the agency's annual report and accounts, to be published during July 1996.

  Fish Diseases Laboratory, Weymouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost of running the fish diseases laboratory in Weymouth; how many staff it employs; and what are its functions. [35069]

  Mr. Baldry
  The fish diseases laboratory at Weymouth is part of the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research, and its annual running costs are currently £1.9 million. It employs 53 staff and is responsible for statutory duties in relation to fish and shellfish diseases and shellfish hygiene, and undertakes related research.

  British Beef Ban
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which countries outside the
  365
  European Union have banned British beef; what action has been taken against each country; whether the UK has retaliated in kind; and if will make a statement; [27187]

  (2) when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire for answer on 30 April on bans on British beef by non-EU countries. [34507]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 30 April 1996]: I very much regret that my hon. Friend has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Commission decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 provided that the UK shall not export from its territory meat and meat products obtained from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK. The list of countries outside the European Union shows those countries with a ban on imports of British beef on the day before the introduction of the Commission decision.

  Algeria

  Argentina

  Bahrain

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  China

  Iran

  Iraq

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan (CIS)

  Libya

  Lithuania

  Malaysia

  Philippines

  Russian Federation

  Saudia Arabia

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Taiwan

  United Arab Emirates

  Uzbekistan

  366
  The United States has not accepted imports of bone in beef from Britain since 1989. After 1989, negotiations concentrated on securing access to US markets for boneless beef, which were successfully concluded in July 1994. Negotiations continue on securing wider access to the US market, although in regular discussions with representatives of industry, the US has not been identified as a priority market for the export of beef.

  The following countries had introduced, but subsequently lifted, a ban before 27 March.

  Chile

  Cyprus

  Egypt

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  State of Sarawak (Malaysia)

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Oman

  Poland

  Qatar

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Details of the representations made by the UK Government in respect of individual countries could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, we have pressed our case strongly with the authorities concerned in an effort to persuade them to lift these restrictions on trade, based on the scientific evidence available from the World Health Organisation and others that there is no human health hazard arising from the consumption of UK beef.

  Responsibility for pursuing action through the World Trade Organisation—WTO—to secure the removal of unjustified BSE-related restrictions on UK exports and on those of other EU member states rests exclusively with the European Commission, as with all matters relating to trade outside the EU. Action has already been started by the Commission against certain countries who have imposed bans on dairy products from various EU member states.

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

Armenia and the British Council
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are any plans to open a British Council office in Armenia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the British Council has no plans to open an office in Armenia in the immediate future.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but it will give little comfort to the Armenians, who feel deeply hurt by what they perceive as Britain's discriminatory policy against them. Can my noble friend confirm that there are already centres in Azerbaijan and Georgia and that the British Council intends to open an office in Tashkent? Can she further say why, even with those developments in the region, Armenia is still being left out in the cold?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are not discriminating against Armenia, but we have to decide from a limited budget where we can be most useful in opening British Council offices. There are now 229 offices in 109 countries. Those figures compare rather well with 108 offices in 79 countries some 15 years ago. As regards the countries about which my noble friend asked, the office in Azerbaijan was provided by commercial money. The offices in Georgia and Tashkent are very small indeed. My noble friend should compare the relative interests. That involves looking at where the money can be found and the priorities. Priorities are never easy, but they are important.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Foreign Office has a very limited sum of money to spend on British Council offices. Does the noble Baroness agree that throughout history there has been a very close affinity between the Armenian and British peoples; that Britain in particular took the lead in demonstrating the atrocities committed against Armenians in the First World War; and that at the time Britain was one of the foremost champions of Armenian liberty? Therefore, is it not incongruous that, when other countries in the region are privileged to have British Council offices, Armenia is still being ignored?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Armenia is not being ignored. If the noble Lord looks at my Answer in Hansard, he will see that I said that there are,
"no plans to open an office in [Armenia] in the immediate future".
1208
There is a close affinity with Armenia. It is correct that the United Kingdom took the lead in the First World War. But we have to be realistic. If I thought that there was a chance, I would have been more positive. Although Armenia is stabilising its economy, its economy still needs improvement. Our exports to Armenia are far less than those to other countries, which only very recently have had the opportunity of having a British Council office.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a director of the company which helped to finance the British Council and diplomatic presence in Azerbaijan. Does the Minister agree that, while it is clearly important that the British Council maintains an adequate presence in the former Soviet Union, it is also very important to ensure that we maintain an adequate diplomatic presence in the former Soviet Union? Is the Minister aware that our diplomatic presence in the former Soviet Union, in the shape of home-based diplomatic staff, is now less than that of the French and under half the presence of the Germans?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, is yes, I am so aware. I also believe that, although our presence in the former Soviet Union may need to be led by UK-based staff, it can be greatly helped by locally-engaged staff. In fact, we could not operate in those former Soviet republics but for the help of locally-engaged staff. So our presence there is enhanced by them, but led by British-based staff. We would like to do more, but it is a question of priorities.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that it was not going to happen in the near future. I take that to mean that not too far hence we shall open an office in Armenia. Can she tell me whether we have a new policy of not investing in those countries which might be most friendly to us? Armenia is a stable country and its economy is improving. Frankly—possibly against the views of some—I believe that investment in Azerbaijan may never come to anything because the Russians are going to be difficult and are still fighting a war in Chechnya. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is worth giving value to the fact that Armenia is a Christian country; that we share a tradition; and also that it is stable and friendly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a great deal in what my noble friend said, but she knows full well that we were able to open an embassy office in Armenia only a year ago. We are seeking to make sure that we do everything well. That is why I said in my initial answer that an office will not be opened "in the immediate future". My noble friend knows that I cannot make her promises. Certainly, it is very important that we have a British presence in Armenia. We now have that presence and we shall build on it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the reality of the Minister's extremely helpful Answer. Although Armenia has some difficulties, it speaks the English language and regards Great Britain with great esteem. Therefore, will the Minister to do all that she can, whenever she can—I am sure that she will—to help Armenia to progress in the way that has been suggested?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the answer that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is my noble friend aware that Armenia has chosen to collaborate with the Midland Bank to set up its banking system and that it is at the moment collaborating with the Association of British Insurers to set up its insurance industry? In view of the simply huge potential which Armenia now has—a very much better potential future, one might think, than most of the other countries of the former Soviet Union—would we not be wise to do our very best to share and assist in that future? In short, can my noble friend change her Answer and say that, although we cannot help Armenia in the immediate future, we can perhaps do so in the very near future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the very reason that we opened an embassy in Armenia was to assist those, such as the Midland Bank and the Association of British Insurers, to help Armenia to get going. We are very aware that its economy still needs improvement. That is why Armenia receives other help from us. However, it is probably a little early to make such a commitment with regard to a British Council office—that is, unless my noble friend is telling me that the Midland Bank and the Association of British Insurers will help us to fund it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the 10 per cent. cut in the British Council's funding, involving drastic economies in the UK and job losses abroad, means that no new council office can be opened without extra funding? Can the Minister tell the House that additional funding will be provided where a British Council presence is needed, as is the case in Armenia, according to our ambassador there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that our ambassador has been most active in the past week since he has been home on leave from Armenia. I am also well aware that the British Council receives nearly £100 million from the diplomatic wing and nearly £33 million from the ODA, and it uses that money well. However, the British Council has more offices overseas than even the Foreign Office. Therefore, we must have a sense of priorities, and we need to look at how British Council offices can become more self-financing and at how more efficiency savings can be achieved which will allow it to open more offices.

Manufacturing Output
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to stimulate activity in the manufacturing sector which, on the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics, continues to fall below the level of last year.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we are providing a stable economic environment based on the best inflation performance for nearly 50 years, historically low interest rates, competition and free trade. Manufacturing output has risen by over 8 per cent. since the beginning of the recovery and is at a higher level than last year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive Answer. Is he aware that the statistics for this year so far compared with last year show that although demand for manufactured goods has risen by 4 per cent., the increased production of manufactured goods has risen by only 0.8 per cent. and the import of such goods has risen by 12.7 per cent.? Therefore, is it not a fact that there are two economies in Britain today: the economy about which the Government like to talk—namely, the increase in consumer spending, the rise in house prices and other factors which are likely to lead to the feel-good factor—and the economy about which the Government speak much less; namely, the relative decline in manufacturing, the decline in exports and the increase in imports? Is it not about time that the Government paid more attention to the second economy?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I accept that the officially published figures show that the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year are not as satisfactory as we would like. However, over the past two years, which seems a more reasonable period to take, manufacturing investment has risen by some 12.5 per cent., including a rise of 14 per cent. in plant and machinery. Possibly more important than looking backwards is to look forwards. My understanding is that all major forecasters expect output to pick up in the second half of this year and to continue to rise next year. On that basis, I think there is good cause to anticipate that manufacturing industry will improve.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, going back not two years but to 1979, which is the period in office of Her Majesty's Government, does the Minister agree that manufacturing output has increased only marginally in total in that time? Is the Minister aware that the main trouble is import penetration into the United Kingdom of manufactured goods, largely from the European Community, with which we are in deficit—and very substantial deficit at that—coupled with government policies which have resulted in the decimation of large parts of British industry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, what I will accept is that manufacturing productivity has grown faster in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country since 1980. I am also aware that because Germany is our biggest market in the European Union and its economy is relatively static, it has been difficult to increase exports to that country. However, I am sure that the noble Lord and I can agree on at least one matter. As the United Kingdom is the only G7 country where non-wage manufacturing costs form a lower proportion of total labour costs than they did in 1980, it would be extremely undesirable to do anything within the European Union that added to those costs.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister is entirely right in all that he says about causation. Nominal interest rates are lower although real interest rates are not; sterling has been devalued; wage costs are lower; and productivity has risen towards that of our competitors. What puzzles noble Lords is that, given all of those allegedly good circumstances, our manufacturing performance in aggregate is not very good. One can always take two years, one of which looks better than the other. However, anyone looking at the path of manufacturing over the past 10 years or so—especially that part owned by British citizens—cannot possibly be pleased with it. I believe that the whole point of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is whether the Government are missing something. Is there anything more to be done? I agree with the noble Lord that it is a puzzle. But no one can regard the outcome as currently satisfactory.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I accept that in recent quarters some slightly puzzling details have emerged. For example, manufacturing employment has appeared to be going up at a time when output is going down. That has rather levelled out, but productivity has significantly improved. I believe that what I set out in my original Answer is the correct approach to a stable economic environment. I do not believe that we should be unnecessarily pessimistic. I understand that today the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Managers—whose figures are well respected—has indicated that last month output and new orders grew faster than they have done for over a year. Coupled with that, the CBI anticipates that output will rise over the next four months. That is the reason for my optimism.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that services have become much more important throughout the western industrial world and that the worry voiced in these exchanges is irrelevant? I believe that most economists would agree with what I say.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not accept that we should ignore manufacturing. I wish to see it continue to grow and improve as much as possible. But my noble friend is right. One would give a completely distorted picture of the British economy if one did not take into account the dramatic improvement in the supply of services in the United Kingdom. That
1212
has done a great deal to improve the performance of our economy. Indeed, the growth of our service sector is probably better than that of any other G7 country.

National Health Trusts: Major Contracts
2.52 p.m.
Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many major contracts have been signed between national health trusts and contractors since Royal Assent was signified to the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, Royal Assent was given to this Act on 22nd May. No contracts worth more than £1 million have been signed since then. Information on private finance schemes worth under £1 million is not kept centrally.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her rather disappointing reply. During the debate on the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill on 21st May of this year, the Minister said (at col. 785 of Hansard) that the Government had approved 54 private finance initiative projects worth more than half a billion pounds and that the reason for rushing the Bill through your Lordships' House was to unlock this work. Can the Minister tell the House what is holding up signature of these contracts?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I well recollect that debate. I also remember that the noble Lord said that to rush into taking on more liabilities in an area not fully understood would only end in tears. During that debate the noble Lord was anxious that the Government should not rush into these schemes but treat them with caution and weigh them up with discretion. We have done that. There are a number of schemes in the pipeline. There are now 57 schemes worth over £1 million, and we expect to sign several of them in the next few months.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the costs incurred by the NHS on external consultancy and advice on potential PFI schemes? Is it correct that some of the major schemes have run up bills for legal and financial consultancy of several million pounds each without having reached signature? Is the noble Baroness aware that there is near desperation in some parts of the service about the seeming impossibility of getting much needed schemes under way because of the almost Kafka-esque complexity of the current PH rules and their infinite ability to delay and absorb money without producing anything?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the tests of a PFI scheme is that it should give better value for money than conventional financing. Certainly, those schemes which have been completed indicate that the process has been very good value for money. I cite

1213
Havering Hospital where the savings on the entire scheme were 26 per cent. It improved the standard and quality of services and it guaranteed savings. It was considered to be a great success. Of all the schemes that have been completed, we have no knowledge of any that has not produced a better service than would have been produced using conventional finance. The tradition in the health service was that the building of a hospital took 20 years. Many of these hospitals have been built within five or six years.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many contractors have withdrawn from schemes under the PFI? Is she aware that these include the Sheffield University and Royal London Hospital Trusts? What is the reason for this lack of confidence on the part of contractors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if one has to test schemes, obviously some will not succeed. At the moment 22 have been completed and 12 are under way. We expect other major schemes to be signed within the next few months.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is it not a matter of concern that several major hospitals have been publicly promised by the Department of Health—for example, in Carlisle, Amersham, Norwich, Durham and various parts of the country—and the contracts appear to be in almost permanent suspension because of the hiatus in the private finance initiative? As my noble friends have reminded the Minister, the assumption was that this would be sorted out by the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. If the finance is not forthcoming, how do the Government intend to meet the prospective hospital requirements and keep the promises that they have made about new hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the great successes of the private finance initiative is that £½ billion of extra funding has been attracted into capital programmes in the NHS. We accept that some of the initial time taken may be a little longer but, considering the project as a whole, the construction of a particular unit or new equipment such as a scanner takes less time. That is obvious because of the strong incentives in the private sector to complete on time and contain costs. The added advantage is that the risks are transferred to the private sector.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was not concerned with relatively minor schemes like scanners but with major hospital building programmes. In view of the promises that have been made, can the Minister confirm that, for example, the initial scheme for Carlisle Hospital was agreed in 1989, the one for Norwich was agreed in 1990 and the ones for Swindon and Amersham were agreed in 1993?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is very fast progress. My recollection of the NHS is that it took at
1214
least 20 years to build a hospital. This is much quicker. These schemes will get off the ground, but they are tested, and not every one will succeed. It would be nonsense to test schemes if there was a presumption that every single one would go ahead. We are determined to get value for money.

BSE: Public Inquiry
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley The Earl of Dudley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will order a public inquiry into the causes of the infection of British beef and dairy herds with BSE and the links with CJD, and, if so, whether they will publish a report of the findings of the inquiry.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. This is a question of the limits of scientific knowledge. Scientific facts, in so far as they are known, have been published and an independent inquiry would not be able to generate new scientific information.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for the courtesy of his reply, I simply wish to establish the relevant facts. Does my noble friend agree that there are precedents for tribunals of inquiry into disasters, such as Aberfan in 1966, and that the infection of British dairy and beef herds by BSE can be regarded as a disaster? Does he agree that, as the discussions and negotiations with other European governments and the European Commission which have encapsulated the Government's action in respect of BSE have been confidential, there is a need for further action to allay the anxiety of the British public, both as taxpayers in view of the billions which have been expended on BSE and as consumers in view of the unquantified contingent risk of infection by CJD?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that tribunals are a useful method of finding out the facts where they are not evident. Indeed, not long ago I announced one into child abuse in North Wales. That seems to me the type of situation in which tribunals and inquiries are justified. In this case, there is nothing to be discovered that is not already public. That is principally because our scientific knowledge of this disease is so limited that we have no tools with which to discover further facts. In those circumstances, a public inquiry could do nothing but delay the scientific inquiry which is already taking place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister recall that nearly 30 years ago when there were outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and rabies, I set up an inquiry? Since then, there has been no foot and mouth and no rabies. Is there not a case here for setting up a public inquiry?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not know. I am afraid that I must confess to the noble Lord that I was not

1215
paying attention at the time and it slipped my notice. In those cases, we understand the mechanism of the diseases. We know what causes them and we know how they spread. There is in both cases an infectious agent that we can isolate and study. In BSE, we just do not know. We have our suspicions, but we do not know what causes it. We do not know how it spreads. We cannot replicate it in the laboratory. We have no tools with which to study it. An inquiry would achieve nothing but delay the scientific investigation.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is a known connection between giving growth hormones to children and their later development of CJD, has any inquiry been made into the possibility of growth hormones being given to cattle causing them to develop BSE for onward spread to humans in the form of CJD?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the two situations are different. In the case of humans, the growth hormones were derived from dead bodies. Those dead bodies turned out to be carrying CJD. In the case of cattle, the growth hormones are derived from bacteria, and the opportunity to infect them with BSE does not arise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not time that we got away from the idea that BSE is an infection? After 10 years of research no infective agent has been found. Would it not be better to use the term "causative agent"? Does the Minister agree that there are many neuro-degenerative diseases, both in animals and in humans, for which no cause has been found and which are much more prevalent than BSE or CJD?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I believe that it is right to term at least the current epidemic of BSE as an infection. We can infect cattle by feeding them the brains of infected cattle. That, to my mind, is as good a definition of infection as one can get. The origin of the disease may be due to a causative agent, but the present epidemic is one of infection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in answer to my Written Question, the Minister's noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said:
"there is still no scientific evidence to link positively any case of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease to exposure to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy".
The Minister has emphasised that point, but is he aware that in my Question I pointed out that the neuro-surgeon, Alan Colchester, in giving evidence to the Canterbury City Council on 25th May referred to:
"'The transmissions of prions, the infectious agents causing scrapie in sheep, BSE in cattle and CJD in man, to farm animals, wild animals, domestic pets and man".—[Official Report, 26/6/96; col. WA61.]
On the basis of that evidence, which satisfied him and many other people, he successfully opposed the grant of planning permission to renderers to occupy a nearby field. Is that evidence not to be taken into consideration? Does it not add to the idea that a public inquiry might reveal more than we know at present?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. I do not know the gentleman concerned, and I am not familiar with that case. Clearly the idea that prions are the infectious agent in this case is a hypothesis. It is a long way from being proved, and there are many reasons to doubt it, such as the existence of different strains of the disease which are not explained by the basic prion hypothesis. There is a great deal that we do not understand about this, including whether it is possible to transfer BSE to humans. That is something which is entirely unproven as yet. We may have some indication during the next year or two as a result of the experiments we are undertaking, but there is no evidence either way at the moment, merely supposition.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that many thousands of cattle born after the imposition in 1988 of the BSE prohibition order on infected feedstuffs have become infected? Can he offer any clear explanation of why that should be so? It gives rise to concern that infected feedstuffs have continued to be used. I should have thought that that was a matter which would merit greater clarification than it has received. I should be grateful if my noble friend could offer it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, within the imperfections that all these answers have, our best indications are that the continuing contamination arose from feed that continued to be stored on farms and, due to the design of their hoppers, was only released at a later date, and cross-contamination in the feed mills which were producing feed for both bovine animals, as they are called, and other species.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, why do the Government refuse to investigate why so much contaminated feed reached cattle after the feed ban was imposed in 1988? Two thirds of the new cases of BSE occur in such cattle. Is there not a strong case here, as the noble Lord who preceded me has asked, for a public inquiry—not an extended inquiry? There is an obligation to consumers to probe the facts with a view at least to setting fears at rest, if no more than that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is difficult to see how such things could be proved. It is a long time ago. This disease has such a long gestation period that we did not know until six years after the event that there was a problem. Looking back six years, and at such records as were kept, it is extremely difficult to establish—we have been trying to establish for our own scientific purposes—what happened. It is merely supposition. I do not believe that there is any evidence lying out there to which a scientific inquiry could address itself.

Housing Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 151 to 163,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 164 to 197,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 198 to 203,

Schedule 16,

Clause 95,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 96 to 103,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 81 to 84,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 85 to 87,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 88 to 91,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 92 to 94,

Clause 104,

Schedule 9,

Clause 105,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 106 to 116,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 117 and 118,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 119 to 135,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 136 to 150,

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 51,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 52 to 55,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 56 to 80,

Clauses 204 to 208,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 209 to 214.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance]:
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("who") and insert ("unless he").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The broad purpose of Clause 9 is to ensure that council housing is used to best effect and not allocated to people who may be in this country only for a short time and to align entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit. The overall policy intention here is to ensure that persons who are subject to immigration control do not have access to housing assistance at the taxpayers' expense if they have no valid claim to it.
As drafted, Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with a power to specify by order those classes of persons subject to immigration control who are to be excluded from housing entitlement. In effect, that means that exclusion from entitlement of certain classes of person is achieved by subordinate legislation; namely, an order.
We have been considering two issues concerning the construction of Clause 9. The first is that the approach I have just outlined is not consistent with the construction in Clause 10 which deals with the entitlement to child benefit. In Clause 10 it is made clear on the face of the Bill that persons subject to immigration control are entitled to child benefit only if they satisfy prescribed conditions. I think your Lordships will agree that of the two the construction in Clause 10 is clearer.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal on 21st June concerning the validity of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 has prompted us to look again at the construction of Clause 9. I shall be moving a new clause after Clause 10 which addresses the main effect of the judgment, so I do not intend to dwell on the detail of it at this stage.
For the purpose of considering these amendments, I would just say that the court ruled that the regulations were ultra vires and unlawful in so far as they deny council tax benefit, housing benefit or income support benefit to asylum seekers whose claim has not been finally determined. The judgment was not unanimous. Two of the three Lords of Appeal hearing the case considered that the appeal should be allowed. But the judgment makes clear that their decision turned on the question of the extent to which subsidiary, or secondary, legislation can be drawn without conflicting with either the enabling statute or with other primary legislation. Those are very proper concerns, and they have caused us to reconsider the construction of Clause 9.
The amendments would bring the construction of Clause 9 into line with the construction of Clause 10. The effect would be to make clear on the face of the Bill that persons subject to immigration control are not entitled to council tenancies or eligible for assistance

1219
under the homelessness legislation unless they fall within certain classes of such persons specified by order. That would make clear in primary legislation the policy intention that persons subject to immigration control do not have entitlement to housing assistance except where that is warranted.
The classes of person we intend to exclude from entitlement to council tenancies or to homelessness assistance remain unchanged. The policy is unchanged. It is the means of delivering the policy which is turned about. Under Clause 9 as drafted we would specify by order those classes of person subject to immigration control who are excluded from entitlement. Under the clause as amended we would specify by order those who are entitled. We intend that an order under Clause 9(1) would specify that the only classes of person entitled to be allocated a council tenancy would be refugees, persons granted exceptional leave to remain, and persons with indefinite leave to remain.
The order would also specify that persons subject to immigration control who are students attending a full-time course at a UK college or university may be granted a tenancy of surplus accommodation leased by a local authority to the college or university where they are studying.
As regards an order under Clause 9(2), we intend that the classes of person subject to immigration control who would be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation would be refugees, persons granted exceptional leave to remain, persons with indefinite leave to remain, and persons who sought asylum on arrival, for as long as their claim is being determined by the Home Office.
The amendments would improve the clarity of the provisions in Clause 9 and ensure that any question as to vires or lawfulness regarding the exclusion of certain classes of person subject to immigration control from housing entitlement would be put beyond doubt.
The arguments about council housing being available and about the homelessness legislation are exactly those I put forward and which the House agreed when we discussed Clause 9 on the previous Committee day. These amendments merely reconstruct the clause taking account of Clause 9 and also of the decision by the Court of Appeal. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("who is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State").
Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("unless he is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
SAVING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS
(".—(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, regulations may exclude from entitlement to any of the following benefits, namely—

(a) income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;

(b) income support and housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992; and

(c) jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995 or the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995,

any person who has made a claim for asylum and is of a prescribed description.
(2) Regulations may provide that, where such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is subsequently recorded by the Secretary of State as a refugee within the meaning of the Convention—

(a) that person may, within a prescribed period, claim the whole or any prescribed proportion of any income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been recorded as a refugee immediately after he made the claim for asylum; and

(b) where he makes such a claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above in respect of housing benefit or council tax benefit having resided in the areas of two or more local authorities in Great Britain, the claim shall be investigated and determined, and any benefit awarded shall be paid or allowed, by such one of those authorities as may be prescribed.

(3) Regulations making such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above may require the other authorities there mentioned to supply the prescribed authority with such information as it may reasonably require in connection with the exercise of its functions under the regulations.
(4) Schedule (Modifications of social security regulations) to this Act—

(a) Part I of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and

(b) Part II of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996,

shall have effect.
(5) The Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996 shall have effect as if they had been made on the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) In this section—
"claim for asylum" and "the Convention" have the same meanings as in the 1993 Act;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations; "regulations"—

(a) in relation to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;

(b) in relation to income support or housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

(c) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;

1221

(d) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, means regulations under that Order or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17. As I announced in the House last Monday, I am today bringing forward primary legislation to respond to the decision of the Appeal Court on 21st June that the regulations on asylum seekers passed by your Lordships on 30th January were ultra vires and that primary legislation alone could achieve what the Government and both Houses of Parliament had agreed.
I should like to remind your Lordships why the Government reached the conclusion that something had to be done to control the increasing numbers of asylum seekers coming to this country and receiving benefits from British taxpayers on what, in the great majority of cases, turned out to be a false basis.
Over the past 10 years the numbers applying for asylum in this country have increased tenfold. In 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 the numbers ranged from 4,000 to 6,000. In 1995 they had reached 55,000. A decade ago the numbers ranged from 4,000 to 6,000 and by last year they had reached 55,000.
The Benches opposite may say that I should not be surprised. They will tell us that the world has become a much more dangerous place. But has it? If it has, and that is the reason for the increase, then surely I should find the same increase elsewhere in Europe. But I do not. Perhaps we may look at the European picture. In 1986, when we had 5,700 applicants, the total for Europe was 228,000. In 1995 the European total had increased to 329,000. That is an increase of 44 per cent. During those years the increase in the whole of Europe was 44 per cent. Our numbers, which were 5,700 in 1986, were 55,000 last year. That is an increase of almost 800 per cent. One needs to compare and contrast an increase of 44 per cent. with an increase of 800 per cent.
If we look at those asylum seekers from the point of view of the success or otherwise of their application, what do we find? In 1985, with 6,200 applicants, 21 per cent. of the initial decisions led to the granting of asylum. Last year, with 55,000 applicants, that had fallen to 5 per cent. In other words, 10 years ago, for every 100 asylum seekers coming to these shores 21 were found to be genuine whereas, last year, only five were. Therefore, the UK has seen a far greater increase over the past decade than the rest of Europe, for which the figure is 44 per cent. in contrast with 800 per cent. in this country. The proportion of those who turn out to be genuine has fallen quite markedly. I do not believe that those figures and those comparisons give any weight to the contention that the world has become more dangerous, only that we have become more attractive.
In social security we have a threefold objective: to pay benefit to the right person at the right time and at the right amount. The "right person" in this context is someone who claims and is found to be a refugee. In 1995, out of every 100 who claimed asylum, after both the initial Home Office decision and any appeals, seven
1222
were granted refugee status, 16 were granted exceptional leave to remain and 77 were refused both. In other words, months and indeed, in some cases, years of benefit was paid to the wrong person. On the 1995 figures, and excluding dependants, 34,000 people were receiving benefit who turned out not to be genuine refugees.
That cannot be right. We would not accept that degree of error in any of the benefits we pay to our own citizens. And we surely cannot expect our own taxpayers to dig into their pockets to pay around £200 million without justification. Therefore we brought forward our proposals, and made changes from last February, changes which I believe were both fair to genuine asylum seekers and fair to our own taxpayers.
We removed entitlement from three groups of asylum seekers: first, those who entered this country illegally and only later claimed asylum; secondly, those who enter this country claiming to be tourists or businessmen and who undertook to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds—and I repeat, without recourse to public funds; and those who had been found by the Home Office not to fulfil the criteria set out in the UN convention.
Under normal rules in the benefits system you have to establish that you have a legitimate claim before receiving any benefit. Of course we accept that asylum seekers have to be treated more generously. That is why anyone who applies at the port of entry—at the first possible opportunity—will be eligible to receive income support at the 90 per cent. rate, housing and council tax benefit, and help under the homelessness legislation. And for anyone here on business, visiting or to study, who finds that his home country has suffered a significant upheaval, his claim for asylum will allow him entry into the benefit system.
Also under normal rules in the benefit system, a British claimant who is appealing does not receive benefit during the course of the appeal. Our proposals will apply the same rules to asylum seekers who appeal as apply to our own citizens. I know that some of your Lordships think that that is particularly harsh. But let us consider the facts. Almost every person who is refused appeals against that refusal and of course stays on benefit—17,000 in 1995. The appeals process is long, and of course every appellant has every incentive to delay the day of decision, and some do. And only three out of every 100 have their appeal upheld. I submit to the Committee that that is not a very good example of benefit going to the right people.
Now, it would be a very fair question to ask me what has happened in the months since February as the policy we agreed here on 30th January has come into effect, and I am glad that that question has been asked. Taking this year's figure for February and comparing it with last year, the number of applicants was down by 6 per cent. In March, it was down by 5 per cent.; in April it was down by 27 per cent.; and in May it was down by 49.16 per cent.—from 3,450 in May 1995 to 1,754 in May 1996.
I am in no doubt that the policy that we agreed in January, and the policy which I am asking the Committee to confirm today, is the correct one. The facts I have

1223
outlined make it clear that any responsible government had to act, and the results since February justify that action. The new clause and the new schedule put beyond doubt Parliament's powers to restrict benefit entitlement for asylum seekers in the way set out in the February regulations.
I shall explain the amendments in terms of how they achieve their goal. Subsection (1) of the new clause specifically provides in primary legislation for the power to withhold benefit entirely from certain asylum seekers. It therefore directly meets the appeal court's concerns. Having provided for the powers that the court said were missing the second task is to reinstate as from Royal Assent those regulations which the court found to be ultra vires. This is done in the schedule.
The third task is to deal with the unforeseen entitlements that have arisen because of the return to the rules which existed before 5th February. Anyone who obtains benefit because of the court's judgment, will have that stopped once this Bill becomes law. And anyone who comes along after Royal Assent and claims benefit for the period between 5th February and this Bill becoming law solely on the basis of the court's judgment will not be entitled. Those who have obtained money during the period will keep it.
Perhaps I should say a word about those people who were transitionally protected. The provisions of 5th February regarding them still stand as the court did not find against them.
There is a fourth task, and one not arising out of the Court of Appeal's decision. I announced last Monday that once someone is accepted as a refugee he will be able to ask for his entitlements to benefit to be backdated at the asylum seeker rate to the start of his application for asylum. This will bring the treatment of refugees into line with that of British citizens who win an appeal, and will apply to income support, housing and council tax benefit. This will address one of the concerns expressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment of 21st June.
I have no doubt that in the course of discussing the various amendments tabled by the Benches opposite I will be able to go into greater detail, but I hope that during the debate we can hear some indication of what the two parties opposite would do to deal with the very considerable abuse of the asylum system and the considerable sums of taxpayers' money which have been wrongly spent on people who turn out to have no claim on our hospitality.
On 30th January, when I successfully persuaded your Lordships to join me in the Division Lobby to pass the regulations, I believed that they were sensible measures which, given the facts that I have outlined—and I outlined them then—any sensible and responsible government had to take. I am equally convinced today, and even more so when I examine the statistics for the months which have passed since we agreed to the amended regulations in January. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 6:
Line 10, leave out ("and is of a prescribed description") and insert ("other than on his arrival in the United Kingdom or within 3 working days of that arrival").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. What the Government did in their regulations of January 1996 and what they are seeking to do now is wrong. The judges have declared that those regulations were not merely wrong as a point of law, although they were fairly stinging about that, but that they were wrong beyond that as a matter of principle. Their judgment in the Court of Appeal sounded a note of moral revulsion to a degree rarely heard in a British court.
As Lord Justice Brown said:
"A significant number of asylum seekers [are] impaled on the horns of a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can in a state of utter destitution … [this] uncompromising draconian policy contemplate[s] a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it".
That is the judgment of an appalled judge. He was not alone. The second judge, Lord Justice Waite, said that the Government's regulations and, therefore, these clauses make it,
"not merely difficult but totally impossible for [asylum seekers] to remain here to pursue those claims".
Even the dissenting judge, Lord Justice Neill, said that the regulations would,
"have an adverse effect on a significant number of genuine asylum seekers. Some may be obliged to return to conditions of danger. Others"—
these are the words of the dissenting judge—
"may be obliged to live in penury or to abandon their claims to asylum".
While accepting that the Government may have been within the technical law, even the sole dissenting judge believed that they were outside the moral law of this country.
Why did the judges give such a stinging rebuke to the Government? They argued that the regulations were illegal and that the regulations—and, therefore, the clauses—are indiscriminate; and, indeed, that the regulations and the clauses are immoral. I repeat: illegal, indiscriminate and immoral.
First, the proposed changes are illegal in the narrow sense because the regulations subverted the intention of the 1993 Act and secondary legislation cannot be used to subvert primary legislation. However, it is not just a technical illegality; and the Minister has made much of this. The judges made it very clear that the proposed changes are illegal in a wider sense because they will run counter to our abidance by the European convention and to our treaty obligations.
Article 23 of the UN convention on refugees of 1951 states that contracting states shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded their nationals. That article is precisely what the Government are failing to observe. The change is illegal.
Secondly, the court made clear that the proposed action was indiscriminate because, under the clauses, and with the regulations, the Government would be denying benefit to those who are genuine asylum seekers as well as those who are not. The Government give benefit to those who are not genuine if they apply at the port of entry but they deny it to those who are genuine if they apply in country. That is indiscriminate, and the judges said that it is wrong.
Thirdly, it is immoral. The regulations and the clauses deny to genuine asylum seekers any meaningful right to pursue their claim. Their choice is between destitution in the UK or detention in their country of origin. As Lord Justice Waite said, that right to pursue their claim is valueless and empty if they cannot survive to pursue it.
Are we saying in this country that people are guilty and not entitled to receive benefit until they prove they are innocent and then denying them the means on which to live while they do so? Are we comfortable with that reading of British justice—guilty until proven innocent with no means of subsistence to enable one to prove one's innocence? Is that our way of life? I repeat, the Court of Appeal's judgment was not merely a technical one under the law; indeed, it reflected a sense of revulsion and outrage against a government policy which has subverted an age-old and worldwide right to asylum.
There can only be one right way to proceed; namely, to ensure that everyone entitled to benefit receives it. We can only know whether people are entitled when we determine their claims. We should separate the deserving, if you like, from the undeserving on grounds of justice, and not on grounds of government convenience which is all that the port of entry test represents.
All of us in the House know that the right way to proceed is to speed up the hearings, not to starve asylum seekers out of them. Other countries determine such applications far more rapidly than we do. Indeed, we are taking 19 months from the determination of the first hearing of new claims; and, indeed, we are getting worse, not better, adding something like 2,000 cases every month to the backlog.
The Court of Appeal made it clear that the Government should provide a basic means of subsistence, if not the full range of benefits, until a claim is determined. Otherwise, what we will see is a Home Office which fails to do its job of securing justice and which, instead, is relying on the DSS to do its work for it. Because we do not offer asylum seekers justice, the DSS will not offer them benefit; because the Home Office will not resolve their claims in decent time, the DSS is seeking to deter those claims on social security grounds; and, because we do not hear applications when we should, instead we deny asylum seekers the means of surviving until we do. In all fairness and in all decency, whose fault is that? Is it the asylum seeker who seeks asylum, or the system which will not hear his application in time?
With this amendment we are not saying that all asylum seekers should receive benefit; we are merely saying that anyone who applies for asylum within three working days of arrival in this country under Amendment No. 6, or seven days under Amendment No. 12, should be treated as though he had applied at the port of entry. No one believes that we should be giving full benefits to economic migrants, students or businessmen who have been in this country for three years. But surely no one believes that someone applying within three days of arrival should be treated as an economic migrant and as though he were a businessman. The question is: is the Government's port of entry test a reasonable one?
I ask Members of the Committee to try to imagine for a moment that they are living in a country, fearing persecution, where the police are accountable to no one, and where official power is arbitrary, frightening and absolute. It is a country where one has no rights at law and no trust in any legal system and where to leave that country one would have to falsify one's papers. Such a person may arrive in this country and may not speak the language. What should he do? What would Members of the Committee advise a son or grandson to do in such circumstances? I would tell my son to get into the country and be safe. I would say to him, "Don't stop at the borders. Get into the country, then apply for asylum." In all honesty and in all honour would any Member of this Committee advise his son or grandson to act differently? I think not.
Since February 1996, the Medical Foundation has seen 45 clients who were refused benefit. They did not apply at the port of entry, though most of them applied within a few days of arrival. Why did they not apply at the port of entry? The reasons given were: first, they were frightened that immigration would send them back; secondly, they wished to get the advice of a lawyer or a friend because they were terrified; and, thirdly, they relied on the advice of an agent who either abandoned or misled them. Therefore, they applied three days later and not at the port of entry.
However, the port of entry test does some things. It distinguishes between those who are confident and apply and those who are frightened and who do not dare. It distinguishes between those who speak English and those who do not; those who are fit and healthy and those who are not; and those who know the system—perhaps even know how to work it—and those who do not. What the port of entry test does not do is distinguish between the genuine and the fraudulent. Government Ministers have never shown at any stage in our debates, in Committee, during Report stage or, indeed, today, that the port of entry test is a genuine test designed to distinguish between the genuine and the fraudulent.
The facts are on our side. In the past six months 205 people who applied at the port of entry won asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Double that number—440—who applied in country, without of course the right to benefit, won their right to asylum or leave to remain. Thirty per cent. of all asylum seekers either obtain asylum or exceptional leave to remain or win an appeal. The majority of those obtain it once they have entered this country.
This amendment is modest. It suggests that within three working days of arriving in this country one should be treated as if one is applying at the port of entry. Three days is not a long period but it probably helps those most deserving of all—those who are true asylum seekers and who have fled conditions so bad that they cannot trust a system which requires them to report at the port of entry. Are we talking about many people? Only a few days ago the Minister said that 15 per cent. only apply in country within one week. This amendment would not add to the number of people who are entitled to remain. However, it may produce a slightly better fit between those who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers and those who get benefit. Is that too much to ask? This amendment in all fairness and in all decency tries to mitigate the worst effects of the Government's bogus test. It does not do much but it will, however, help a little. That is why we move it today. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before developing an argument on a matter which may at moments, I fear, become a little heated, it is my great pleasure to be able to give thanks to both Ministers on the Government Front Bench. I thank the noble Baroness—and through her, her officials—for putting right a case of over-zealous enforcement I brought to their attention as recently as late last Wednesday. That is a great pleasure and I thank them warmly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the concession to students embodied in the amendment he has just moved, which embodies an undertaking he gave me at the Committee stage of this Bill. I thank him warmly for that too.
Before getting into the legal arguments on which I wish to spend most of my time, I wish to touch on some of the arguments that the Minister has developed. He has developed—as I suppose one might have expected—all the arguments about the flood of bogus asylum seekers and the increasing proportion of refusals. I spent most of the first day of Committee on this Bill answering those arguments. I shall not detain your Lordships long with them now. I shall merely quote one example I then used of an asylum seeker from Zaire who was told, "Your description of the soldiers breaking into your house firing wildly in all directions seems to be proof that they were not attempting to seek your life". I do not believe that that person was a bogus asylum seeker. I shall go no further on that point.
On the level of benefits, I wish to quote from paragraph 29 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on these regulations which states:
"Doubts were expressed about the suggestion that the availability of social security benefits is a significant reason for attraction to the UK. Many respondents said that, in their experience, the reputation of this country for fairness, or historic ties between Britain and the applicants' country of origin are much stronger 'pull factors' for asylum seekers. Several of them quoted Home Office research"—
from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 15/95, table 5.1—
"which suggests that many refugees and those granted exceptional leave to remain are well-educated and enjoyed a better standard of living before leaving their own country".
1228
There was considerable noise exchanged between the other two Front Benches on whether in-country or port applicants enjoy a greater rate of success. I quote the observation of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the Court of Appeal:
"As for the statistics, these appear to show no significant difference in the rate of recognition as refugees between those applying on arrival — and those who apply after entry".
I am prepared to accept the learned judge's ruling.
In supporting this amendment I argue that it may save the Minister a great deal of future legal trouble. Before this Chamber agrees to reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment, it is important that we should understand exactly what that judgment stated. It stated that the regulations were ultra vires because they conflicted with another Act of Parliament and therefore primary legislation could put the matter straight. As far as that goes it is a correct analysis. But what we would not have guessed from listening to the Minister is what that enactment was that the Court of Appeal believed conflicted with the regulations. It was Sections 2 and 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. That Act not merely guarantees the very right to seek asylum itself; it also incorporates in British law the UN Convention on Refugees of 1951.
What the Court of Appeal found was that those regulations threatened the very right to seek asylum itself. At every stage of the Bill from the speech of the noble Baroness at Second Reading onwards we have had assurances that nothing in this Bill was likely to threaten the rights of genuine asylum seekers. The Court of Appeal found otherwise. Lord Justice Simon Brown stated:
"A significant number of genuine asylum seekers now find themselves faced with a bleak choice: whether to remain here destitute and homeless until their claims are finally determined or whether instead to abandon their claims and return to face the very persecution they have fled".
That was what the Court of Appeal found; that the regulations threatened the very right to seek asylum itself.
Parliament can do whatever it likes. If Parliament chooses to repeal Section 2 of the 1993 Act and to disincorporate the UN Convention from British law, Parliament may do so. But the Government have not asked Parliament to do so. Parliament has asked us to say that a contradiction is not a contradiction. That is something that even the sovereign power of Parliament cannot do. If, like the old lady in the Agatha Christie novel, Parliament were to insist on dividing something into four equal thirds, the courts would be guilty of no disrespect for parliamentary sovereignty if they failed to do so.
The question whether one Act of Parliament contradicts another is not a question for the Government. It is not even a question for Parliament. It is a question for the courts. The Government are trying to assure us that a contradiction is not a contradiction. I am not quite sure that they can do that. It is going to produce an interesting case. I would give the Government the advice my American lawyer once gave me: never be a lawyer's interesting case. The Government may well say that the later Act of

1229
Parliament takes priority over the earlier one. So in normal circumstances it does, but that rule is not invariable. There can hypothetically be exceptions to it. In this case I do not believe that it applies, because if one looks at line 14 of Amendment No. 4 and at lines 41 to 42 of Amendment No. 4, one can see that they also uphold the convention. The amendment states that,
"'claim for asylum' and 'the Convention' have the same meanings as in the 1993 Act".
In other words, the amendment contradicts itself. It is felo de se. Therefore the courts will have to decide which part of the amendment Parliament meant. I do not envy them that choice.
I do not think that the Government can get out of the dilemma in the only way which would logically have saved them, by repealing Section 2 of the 1993 Act: first, because of the assurances that I have quoted; secondly, because I believe that there is no majority in either House of the present Parliament for such a course; and, thirdly, because that would not get rid of our obligations under international law. I believe it is understood that it may be an act of aggression against another country to send a large flood of destitute refugees into that country's territory rather than accept them in our own. Another country might have a ground of action before the International Court of Justice if it believed that we were doing so. In the present world we are not plentifully equipped with friends. I can imagine such a case being brought.
Under Section 23 (which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, quoted) and Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Refugees, refugees enjoy a right to support and to social security. Lord Justice Simon Brown referred to the clause, but was wrongly persuaded by Treasury Counsel that the word "refugee" applied only after people had come into the country. It is made clear by the UNHCR that in any matter to do with the UN convention the definition of refugee applies from the moment of asking for asylum. That was accepted in the Court of Appeal in 1993 by Lord Justice Nolan (as he then was). I have the quotation beside me. The noble and learned Lord upheld exactly the meaning of the word "refugee" which the UNHCR recommends: that it applies from the moment of claiming asylum. Indeed, that is the meaning which applies in this amendment. A person becomes a refugee when his claim is recorded by the Secretary of State within the meaning of the convention. Under that reading, which has the authority of a learned judge in the Court of Appeal, and one who enjoys the greatest respect, that is another reason and another possible ground of action for saying that we are in breach of obligations.
I am aware of the Brind case. I am aware that international obligations are not enforceable in a British court. But in this case they are incorporated. My submission is that before the Government can do what they seek to do they must disincorporate those obligations. The legal advice that I have been given is that we are in uncharted waters; I understand that the point has never been argued. But it might be ruled that when an international obligation has been incorporated
1230
by legislation in British law, Parliament can disapply it only in express words. That argument would have the great advantage of tending to certainty. Were such an argument to be put before the courts I should listen to it with great interest.
We have here a very serious matter. Judging in the Appellate Committee of this House in 1986, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, said that in matters which may involve a risk to life decisions should be taken only after the most careful and anxious scrutiny. I hope that that argument is as true in this Chamber as it is in your Lordships' Appellate Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She moved an amendment to a clause which seeks to reverse the situation brought about by the Court of Appeal's judgment declaring the withdrawal of benefits from certain categories of asylum seekers to be unlawful. The final words of Lord Justice Simon Brown's judgment include those words already quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as regards the horns of the dilemma. The judgment concludes with this sentence:
"Primary legislation alone could in my judgment achieve that sorry state of affairs".
The primary legislation is that which the clause seeks to enact; and the sorry state of affairs is precisely that already described—namely, the stark choice which faces some asylum seekers either to persist with their claim and become destitute, or to abandon their claim and leave this country.
It is true that Parliament has the sovereign power to legislate as it wills. But to many of us this piece of legislation is repugnant. The chief reason is that it presents some of those seeking asylum with the choice which has been put starkly by the Court of Appeal. Those who apply in country, and those who are appealing against a determination, are to be refused benefit. We have had already a good deal of discussion about the comparisons between those who apply in country and those who apply at port. As I read the figures, for years it has been the case that those who apply in country are as successful, or on occasions more successful, in their claims than those who apply at port of entry. Of those who appeal, a proportion succeed. That proportion has been fairly constant over the years. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is a mathematician, as indeed I am. As I read the figures, the proportion of those who achieve a successful determination as asylum seekers has not altered much over a decade. What has altered is the proportion of those given exceptional leave to remain. That figure has dropped dramatically in recent years.
Clearly, we have different perspectives over how far those who do not achieve a successful determination or exceptional leave to remain can be treated as bogus or as economic refugees. But even on the Government's view—that all those who fall into the 77 per cent. are bogus—there are some who have come to this country for genuine reasons; and within both categories (in-country applicants and those pursuing their appeals) there are found to be genuine asylum seekers. Those

1231
applicants are presented with the choice of destitution and the pursuance of their claim, or the decision to abandon their application and go elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spoke about the way in which the figures have altered over more than a decade. If my memory is right, he referred to about 5,000 asylum seekers who came to this country in 1985 out of a total of some 250,000 who came to Europe. My arithmetic tells me that that is about 1 per cent. of those who found their way to Europe. I ask the Committee whether 1 per cent. in that year was a fair proportion for this country to take of all the asylum seekers who came to Europe. Germany took in much larger numbers. In other words, over this decade we have received a fairer proportion of those coming to Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, also referred to the drop in those coming to this country to pursue an appeal. But surely they will be aware that the choice facing those already in the country is one that they will have to face should they come here. It is, therefore, not surprising that the numbers should have dropped.
When the Minister said that he would speak of what had happened since the February decision, I assumed that he would state what was happening to asylum seekers in this country. It is, I suggest, an indication of our difference of perspective that he spoke rather about those who are not coming to the country. What has happened to those who are in the country and who have been affected by the decision to withdraw benefit has been outlined in a report prepared by the community liaison officer of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. The report suggests that the vast bulk of those who are already seeking asylum in this country are being cared for by their own communities. It suggests that that is a course of action which it will be possible to sustain for a short period but it cannot be sustained in the long term. There are those who have no community in the country to which they can turn and emergency provisions are being made. I quote from the report:
"Churches in Hampstead, Camden, Bayswater and Hackney are providing emergency shelter for asylum-seekers with no welfare benefits. This accommodation is very basic, consisting of mattresses on church hall floors and limited washing and cooking facilities".
The report has a considerable description of what is happening to those who are attempting to pursue both lines of action: to remain in this country to pursue their cause and to continue to try to find some way of surviving while they do so.
We all share a concern that abusers of the asylum system should not be tolerated. There are, of course, abusers of the system, although some of us do not believe them to be so numerous as the Government claim. It is quite right to ensure that they do not profit and the Government are entirely right to pursue a course of action which ensures that that does not happen. But the way that they propose is at the expense of denying to genuine asylum seekers their right to pursue their case. It is the politicians' job to find a way of holding together those two policy decisions, but I suggest to your Lordships that the judgment of the Court of Appeal provides some pointers as to how that might be done.
1232
They are not necessarily those that I wish to support, but the judgment suggests that a benefit could be provided in kind rather than in cash. It suggests also that the levels of benefit might be set in such a way as to deter those who abuse the system.
However, the point remains that the way forward that is being suggested now is at the expense of those who need the opportunity to pursue their claim and for many of whom it will be found to be genuine. Therefore, I support the amendment.
4. p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. None of the noble Lords who have spoken, nor the right reverend Prelate, has begun to address the essence of the problem. It is that any responsible government must have a policy of some kind—and no one has suggested what it should be—to save abuse by bogus claimants to the tune of £200 million a year paid by the taxpayer. No proposals as to how that should be tackled have as yet been mentioned in the debate, although they were mentioned on commitment. Inevitably on recommitment there is an element of repetition. With the leave of the Committee, I shall be brief because most of what I wish to say has already been said.
In that context, I come to the convention. I agree—as I often do—with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is an important international convention, but for the life of me I cannot see in it any provision for benefit. There never has been any. The genuine asylum seekers, the Huguenots, the Lombards and others, came here to seek refuge, not finance or benefit. It is important—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the Huguenots and the others to whom he referred received considerable relief from parish funds?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I do not say that people who came here never received relief, there was no state relief provided by the taxpayer. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to finish my sentence and then I shall give way to her. I am obliged. Unfortunately, I have forgotten what I was going to say so I shall give way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to affirm the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that in the period to which the noble Lord referred no one was eligible for state relief. There was no such thing as state benefit. All benefits were parochial benefits. Refugees were treated in exactly the same way as local people. That is all we ask for in the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. What I wished to say relates to the point. The problem is not the same. We live in this century, approaching the next, and the Government have to tax people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. However, I suggest that he

1233
does not allow the noble Earl to take him too far along historical parallels. It can often lead one up blind alleys, as I know to my cost. Does my noble friend agree that we will provide benefit to all those who apply for asylum on arrival in this country? That is the important point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I totally accept that.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: Parish relief has been mentioned in the debate and it may help the Committee to have a picture of the situation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would not mind giving way. I believe that my noble friend had not finished his speech.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall do my best to finish it. I am grateful to my noble friend. I was coming to the port of entry argument which was discussed on the previous occasion and which confers the benefit. However, before that I was discussing the genuine asylum seeker who comes here to seek refuge, not money. We are now in an age where the Government must watch their expenditure on what has been shown to be a mass of bogus asylum seekers.
The only new matter that arises on recommitment is the judgment of the Court of Appeal. That is of no relevance at all. First, it is totally irrelevant whether the Divisional Court was right, whether the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeal was right or whether the majority opinion of the Court of Appeal was right. It matters not. We will never know—
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, does he follow that formula when he practices in our courts; namely, that the Court of Appeal's decision does not matter, that it does not matter whether it is a majority or a minority decision? If so, all those of us who are his colleagues would be very surprised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am saying, and I reiterate, that in my opinion in these circumstances the Court of Appeal's opinion, be it a dissenting opinion or a majority opinion, is of no further assistance to your Lordships. That is my view. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entitled to his view; but I am trying to make a speech and express my own views—and I am not doing very well at the moment!
I would even suggest that Lord Justice Simon Brown's opinion essentially went wrong because he failed to appreciate that in the convention there was no obligation for benefit. By making that error he formulated the "horns of dilemma" argument that appealed so greatly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at the time. It is simply an opinion of a very eminent legal gentleman who holds high judicial office. It is no more nor less than that. It is no substitute for the opinion of this House, which we are here to express. It is not a criticism of the judiciary; it is an assertion of the importance of this House.
1234
It comes down to the fact that somehow we have to remove incentives for bogus asylum seekers. If we do, there will be fewer claims clogging up the system. It is idle to compare our system with the systems of other countries in this regard. It has been said that the Netherlands rushes claims through in a matter of weeks. But the Netherlands does not receive half the applications that we do. And why? Because its social security benefits are not a patch on ours. If that were done, we arrive at a situation—
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The level of social security benefits in the Netherlands is higher than here.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, with respect that is not generally the case. But we can disagree about that outside. Certain aspects are, but not generally.
I shall just make one more point. If we limit asylum seekers to genuine refugees, the genuine refugees will benefit. It is wrong to say that the proposals that the Government wish to introduce put those who do not apply for asylum at the port of entry at an unfair disadvantage.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I support the amendment. It turns on a distinction; namely, the attempt to define what is bogus and what is true in an asylum seeker. I wish to relate the experience of a particular church in London involved in supporting some 20 asylum seekers who passed through its doors or stayed at the church for periods varying from a couple of nights to a couple of months. They come from a variety of sources: through some agency such as the Refugee Council, the medical foundation and the African Churches Council for Immigration and Social Services. All have applied for political asylum.
To begin with, there was no provision from the local council, and a group of community activists worked with church members to address the needs of those people. Shelter, legal representation, food, money, laundry and baths have been provided. At times, a dozen people have been sleeping on the floor of the church. In cramped and inadequate premises, among frightened and unhappy people, stress levels have been high. Volunteers have had to contend with both verbal and physical violence. The local authority's response has been slow. Some asylum seekers have been moved to hostels, others to unwanted flats and squats—all temporary solutions. In one case (and I could recall several) a woman from the Congo was eventually housed in a hard-to-let flat provided after she was safely delivered of a child weighing a mere 4lbs. She was provided with £1.50 per week in benefits for herself and the child.
These are very difficult cases to decide. The members of that particular church are not politicised; nor are they an extremist group of people. The vast majority have Afro-Caribbean or African backgrounds. They would not generally be in favour of open and unlimited immigration. Yet, despite considerable caution about the refugees and immigrants, they feel a sense of outrage at the effects of this legislation. Surely no one puts up with

1235
that kind of hardship and deprivation voluntarily. What I have described very simply is a long way from a honeypot of generous benefits.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the reasons why asylum seekers do not apply at the port of entry are varied and complex. Among them are ignorance about what they are supposed to do and problems with language. In other cases it is due to the general confusion and disorientation experienced by people who have endured traumatic experiences. To expect such folk to behave according to strict procedures and logic is surely unrealistic. That is why some mitigation on the time for applications is so important.
I am sure that I have no need to remind noble Lords that there is extensive teaching in the scriptures about the care of sojourners and refugees and our responsibilities. I was reminded yesterday, hearing the Book of Ruth read in church, that our Lord himself was descended after the flesh from a political refugee. I believe, as do many people in our churches, that the present legislation, unamended, casts a dark shadow across our claim to be a compassionate and Christian country. We would prefer a longer period, but want to support this amendment. I hope the Committee will do so.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: I, too, wish to speak against the Government's attempt to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision. I believe it was based on very careful consideration, not only of the status of asylum seekers but of the Government's own legislation. The amendment and the regulations are flouting the will of Parliament as already expressed and of the nation—and even the Government's own intentions under the 1993 Act, which were to protect the genuine asylum seeker through the right of appeal. As stated in a recent leader in The Times, the denial of benefits is the wrong remedy for the problem that the Government seek to redress.
The Government have decided to use destitution as another weapon in the armoury of their deterrent policy. They have already condemned those who, for understandable reasons that are clear to anyone who reads the daily newspapers, are unable to apply for asylum in country. I support the right reverend Prelate's remark about making a decision. People have made a decision to leave one country; they have not made a decision as to what to do in the next. The Government are therefore turning their back on the genuine asylum seekers we all want to help. Admittedly, they are a minority within the group, but there is a sizeable proportion of in-country applicants. To support their policy the Government are even distorting their own Home Office figures, talking of nine out of 10 bogus refugees. The Minister has been courteous with figures today, but there has been loose talk by Ministers in another place, which I believe to be quite irresponsible. They have used bogus figures, deliberately excluding those who have exceptional leave to remain. The effect is to besmear the image of the genuine asylum seeker and it is damaging to our race relations.
1236
I spent some time last Friday at a refugee centre in Vauxhall. I saw a number of volunteers unpacking food and clothing for the genuinely destitute. I mention this for two reasons: first, because there may be doubt among some in this Chamber that genuine destitution any longer exists in central London, in spite of what the right reverend Prelate said earlier. The second reason is because the centre has been established only in the last few weeks, solely for the benefit of hundreds of in-country asylum seekers from Africa, eastern Europe and many other regions, adults and children who have been or are being deprived of benefits and who have nowhere to turn, no relatives, no accommodation and no money. We have heard how churches are having to use whatever resources they can muster themselves.
The Government would presumably like these people to go straight to the ferry or the railway station, even though they—or at least a proportion of them—would be genuine asylum seekers. I quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Simon Brown said:
"I would hold it unlawful to alter the benefit regime so drastically as must inevitably not merely prejudice, but on occasion defeat, the statutory right of asylum seekers to claim refugee status".
I hope that that is some answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Finally, it is a pity that the DSS has not only done no homework of its own on destitution of asylum seekers; it has also criticised as scaremongers those people who have done their homework. I cite instances for scaremongering on 21st June on "Newsnight" and again on 24th June in another place. The Secretary of State accused the Refugee Council and others of exaggerating claims about the effects of the new regulations. I have known the Refugee Council for over 20 years. I know it is a highly respected body, supported by the voluntary agencies and by government. It has no interest in making exaggerated claims. In fact, unlike the DSS, it has carried out its own research based on practical experience of refugees and with asylum seekers, showing that the regulations have caused severe hardship and suffering. The Refugee Council is not asking for an apology from the Secretary of State; it is simply asking, like many of us here, for a recognition of the facts and of the injustice of the Government's main amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I rise to support the amendment. Before doing so, I would like to say a brief word about the role of the Court of Appeal. I say nothing about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that the Court of Appeal had delivered a moral judgment. That is not the function of the courts, and the court did not do so. What the majority did was to say that, in the light of their extremely serious consequences, it did not believe that the regulations were within the scope of the primary legislation, bearing in mind other primary legislation. In other words, they were ultra vires. It was a straight legal decision and nothing more, save of course that people can pray in aid the facts, in so far as they were facts, found by the judges. It is important, however, to realise that there is no conflict. I hope that the media will

1237
realise that there is no conflict, because their circulation depends upon conflict, or imaginary conflict, and it would be unfortunate that this should contribute to their circulation.
I turn to the merits of the amendment. The problem is very clear. It is particularly clear to people like myself who have been involved in judicial review. Visitors to this country apply to the immigration officer for leave to enter and remain for a wide variety of reasons. He may or may not probe those reasons but, as the Government have made absolutely clear, implicit in the application in every case is that there will be no charge on public funds.
Time goes by and the visitors decide that they would like to stay longer, if indeed they did not always intend to stay longer. They appeal for extensions of time and the like. Meanwhile, life goes on as before for them. But when eventually the end of the road is reached they dive into their back pocket and remove the asylum card; they claim political asylum. That is a monstrous position and the Government have sought to tackle it in a way which, to them, seems plausible, particularly since it is said that the denial of economic benefits to those who come in on the basis that they will not be a charge on public funds is no more than poetic justice.
It is plausible but, in my judgment, it is wrong. I say that for this reason. The remedy needs to be tested, not against the case of the bogus asylum seeker, but against the case of the genuine asylum seeker. When one comes to test it against the case of the genuine asylum seeker, there is again an element of great good sense in the Government's decision—or suggestion—that one should divide those who seek asylum immediately on arrival at the port and those who produce the trump card at a later date. However, as has been pointed out, there are many who arrive in this country in a state of some confusion, in high stress, with language difficulties, fearing the authorities, and so on and so forth. For that reason, in my judgment, the amendment is right to extend the period. I would myself have extended it further than the amendment suggests—to such period as gives the asylum applicant a chance to catch his breath.
The case in the Court of Appeal was an extreme example of the surprising results of simply stopping at arrival. Miss or Mrs. B.—I only know that she was a lady—arrived by Eurostar and immediately changed trains and went to Lunar House to claim asylum. But she would have been in the in-country category, the same category as people who claim asylum six months later. In order to balance that argument, I have to say that I cannot for the life of me understand why she was not sent straight back on the basis that she came from a third safe country. Perhaps that is a detail. There is a case for drawing the line somewhere. The matter is not dealt with by any amendment in this House. I venture to believe that when the line has been drawn—and as I said, I would draw it slightly further away from the port of entry than the amendment suggests—the remedy should not be an economic remedy but should be a refusal to entertain a claim for asylum unless it can be
1238
proved by the applicant that circumstances in his case have arisen for the first time after arrival giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.
As far as I know, there is nothing in the convention which stops time limits being put upon applications for asylum. I would have been very much happier—indeed, I would have supported the Government—if they had said there should be a reasonable time, specifying a reasonable time, after arrival in the port for making an application, saying, "Thereafter, we will not entertain an application. You have been warned on arrival"—by multi-language leaflets or some other appropriate means—"that if you did not ask for asylum now you would not get it". That seems to me to be the right way to address this problem. It honours our obligations under the convention; it is humane; and it takes account of the difficulties which are faced by somebody coming to this country if he is a genuine asylum seeker.
But there is one amendment and, although it does not go the whole way, as I should like, it certainly has my support so far as it goes.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the new clause. The stories that we heard from Members opposite, the Cross-Benches, and the right reverend Prelates during the long days and nights of our debate surely reveal true and moving situations. If asylum seekers are genuine and abide by the law, they will receive help and no doubt become genuine refugees. This country has for decades had a proud record in respect of refugees, a policy which has enriched the country rather than impoverished it.
I have sat through most of the Bill and read through all the details with great care. We all agree that the Bill deals with a very important situation which is perhaps aggravated by the world population explosion. There were 44,000 asylum seekers in 1995, of which only 5 per cent. obtained refugee status. If asylum seekers apply at the port of entry, there is no problem. We all know that they will receive benefits. But why should anyone from abroad be able to claim asylum at any time after they have been in this country as a tourist, a businessman or a student? Why should they be guaranteed, for at least 18 months, income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit?
We have heard much criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am absolutely amazed. We heard that the party opposite would advise people to break the law and tell lies. I can hardly believe it. In the unlikely circumstances that the party opposite find themselves in office, would that government repeal this Bill and would they continue to advise people to break the law and tell lies?
I support the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Security in this long overdue change. We have already seen the fruits of changes: 50 per cent. fewer asylum seekers, saving the British taxpayer

1239
£129 million; thus making it easier for true asylum seekers whom we want to help to come through. That must be right. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I speak in favour of the amendment. I respectfully agree very much with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and I shall not comment further on that. I want to deal with two matters. One is the relevance of what the Court of Appeal decided as a matter of law; the other is a problem about the ouster clause and what it means.
In a statement last week the Minister said that following the Court of Appeal's decision:
"It is the Government's intention to introduce amendments aimed at restoring Parliament's intention".—(Official Report, 24/6/96; col. 596.)
I suppose that what the Minister meant by "restoring Parliament's intention" was the parliamentary approval given for the 1996 regulations. But, if one is concerned with Parliament's intention, surely what matters is the intention in enacting the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. That was the basis for the Court of Appeal's ruling as a matter of law that the regulations were ultra vires.
Parliament's intention has been decided authoritatively as a matter of law by the Court of Appeal. I say "authoritatively decided" because, as the Committee knows, the Government decided to forgo their right to pursue an appeal to the Appellate Committee. In the absence of an appeal to the Law Lords, what the Court of Appeal decided about Parliament's intention is therefore truly an authoritative statement of the law as it stands. Contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe that the Court of Appeal's decision on the legal issues matters very much indeed in this debate.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I summarise, in a little more detail than has been heard so far, exactly what the Court of Appeal decided as a matter of law. It said that Parliament,
"has clearly demonstrated by the 1993 Act a full commitment to the United Kingdom's Convention obligations … [and] the 1993 Act confers on asylum seekers fuller rights than they had ever previously enjoyed, the right of appeal in particular".
The Court of Appeal also held that Parliament intended:
"that some basic provision should be made, sufficient for genuine claimants to survive and pursue their claims";
and again that:
"Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution".
The Court of Appeal made it clear that the Secretary of State is fully entitled under the law as it stands to discourage economic migrants by restricting their benefits. Lord Justice Simon Brown pointed out, for example, that we could do exactly what has been done in other European countries. He gave some examples: we could make urgent needs payments at a significantly lower rate than 90 per cent.; or, more draconian, we could allow certain categories of claim, such as the
1240
in-country claim brought more than four weeks after arrival, to be processed as without foundation claims rather on the lines of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, a few moments ago. Those are the kinds of options pursued in other countries.
But the Court of Appeal made it quite clear that the Minister is:
"bound to maintain some benefit provision to asylum seekers so as to ensure that those with genuine claims will not be driven by penury to forfeit them, whether by leaving the country before their determination or through an inability to prosecute them effectively".
I apologise for all the quotations. But the amendment tabled by the Government does not restore Parliament's intention in passing the 1993 Act, as found by the Court of Appeal. It frustrates and thwarts Parliament's intention in passing that Act. The Government's intention is directly contrary to Parliament's intention in passing the 1993 Act, because—I see the Minister shakes his head in disagreement—the Government's amendment, as so many Members of the Committee have said, would indeed (to quote the Court of Appeal) impale:
"a significant number of genuine asylum seekers … on the horns of [an] intolerable dilemma",
which, in Lord Justice Simon Brown's memorable phrase, is:
"the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution".
In view of the Minister's disagreement with me, I am bound to say that I cannot understand how the Government can contradict what I said; namely, that what they are doing plainly flouts the intention of Parliament as decided by the Court of Appeal.
If the Government's amendment is passed without any softening amendment of the kind now before the Committee, there will be no benefit provision to asylum seekers merely because they failed to seek asylum on the day when they sought entry. There will be no locus penitentiae. There will be no provision to ensure that those with genuine claims will not be driven by penury to forfeit them, whether by leaving the country before they are determined or because they are unable to prosecute them. That again is contrary to Parliament's intention in passing the 1993 Act. That is an extraordinarily unsightly intention to ask Parliament now to authorise, now at the eleventh hour, coerced by Whips and in some haste.
Moreover—this is the other point I want to raise in relation to the ouster clause—the means chosen by the Government are also troubling. Paragraph (1) of the new clause begins,
"Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, regulations may exclude from entitlement to … benefits … any person who has made a claim for asylum".
Read literally, paragraph (1) purports to oust the courts from reviewing whether future regulations are inconsistent with any enactment, including the 1992 and 1993 Acts as well as any rule of law. The principles of legality, rationality and procedural propriety are well known in administrative law.

1241
I cannot tell whether or not that is the Government's intention. On the face of it, the first words of the ouster clause seem to be calculated to prevent the courts from deciding whether, for example, the regulations were arbitrary or manifestly irrational; whether they were directly or indirectly discriminatory; whether they breached fundamental human rights; whether they breached the 1951 Refugee Convention and so forth.
I doubt whether the courts would interpret the ouster clause in a sweepingly broad way—for example, so as to exclude a hypothetical case where the regulations discriminated on the basis of race or subjected asylum seekers to degrading or inhuman treatment, or prevented them from having access to courts. I gave notice to the Minister asking whether he would be kind enough to explain in his reply what the Government intend to be the proper scope and limits of the ouster clause in paragraph (1). I do not mean to suggest that the Government intend to discriminate unfairly against asylum seekers, whether directly or indirectly; I do not mean to suggest that they intend to subject them deliberately to inhuman treatment or to breach the 1951 convention or any of the other international human rights codes by which the country is bound. I am concerned with the Government's intentions on the matter and would be grateful for a reply to that question.
In every other European country, in virtually every other Commonwealth country—even in the colony of Hong Kong—the validity of this kind of measure would be tested in the courts against some constitutional legal guarantee. In this country, rightly or wrongly, the way our system works is that all that the Government need is a majority vote in each Chamber and the hope that our courts will give literal effect to a wide ouster clause. That is why the Minister's reply on the scope and effect of the ouster clause is important.
In any event, I hope that the Government, in the end, will not have a majority for the amendment in its unamended form. That would produce extremely harsh effects, be likely to lead to further clashes in our courts and be in breach of the international human rights laws.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened carefully to the debate today. We have heard much of it before but today we are dealing with a specific context. I support the Government in opposing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who said that people arrive here perhaps having been let down by an agent or abandoned. Who are those people? Are the agencies concerned the type referred to by the right reverend Prelate or are they instead commercial entrepreneurs, shipping people overseas because it is a good commercial venture? We must be careful about that situation.
As a lay person I understood the court to say that the regulations were not acceptable because they were not contained in primary legislation. If the Government introduced primary legislation to the same effect, that would be different. If I am wrong in that regard, perhaps someone will clarify the situation for me.
1242
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested that some basic provision should be made. I agree. He may have read editorials in the newspapers following the court judgment in relation to how many European countries provide some type of hostel accommodation. The right reverend Prelates told us how much the Churches, the community and society are doing to help. As I understand it, if an application for asylum is successful, the person will receive total benefit backdated for the whole of the period and therefore the Churches or community groups who have given so generously should then be able to obtain a refund of the money outlaid. Their work is extremely admirable and charitable.
I was fascinated by the legal part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I absolutely agree with him. He referred to people coming here and saying that they would not be an imposition upon the social structure of the country. I would point out again what I pointed out at Committee stage; that is, that many people arrive here with a letter either to or from a friend or relative who says that they will be totally responsible for the person but the applicant later pulls out of their pocket the asylum card that they want to play.
The Australians are much smarter than us in that regard. If one carries a letter saying that someone will entirely support them, a bond must be put up to match the words. If one then imposes upon the social security services or any other benefit department, the person who is supposed to be responsible must meet the bill. In England we are much more generous in that we do not ask people to do that. A genuine asylum seeker receives all the benefits.
We must be careful in accepting the amendment in that it would mean that all those people I mentioned—the students, the illegal entrants, the over-stayers—would be covered. Only 5 per cent. are accepted on the first round; that is a small proportion who are accepted as being genuine asylum seekers. In fact, the over-stayers would have to overstay considerably before coming into the three-day section, but we are also speaking to Amendment No. 12.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned language as being a major difficulty. That is something we tend to overlook. If people spend long periods here waiting for asylum, they should be given an opportunity to learn the language. It is a genuine difficulty that they face. Many of those who have their housing benefit cases heard, sometimes years later, are often still unable to speak a single word of English and that is not very encouraging.
I cannot accept the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in relation to flouting the will of this Chamber. That is not the point. I support the Government's view that the amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness did not quote the Court of Appeal correctly. It did not criticise the fact that the Government's proposals were not in primary legislation; it said,
"True, no obligation arises under Article 24 of the 195 I Convention until asylum seekers are recognised as refugees. But that is not to say that up to that point their fundamental needs can properly be

1243
ignored … Rather I would hold it unlawful to alter the benefit regime so drastically as must inevitably not merely prejudice, but on occasion defeat, the statutory right of asylum seekers to claim refugee status".
That right, as my noble friend Lord Lester explained, was contained in primary legislation and was contravened by what the Government proposed to do. That is why the Court of Appeal found as it did. The noble Baroness's difficulty in comprehending the judgment of the Court of Appeal is occasioned by the Government's reluctance to allow the Committee adequate time to consider these amendments. The noble Baroness may shake her head, but there is a fundamental principle at stake here. I gave the office of the Leader of the House notice that I was going to raise the fact that on Thursday afternoon he said that the documents in question and the proposed amendments, together with the explanatory leaflets,
"were available to the whole House in the way that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would approve".—[Official Report, 27/6/96: col. 1021.]
I went immediately into the Library and the documents were not there; neither were they in the Printed Paper Office. That was at 10 minutes to four o'clock. I had to wait a whole hour before the documents were finally brought from the office of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The officials there told me that they were being rushed across specially. So the documents were not there when the Leader of the House said that they were. I ventured to point out during a speech concerning another matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was handling that afternoon that that was not acceptable. If a Minister says something from the Front Bench one expects it to be true. I am not blaming the Leader of the House at all, but only saying that if something is claimed by the Front Bench and it turns out not to be true, the Government must make a correction to it at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he was not here on Friday and has not had the opportunity to read Hansard. When my noble friend the Chief Whip moved the Business Statement on Friday, he apologised on behalf of the Leader of the House for the fact that the Leader had inadvertently misled the House. Perhaps I may say that he misled the House because I misled him. I had thought that the letters had been placed in the Library. They were supposed to have been but, regrettably, they were not. My secretary made every endeavour to get them over immediately he heard that my instruction had not been carried out.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I am sorry that I was not in the House on Friday to listen to what was said then. I was not here on Friday because I spend a great deal of my time outside this Chamber listening to people from other parts of the world explaining the kinds of situations which give rise to refugees. Among other things on Friday, I had a meeting with Aliza Marcus, who is a former Reuters correspondent in Ankara. She was arrested and thrown in prison and tried under Article 8 of the anti-terror law there before finally, as a result of international pressure, being allowed to leave the
1244
country. Many other people charged under that provision would be delighted to do so. That is the reason why many of them come here.
Later on I met Mr. Jawhar-al-Souchi, whose father and 29 other immediate members of his family were murdered in the village of Kilken in Northern Iraq by forces loyal to Mustafa Barzani the leader of the KDP. I am all the time listening to situations which give rise to the flow of refugees. It is completely ridiculous for the noble Lord to say at the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this debate that the world has not become more dangerous but we have become more attractive and that that is the reason for the increase in the number of people applying for asylum in the past 10 years. I do not know where he gets that impression. I suggest that he reads, for example, the works of the Carnegie Foundation which list 132 internal conflicts taking place throughout the world; the works of the distinguished American lawyer, Karen Parker, who summarises the internal conflicts which are occurring all over the world; and the works of Professor Hurst Hannum on self-determination. There is much information available in the public domain which the noble Lord could look at, showing that these internal conflicts which give rise to the flow of refugees are a great deal worse than they were 10 years ago.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is the first to address the question that I asked. Would he like to speculate for a moment as to why we alone are seeing this huge increase in the number of refugees when all our European friends are not?
Lord Avebury: I would not speculate on that because we are addressing a piece of United Kingdom legislation, not legislation that applies in Holland or Germany. If I were to trespass into those areas I might become even less popular with the Committee than I am already.
The noble Lord also invited those who follow him to express an opinion on what alternative the Government should follow. I am attracted by the ideas expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. If we refuse to entertain a claim for asylum after a reasonable interval has elapsed from the date of arrival, that would be a very reasonable way of looking at the situation. As has been said, if a person enters this country as a visitor, remains here for six months and then applies for an extension so that he or she completes the whole year—which is the limit, and not 18 months, incidentally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I did not mention 18 months.
Lord Avebury: It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In any event, the limit is 12 months beyond which a visitor would not be allowed to stay here. If at the end of that period a person lodges an application for asylum, then on the face of it it is likely not to be genuine, although there are always

1245
circumstances which may have arisen since the person first entered which had not been envisaged at the time of first arrival.
The Government could have provided that for someone who after six months or 12 months here as a visitor or in some other capacity then lodged an application for asylum, prima face it would be rejected unless he or she could show that a material change had taken place in the country of origin in the time that they had been here. But they have not chosen that way. They have cut everyone off from benefit who has failed to lodge an application at the port of entry. As has been said frequently in the past, there may have been very good reasons for that and sometimes those reasons may be acceptable.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but perhaps I may mention one case out of many about which I have been in correspondence with the Minister who deals with immigration, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope. A gentleman was a refugee in France. Originally he came from Iraq. As part of a sweep, the French police arrested him and others, and he was deported back to Iraq in February 1986. It was accepted that he had been detained and tortured there. When he was taken to Orly Airport he protested, "Shoot me now rather than send me to Baghdad. I would rather spend 20 years in a French prison than return to Iraq". Nevertheless, he was seized by four police officers, given an intramuscular injection and thus rapidly found himself unable to move. Immobilised by drugs, he was escorted onto an Iraqi airlines plane surrounded by French police, who accompanied him to Baghdad and handed him over to the Iraqi police.
When he finally escaped from Iraq and returned to Europe, it seemed hardly surprising that he was not keen on accepting French hospitality and applied for a transfer of asylum to the United Kingdom. But in their wisdom the appellate authorities found against him and he fell back on the mercy of the Secretary of State, who after considerable representations had been made and being aware of the fact that the refugee was under immense psychological and financial stress, made worse by the cuts in his benefit, graciously agreed that he would reconsider the matter. In the meanwhile this gentleman, who without doubt had suffered intolerable hardship and persecution in Iraq and who did not wish to remain as a refugee in France, therefore, came to this country looking for asylum. But he has been destitute since February, having no benefits at all.
I am glad as a result of the amendments that have been tabled by the Government that benefit will be restored, but how are we to know that such cases will not arise in future? I am certain that we have gone much too far in denying benefits to perfectly genuine asylum seekers such as the person I mentioned. I think that we should take the provisions away and look at the
1246
alternatives that have been suggested by others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
Baroness Rawlings: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may quote to him the pre-February rules:
"all asylum seekers were eligible to claim the full range of income-related and non-contributory benefits. Entitlement to Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit ran from the start of the asylum claim to its final determination and appeal over 18 months".
5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Not long ago I had the opportunity to visit Rectory Road United Reformed Church in Stoke Newington, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln has already referred. I met there a Nigerian involved in the recent Ogoni environmental protests. He was arrested, tortured and pressurised to give evidence against his family and friends in return for his freedom. Having been set free, he fled without giving evidence. We also heard from a young French-speaking woman from the Congo who spoke no English and who was seven months pregnant. Her fiancé was murdered for his political activities and she fled the country out of fear for her safety and that of her unborn child.
As we know, under the Government's legislation only those who apply for asylum at the port of entry qualify for benefits, but the two to whom I have referred are just two among many who did not apply at the port of entry but who, in the judgment of fair-minded people, are genuine seekers of asylum. This is a modest amendment which we should support. It allows only three days after arrival at the port of entry in which to make a claim.
The United Reformed Church minister (who has dealt with a good number of refugees and asylum seekers in his Church who are in a state of destitution) says that he has doubts about the claims of only one or two of the people with whom he has dealt. One of those was a mentally ill woman from Poland who was in any case vulnerable and at risk.
Under the Government's new concession, benefits can be backdated for those who are later shown to be genuine asylum seekers. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to that and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out that all genuine seekers of asylum in this country will be treated fairly. But how are such people to live in the meanwhile? The efforts of voluntary bodies and the churches—heroic though they are—cannot possibly provide the basic minimum conditions of living at which we should be aiming; nor does it seem either appropriate or fair for voluntary bodies to have to judge who is genuine and who is not. They are not trained to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims; nor do they have the resources to examine the evidence in the thorough-going way that is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spent some time suggesting that the world was not becoming more dangerous. That has just been refuted by the noble

1247
Lord, Lord Avebury. However, whether or not the world is becoming more dangerous, the fact is that it remains dangerous and that because of civil unrest, detentions, extra-judicial killings and even outright conflict there are people in this country who did not claim at the port of entry but who are genuine asylum seekers. The refugees we saw at the Rectory Road Church in Stoke Newington who were found sleeping on the floor in conditions of some discomfort and rising tension came from Somalia, Chechnya, Romania, the Gambia and Nigeria.
As editorials in The Times have put it:
"The problem with regulations drafted so sweepingly is that they affect genuine refugees along with bogus claimants".
It is for that reason that refugee organisations, the churches and other religious bodies cannot support the new regulations. The Board of Deputies of British Jews says that the proposals:
"represent a grave denial of the safety, human rights and welfare treatment which should be the hallmark of any civilised society".
That stand is supported by the Jewish Chronicle and is endorsed by many other religious bodies.
A better way must be found of identifying bogus asylum seekers. A number of ways have been suggested this afternoon. We must find a way which does not cause the hardship that is now being inflicted on a good number of genuine seekers of asylum who have already suffered enough in their own countries without having further indignities heaped on them here.
Viscount Mountgarret: I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench will be kind enough to clear up a point that has been troubling me for some time while I have been listening to the debate. I apologise to my noble friend for not having been here when he delivered his opening speech. I regret that my train was a little delayed.
The emotive issues posed by these amendments are very real and understandable. To many of us, including many of my noble friends—or at any rate some of them—it would appear that on the face of it we are being a little hard hearted and heavy handed. On the other hand, my noble friend said in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that asylum seekers would be given benefit or help where appropriate and where necessary—from day one was what I understood—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may just finish. The question that I want to ask my noble friend is this: if a person seeks asylum at a port of entry to this country, is he entitled to receive some assistance and benefit until his case has been considered by the Home Office? If that is so, I see little reason for the amendments. However, if that is not so, I personally feel a little uneasy. I wonder whether it would be possible for my noble friend to clarify that point, if only for myself. I apologise to noble Lords if I am wasting the Committee's time.
Lord Wolfson: We all have good hearts, I am sure, but we must seek to differentiate between genuine and
1248
other claimants. I am concerned about returning anyone to a country with little or no human rights. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what firm protection there is in that regard?
Perhaps I should add that a number of my grandparents were admitted to this country from Russia about a century ago. Naturally, I am most appreciative of a policy that permitted that to happen. Although they had very small resources, they were not a charge on the state but were supported by the Jewish communities in Glasgow and London.
Viscount Waverley: It seems to me that the intention of the Government is to address the tens of thousands of bogus applicants who in the interim benefit from our welfare system and, in so doing, to reduce the backlog of those waiting to hear the outcome of appeals. That will help to ensure the position of those with a genuine claim.
The effect of the legislation will leave no doubt as to the procedures that should be adopted when applying for asylum in this country. I believe that it is the lack of understanding of procedures which complicates matters and presents the ammunition with which to cry "Foul". The rules will be clear. When asked by an immigration officer about the purpose of a visit to the UK, asylum seekers must speak without fear of intimidation. The world knows that we in this country live by rules governing fair play. That is surely why asylum seekers select the United Kingdom in the first place. We must ensure, on the other hand, that we do not fall into the trap of being singled out as a country with procedures that can be manipulated by, for example, organised syndicates. Nevertheless, I believe that on balance the Government are moving in the right direction, although more needs to be done to accelerate the procedures.
The UN convention of 1951 was created to tackle issues arising from the Second World War. Times have changed and different circumstances must now be addressed. I give an example. The need to encourage refugees to return to their countries of origin when circumstances allow to assist in their future development is critical. The brain drain has a devastating effect and needs to be reversed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak briefly to Amendment No. 12 which is in my name. The amendment would extend the right to benefit to those entering the country and claiming asylum up to seven days after the date of entry. It would also extend the period for those attempting to appeal against an initial decision to refuse asylum. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford gave several first-hand examples of those who appeared on every possible basis to be genuine refugees but who were not sufficiently well informed and failed to apply at the point of entry. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave several reasons why people did not necessarily apply at the point of entry but applied a matter of days afterwards. It is part of the human condition that those who enter the country will not be able, within a few minutes of getting off an

1249
aircraft—often having been rushed onto that aircraft by security guards or army personnel, perhaps under the threat of death—to make out a strong case for remaining in this country.
Amendment No. 6, which is being considered together with Amendment No. 12, is an extremely modest proposal. It proposes that an asylum seeker should have just three days in which to put together his case. My amendment goes a little further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, gave his reasons for believing that the period should be slightly longer. He said that he would support a longer period than that proposed in Amendment No. 6. The same view was expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
I shall give a couple of reasons why I believe the qualifying period in the amendment in my name is the minimum reasonable qualification that the Committee should support. Before doing so, I shall deal with two widespread misunderstandings. The first is summed up in a letter in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph. It is written by a very vigorous Russian refugee. He claims that there is no need for benefit to be extended to asylum seekers. He had sustained himself. He gives a long list of jobs. He refers to washing dishes, cleaning doorsteps and other ways in which traditionally, throughout the world, immigrants have sustained themselves before being able to get decent jobs. But he seems unable to understand that immigrants and asylum seekers have no right to seek work in this country. If they seek work within the first few months of their arrival they are outside the law. According to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, one is firmly instructed not to advise people to break the law, so such people cannot be advised to seek work. Frankly, the letter in the Daily Telegraph is beside the point.
Another misunderstanding is that this country has been specifically targeted by new waves of asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made this point very forcefully in his initial statement. I give some figures which I believe to be the most recent ones. In Germany the number of asylum seekers rose from 165,400 in 1994 to 168,600 in 1995. Those figures are more than three times the numbers applying to this country for asylum. More to the point, Germany continues to sustain those people with hostel accommodation and a basic allowance of DM80 a week for every adult and DM40 a week for every child. To imply that the United Kingdom is uniquely generous and is uniquely targeted is not true. Holland is another country that has been named. That country provides basic means of life to asylum seekers. Admittedly, Holland has seen a fall in the number of people applying for asylum from 52,000 in 1994—about the same level as those applying to this country but the Netherlands is about a quarter of our size—to 29,300 in 1995. Because Holland is a quarter of our size the figure is proportionately twice the number who apply here.
I turn to a subject that has been forcefully argued by the right reverend Prelate. I need hardly add to it nor detain the Committee. I should like to place on record my immense respect the work of churches of all denominations, the Jewish faith and voluntary
1250
organisations. They have responded in an amazing way to the appeals and demands of those seeking asylum whom they believe, for the reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, to be genuine cases. Case after case has come to the attention of all noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. They provide example after example of people who have been tortured, and have medical evidence to show they have been tortured or maltreated in their own countries and who, at least at the first stage, have been refused asylum.
I do not wish to cast doubt on the procedures, but there are some very troubling cases. At Report Stage I raised the case of Mr. Igbinidu from Nigeria. I believe that he is still waiting for his fate to be decided. In his case, no fewer than four of the leading medical experts at the University of Oxford have supported the validity of his case, yet he has still not been accepted for asylum. One asks oneself just what is demanded.
Finally, I turn to a number of points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. By the by, I thank her for her kindness in making available to me the immigration rules and the amendments to those rules to enable me to take part in the discussion fully informed. I return to what she said at Committee stage on this Bill about an amendment passed by noble Lords on 23rd April. The subject was torture. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to the intentions of Parliament. The intentions of Parliament were expressed by the amendment on torture. The noble Baroness responded in a very generous way:
"We are trying to arrive at a situation whereby a genuine claim of torture is properly considered and, if genuine, is well-founded at the first stage of consideration".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; col. 1057].
She went on to say that it would be very helpful to have evidence supported by a medical certificate in order to establish the claim of torture.
How does one establish a claim of torture before one arrives in this country? How does one obtain medical evidence of torture if one comes from a country like Nigeria or Zaire where no doctor will put his life at risk by providing medical evidence which will tell against him when the individual concerned has left the country? How can one expect genuine asylum seekers who have been tortured to obtain, even in three days, the medical evidence they require to establish that fact, bearing in mind that it took Mr. Igbinidu, with the support of the University of Oxford, six or seven months to establish his right to stay in this country because he was held, on medical opinion, to have been tortured?
If the opinion of this Chamber and Parliament is to be treated with the seriousness it deserves—and with the seriousness with which we want the public at large to treat parliamentary procedures—I urge that this amendment, which enables Parliament's intention to be carried out, be passed. First, the amendment would extend the length of time during which an asylum seeker would have to establish the bona fides of his claim to seven days. Secondly, the right of appeal should be upheld and people should not be driven to destitution in an attempt to establish their right of appeal. The Home Office should speed up its own procedures rather

1251
than place on the backs of voluntary organisations, the Churches and others the responsibility of making the procedures work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have just been notified by the Public Bill Office that the Government at this moment have put down amendments to this amendment to be debated tomorrow. Three amendments have been put down in the name of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to Amendment No. 4, the new clause that we are now debating. What sort of procedure is that? We are being made fun of.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. We are debating Amendment No. 5 to my Amendment No. 4.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is Amendment No. 6, I am sorry. I forgot that Amendment No. 5 was withdrawn. I believe that I know the amendments that have been put down. They are to try to make clearer on the face of the Bill what is the intention, but they do not affect the principles in any shape or form. They were put down as soon as we could, because on Thursday the noble Lord was complaining that we were putting amendments down too late. The Third Reading is tomorrow. Would the noble Lord have preferred me to wait until towards the end of business today? Surely it was better to put down the amendments now so that the noble Lord has the opportunity to see them as soon as possible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I was not complaining that the Government were putting down amendments too late. I was objecting to the fact that we were debating amendments too early. That is exactly what is happening now. It would clearly be inappropriate to interrupt the proceedings now—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I suggest that the usual channels should take an urgent decision as to whether it is proper to proceed tomorrow with Third Reading of the latter part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: What is all this fuss about? If in the course of debate a point is made—I do not know what it was—that causes the Government to think that it might be a good point, why on earth should not the Government put down amendments? I cannot see that there is any objection. What is the objection?
Lord Mishcon: Will the Minister be kind enough to indicate to the Committee why a frank announcement was not made that that procedure was going to be adopted?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not think that that was necessary. I explained that the amendments had
1252
been put down as soon as possible to give Members of the Committee as much time as we could give before Third Reading tomorrow. That is the complaint. I had a complaint last week that they were not put down quickly enough. I can assure the Committee that they have nothing to do with the amendment before us, to which, if the Committee will allow, I should like to reply. I should like to deal with the various points that have been made during the debate.
The debate has ranged a good deal wider than the narrow points in the amendments which suggest that in-country applicants should—in my shorthand—be considered to be at-port applicants or on-arrival applicants if they apply within three days or indeed within seven days. The debate has run a good deal wider than that.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret had my sympathy when he asked a question, because I have occasionally asked the same question during the course of the debate. I asked myself, "Am I removing benefits from absolutely everybody who comes here for asylum?". Of course I am not. I am saying clearly that anyone who applies for asylum on arrival in this country will receive benefits until the application is considered in the fullness of time by the Home Office. I hope that that answers my noble friend's question.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon talked about choice. People have a choice. The choice is that they can apply on arrival. I failed to understand today, as I failed to understand on every previous occasion I heard it rehearsed, why people who come to this country seeking asylum, seeking our protection, should be so suspicious of us when they get to the port of entry that they continue to say that they want to come here for other reasons and that they will accommodate themselves and maintain themselves without recourse to public funds. I fail to answer that point.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: On the specific point that the Minister is making, in that case why is it that at least 12 per cent. of those who apply after port of entry are found to be genuine refugees? That is quite apart from those who are given extended leave to remain. It does not sound as if every genuine refugee is dealt with at the port of entry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is because at the moment they have the choice of applying on arrival or of waiting until they get inside, whether they are genuine or not. The fact is that the great majority are not genuine. The facts are there. They speak for themselves: 77 per cent.—I was grateful to the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches for saying that I gave accurate figures, and indeed I use them again accurately—are found not to be justified.
If Members of the Committee had been listening to the debate without knowing those figures, they would have believed that the whole thing had been inverted: that 77 per cent. had been found to be justified and that only a very few had been found to be without justification. The facts are as I said. The figure is 77 per cent.

1253
I do not see why people cannot apply at the port of entry. There is no reason for not doing so on arrival into this country. We have plenty of interpreters on hand to help them if they do not understand English. If we do not have an interpreter for the particular language because they come from a country from which very few come, their application is taken then and the interpreter is arranged as quickly as possible thereafter. They are still considered to be on-arrival applicants. There is no problem about that. Those people who come here as genuine refugees can have the benefits system come to their aid by merely applying at the port of entry.
Again, to listen to the debate one would think that hardly anyone applied at the port of entry. That is not true. A considerable number apply at the port of entry. The majority of those who apply at the port of entry come from those countries which I believe noble Lords and right reverend Prelates can easily quote as examples of where they are liable to persecution. They appear to be not so traumatised, not so out of their wits, that they do not realise, "At long last I have got to safety. I will say to these British officials, 'Please, I am here as an asylum seeker"—because they have to say something to the British officials. It is not as if they can slip through quietly without a word.
Such people have either to say, "I am an asylum seeker", or, "I am here for up to six months, and I will not be a burden on the public purse". They have to say one or the other. It does not seem to me to present any difficulty that they are asked to say clearly at that point, "I am an asylum seeker".
The noble Baroness made much of the fact that such people may want in to get advice. She made much of the fact that they may, indeed, have been taken in by the people who had arranged their passage here and told to slip inside the country and then get advice. That seems to me to be a pretty false argument. Of course we know that there is an asylum industry. That is why so many people come here who do not turn out to be genuine. If you do slip in, there are people here who will help you ensure that you tell the right story. You might not do that if you are asked to do it on arrival at the port of entry.
Members of the Committee who have been listening to the debate should remember that anyone who comes here as a genuine asylum seeker can receive benefits if they apply at the port of entry. That is the logical place for people to apply, and not, as the statistics clearly show, some months after they have been in this country. The percentage is in the high 20s for those who apply after they have been here a year. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that, interestingly enough, they all have permission to visit for a maximum of six months. So we are talking about people who have already overstayed their welcome. Well over 30 per cent. do not apply until well over six months.
There may be genuine asylum seekers. I do not deny the figures. I have never made any attempt to argue my case on the principle that there are not some in-country applicants who are genuine. Indeed the provision that states that the Home Secretary can designate a country
1254
as being a country that has suffered great upheaval since the person came underlines the fact that we accept that circumstances can change and that someone who is in country may well find that the position back home has changed dramatically and that they then need to claim asylum. If they do so in those circumstances and their country has been designated, they will receive the benefits and help of our system.
I believe that the statistics relating to the time people wait before they apply suggest that many of those people are applying fundamentally because they have come here and, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, they like the look of the place. They have used it as a trump card in order to see whether they can stay here at least for a good few more months while the application and then the appeal are considered. That is the position.
I now turn to some of the other points made on the issue. First, perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that the court did not rule that the regulations were ultra vires the United Nations convention. That was not an issue before the court and so it made no ruling on it. Article 23 of the refugee convention applies to recognised refugees. These changes will ensure that genuine refugees will indeed receive their full entitlement. I am happy to recognise that a number of noble Lords appreciated the change that we made in backdating the benefits for those people who apply and are eventually found to be genuine; for example, those who apply in country or those whose appeal is upheld. Contrary to some of the extravagant language of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the figure is only three in 100.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that the Home Office research showed that refugees gave up a higher standard of living to come here. Yes and no. The survey from which he quoted related to those granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain. However, as I have pointed out, only a small proportion of all the asylum seekers fulfil those two qualifications. The survey says nothing about those whose claims were not accepted for either category. Therefore, I am afraid that one cannot draw the conclusion that all the people who come here and seek asylum come from somewhere where they had a better standard of living.
The reality is that many come from somewhere where life is not easy and not good. I can understand economic migrants wanting to come to a country which will improve their position. That is sound common sense from their point of view. I fully appreciate it. It is just a pity that we cannot do more to help them. However, I do not believe that we can open the doors of this country and say, "If you just say, I want asylum', and the reasons are whatever we will take you in and give you benefit". I do not believe that that is a sustainable argument.
As regards the UN convention, we do not believe in any way that the new clause and schedule offend the UN convention. The Court of Appeal stated that no obligations arise under Article 24 of the 1951 convention unless the asylum seekers are recognised as refugees. The important thing is that they are recognised as refugees—
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I must ask the Minister to read the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on the Khaboka case, Immigration AR 1993, 489. He stated:
"The term 'refugee' means what it says. It will include someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee".
That is the law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Neither of us is a lawyer. However, I should point out to the noble Earl that the case to which he referred was a third country removal case. I do not believe that it is relevant here. However, that may be a matter about which lawyers will come to argue. I should have thought if Parliament makes it clear what the position is, that ought to be sufficient for the courts. Indeed, on page 26 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal there is the interesting sentence:
"The Secretary of State"—
that is my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley—
"is answerable to Parliament rather than the courts".
I am standing, if you like, in his place here being answerable to your Lordships' House, this high court of Parliament. I suggest that if we decide that the provision ought to be in primary legislation we have fulfilled the legal points that the Court of Appeal made. It stated,"This ought to be in primary legislation. You ought not to have it in secondary legislation". If this House and the other place decide that it should be in primary legislation, we have fulfilled the legal criticism of the Court of Appeal.
That leads me to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—although, to be honest, it was more clearly directed at Amendment No. 5, which his noble friend did not move. But in the interests of good debate I shall try to answer his question. As I have said, the court's ruling was on the narrow legal question of whether our policy on benefits for asylum seekers could be achieved by secondary legislation. The Government's amendment is designed to address that specific issue. It means that regulations specifying the circumstances when asylum seekers should and should not qualify for benefits are protected from challenge on the grounds that they conflict with other enactments. That covers asylum and immigration Acts and could also apply to other legislation and to general rules of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested that the power given by the clause was very wide. However, noble Lords should remember that its purpose is a very specific group of regulations made for a very specific purpose. We do not intend going beyond that and certainly have always made perfectly clear our intentions of applying social security legislation on a fair and non-discriminatory basis.
In addition, the provision does not seek to restrict the jurisdiction of the court in entertaining judicial review challenges. Lord Justice Simon Brown
1256
indicated that the restrictions contained in the regulations should be in primary legislation. As I have said, that is what the amendment sets out—
Lord Mishcon: The Minister quoted from the judgment and talked about the need for primary legislation. He was absolutely accurate, but would he, in justice, read out the sentence in full? It appears on page 35 of the judgment and states:
"Primary legislation alone could in my judgment achieve that sorry state of affairs".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The first part of the sentence is rightly a view which the Court of Appeal can have. The second part of the sentence is rightly a view which we can dispute across this Chamber. I bow, as do the Government, to the decision of the Court of Appeal on legal grounds. I am afraid that we must argue out the benefit politics of it on political grounds. That is what this Chamber is for and not what the courts are for.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clarifying what I call the ouster clause. I believe that I heard him say that it was not intended to oust judicial review. Does that mean that the Government do not intend that future regulations will be in any way immune from challenge on the basis of illegality, irrationality or lack of fairness?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I made it perfectly clear that the provision does not seek to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts in entertaining judicial review challenges. I do not believe that I can qualify that or add to it in any way.
I suppose that I should at least be grateful that the two amendments providing for three days and seven days appear to show that the two parties opposite are beginning to accept my argument about the number of people coming to this country and claiming benefit. Therefore, one presumes that the provision of three days and seven days is the way in which the parties opposite would deal with the issue—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Given what the Minister has said, perhaps I may confirm that my party is strongly in favour of repeal. The reason we are moving the amendment is that we believe that it would be best to have a qualified approach rather than the one that the Government are proposing. We do it with little enthusiasm.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am perfectly clear about that. Having listened to the noble Baroness's friend Lord Russell on a number of occasions, I had thought that the Liberal Democrat policy would be that they would repeal the legislation. They are quite content to have this increasing number of people coming to this country and claiming asylum.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: That does not follow. The Minister will be aware that on several occasions I have raised the issue of the Home Office procedures and the possibility of speeding them up. I believe, with

1257
great respect, since he is a fair-minded man, that his final conclusion in his latest remark was not in the least justified.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying not to take too long, but if I keep on being interrupted I shall take some time. I was just coming to that point. The only policy that I can see—and the noble Baroness has said that it is the Liberal Democrat policy—from the party opposite is that, somehow or other, we must speed up Home Office decisions. I wonder whether any of your Lordships have ever tried rowing a boat against an increasing tide or wind. No matter how much effort you put into it, the increasing tide keeps driving you back. That is the problem that we have in relation to this particular difficulty.
Since the time of the 1993 Act, the productivity of the Asylum Directorate has improved by 240 per cent. The number of decisions made in 1994 was 21,000, in 1995 it was 27,000, and this year we are on course to reach 37,000 decisions. Decisions have increased by 1,000 per month after the 1993 Act to 3,000 per month now. Appeal determinations have increased from 2,400 to 7,000 and are projected to be 19,000 this year. The new short procedure, which the parties opposite opposed, means that cases can be dealt with in a matter of weeks rather than months. Most third country cases are dealt with in less than 48 hours. We have invested £37 million over three years on more caseworkers and adjudicators. Asylum staff have increased eightfold since 1988 from 100 to 800. We have done all that but still the numbers increase and it is literally like rowing against the tide.
Most of our European neighbours were finding their asylum procedures swamped by vast increases. That is why most of them introduced legislation similar to that contained in Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. Here in the United Kingdom we are also looking at new appeals procedure rules in order to reduce the scope for delay and pressure on the appeals system. We are taking this seriously and we have tried very hard. But frankly, until something is done to decrease what is, I am afraid, the attraction of this country for asylum seekers who are not seeking asylum from political pressure or oppression but from economic difficulties and poverty, whatever resources the taxpayer puts into the Home Office, we shall find it more and more difficult to keep abreast of the increasing number of applications.
A number of individual cases were detailed. I am not in a position to go into those in any great detail. Of course, Members of the Committee have an advantage over myself and other members of the Government because asylum seekers who feel that they have a case are not slow to go to noble Lords opposite and make representations. On the other hand, those who have made bogus asylum claims and have drawn them out do not come running to me or any of my noble friends to explain how they have managed to do that. Therefore, in a way, the dice are loaded against me.
But there are some cases which puzzle me. Twice this afternoon we have heard of cases which involve people who have come from Belgium and who use Belgium as
1258
their first port of entry into Europe from their country of origin. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln mentioned one case, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—the case in the Court of Appeal judgment.
I have a simple question in relation to that. Why do people not apply when they arrive in Belgium? It seems to me that Belgium is a perfectly safe country. I cannot believe that it is not a safe country, as one of our fellow members of the European Union. Not even my most Europhobic colleagues would consider that Belgium was not a safe country. Therefore, why do asylum seekers come here? Why do they not stay in Belgium? That leads to the problem of arrival by Eurostar, on which the procedures are not as finely tuned as they are at Heathrow.
However, it is interesting to note that whichever way we look at the argument, some Members of the Committee—and I am grateful to those who have said this because it helps the debate and gives us some common ground—have accepted that there are a number of applicants who are not genuine. Indeed, the Court of Appeal said that. I cannot remember what it said, but it more of less said that it was for the Government to work out how to deal with that problem. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon also said that it is for politicians to find a way to deal with the problem. We have found a way. We believe that this is the right and proper way in which to deal with this matter and we believe that we have every justification for going down that road.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked me to discuss the statistics he mentioned. I find some difficulty with his first statistic. In 1985–86, we were looking at 2.5 per cent. to 2.75 per cent. of the European total coming to this country and by 1995, that had increased to 16.7 per cent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the Netherlands. I thought that she had chosen a particularly bad example because in 1994 the Netherlands had 52,600 applicants, which last year was reduced to 29,300. By contrast, in 1994 we had 44,200, which increased last year to 55,000. Therefore, the figure was decreasing in the Netherlands whereas here it was increasing. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, highlighted one or two places in the world where we agree there are major problems. But the fact remains that if there were major problems all around the world which were increasing, would not all our European friends be seeing the same pattern? It would not merely be this country which would be seeing the kind of increase that we have seen. I have explained to the Committee that that increase has meant that we have gone from receiving 2.5 per cent. of all the applications in Europe in 1985 to 17 per cent. today. That is a very considerable increase indeed.
I do not believe that people need another three days or another seven days in which to make an application. If they have found a way in which to reach this country and have identified it as a safe place to come and apply for asylum, as we believe it is and will remain, nothing will remove that right. If people believe and have

1259
decided that the United Kingdom is the best place to come to, I can see no justification for providing that they may apply at any time after they have reached these shores. If they apply at the time of entry, they will receive income support at the 90 per cent. level and be eligible for housing benefit, council tax benefit and consideration under the homelessness legislation until the Home Office makes a decision on the case. That seems proper and fair. It is proper and fair to the people coming from abroad who are genuine, and proper and fair to the British taxpayer, who had to spend more than £200 million more last year because of the number of people coming here with no good cause for doing so.
I do not believe that three days or seven days should be accepted. Our proposal in relation to people applying on arrival to this country is generous and fair. We should stick to that. If the amendment is not withdrawn, I trust that my noble friends will join me in the Division Lobby.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This has been a long debate. Members of the Committee would not expect and, I am absolutely sure, would not want me to seek to reply to many of the points which have been raised, and so tellingly.
The Minister has threatened us with the floodgates argument—floodgates of numbers and costs—as though this amendment seeks to overturn the entire Bill. That is not true. This amendment has a much more limited aim. There is only one question before us: in relation to the legitimacy of the port of entry test, is it reasonable to give a three-day discretion for those people who should apply at the port of entry but fail to do so? That is the only question.
The Government's case would be valid, if, and only if, the port of entry test genuinely distinguished between those who are entitled to asylum status and those who are not, if it distinguished between those who are genuine and those who are fraudulent. That can be the only justification for such a test. The Minister conceded just 10 minutes ago that he has never sought to say that. He has never said that the port of entry test does what any reasonable person might expect it to do, which is to distinguish between the genuine and the fraudulent and give benefits to the genuine and deny them to the fraudulent. He has not even sought to argue that.
This amendment seeks to modify the port of entry test for one very simple reason. As the Minister grudgingly accepted, the port of entry test does not distinguish between those who are genuine and those who are fraudulent. It merely distinguishes between those who can cling on to their legal rights by their fingertips and those who cannot. That is what it distinguishes between: those who can survive without it and go on to claim for asylum and those who cannot.
Many speakers today, especially on the opposite side—for example, the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Rawlings, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and indeed others—have
1260
spoken as though what the amendment sought to do was to give benefit to all and sundry; that is to say, tourists, students and businessmen. That is not the case. The amendment would do no such thing, nor are we proposing that it should. We are simply saying that a person should either apply for asylum at the port of entry or within a few days of arriving in this country.
The Minister asked, "Why are they so suspicious of us? Why do they not apply at the port of entry". Again, I ask Members of the Committee to put themselves in the place of an asylum seeker—not a British man in France, but an asylum seeker from Zaire, Nigeria or parts of Ceylon, with perhaps false papers, which indeed can be an indication of a person's desperation; in other words, a person coming from a shadowy world of illegality, lawlessness and intimidation.
If you come from a country where you expect the police to be corrupt, you will hesitate before applying to the police in this country. If you come from a country where the immigration controls are arbitrary and unfair, you will fear that the immigration controls in this country will be the same. If you come from a country where you have had to operate on the dark side of the law, you will maintain your suspicions here until two or three days after your arrival when you may have the confidence, the strength and the ability to recover from your ordeal. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Baroness said that several Members of the Committee on this side have stated that business people, visitors and so on would be seeking such help. However, the typical pattern is that people arrive in this country and declare on the statement that they will not require any social help whatever but within three days they present themselves, having changed their mind, stating that they would like to claim asylum. That is a very common picture.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. The picture that we are trying to paint is of someone who is a student, a tourist or a businessman and is likely to be applying after a month, three months or six months and not within two to three days after arrival in this country. All the evidence from doctors, the clergy, charities and the various other organisations involved suggests that those who are most in need of asylum are precisely those who are too frightened and intimidated to apply for it at the port of entry.
The amendment has a very modest aim. It does not challenge the central thrust of the Bill; indeed, it does something much simpler. It asks that those who come to this country seeking asylum with genuine fear of persecution should be given three days' grace to allow them to report themselves to the immigration authorities. I repeat: three days' grace. We are not talking about a few months, a few years or indeed something that will involve enormous public expenditure; we are talking about three days' grace for some of the most distressed and vulnerable people in the country.

1261
Finally, I return to the comment made in the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown. If such a modest amendment cannot be accepted by the Government, are we really willing to condemn asylum seekers to contemplating,
"a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it"?
That is the choice. I repeat: a life of such destitution that,
"no civilised nation can tolerate it".
Three days' grace would allow those who are genuine asylum seekers to have the confidence and the support to do what they should perhaps have done at the port of entry—namely, to apply for asylum—but could not by reason of their health or their fears. If Members of the Committee were in their shoes, I am sure that that is what they would do. In that hope, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6), as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 155.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Donoughue, L.

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Annan, L.

Drogheda, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkender, B.

Bancroft, L.

Falkland, V.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gage, V.

Birk, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Geraint, L.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brentford, V.

Glenamara, L.

Bridges, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brightman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Harrowby, E.

Chichester, Bp.

Haskel, L.

Chorley, L.

Hayman, B.

Clancarty, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dainton, L.

Hooson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howell, L.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Desai, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Diamond, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

1262

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

Judd, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kennet, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kintore, E.

Sandwich, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Scanlon, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Seear, B.

Listowel, E.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sewel, L.

Longford, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

McNally, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar,C.

Strabolgi, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strafford, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taverne, L.

Mayhew, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Meston, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Molloy, L.

Thurso, V.

Monkswell, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tope, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Varley, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Palmer, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Peston, L.

Warnock, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Wharton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rix, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ailsa, M.

Cromer, E.

Aldington, L.

Cuckney, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Barber, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Digby, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Downshire, M.

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Boardman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bowness, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Feldman, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Caithness, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Greenway, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harlech, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Courtown, E.

Hayhoe, L.

1263

Henley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Hesketh, L.

Norrie, L.

Holderness, L.

Northesk, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hooper, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Howe, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ilchester, E.

Peel, E.

Inchcape, E.

Pender, L.

Inglewood, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kimball, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Prentice, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Prior, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Layton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Leigh, L.

Rees, L.

Lindsay, E.

Rennell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Renton, L.

Lucas, L.

Renwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Romney, E.

McConnell L

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seccombe, B.

Manton, L.

Sharples, B.

Marlesford L

Stewartby, L.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinfen, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tenby, V.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monson, L.

Tollemache, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Waverley, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Moyne, L.

Wilcox, B.

Munster, E.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolfson, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Nelson, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 14, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): The Question is, That Amendment No. 4, as amended, be agreed to?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have reached the end but no one has spoken so I presume that I am not in a position to reply to the various points that have been made. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4, as amended) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ailsa, M.

Inchcape, E.

Aldington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Barber, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Birdwood, L.

Layton, L.

Blaker, L.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blyth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brentford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brightman, L.

Manton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Marsh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Monson, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cuckney, L.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northesk, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

O'Cathain, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Digby, L.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Prentice, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prior, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rees, L.

Gage, V.

Rennell, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Romney, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harlech, L.

Strange, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

1265

Waverley, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wise, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wharton, B.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Bridges, L.

McNally, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Meston, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dainton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Drogheda, E.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rix, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Sandwich, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sewel, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Strafford, E.

Hayman, B.

Taverne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Thurso, V.

Howell, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tope, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jakobovits, L.

Varley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1266

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("except section (Saving for social security regulations) and Schedule (Modifications of social security regulations)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 17:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS
PART I
SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS 1996
Preliminary
1. In this Part of this Schedule—

(a) "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and

(b) expressions which are used in the 1996 Regulations have the same meanings as in those Regulations.

Income support
2. In regulation 8 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the sub-paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support Regulations as sub-paragraph (j); and

(b) paragraph (3)(c) and (d), shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

Housing benefit
3. In regulation 7 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 7A of the Housing Benefit Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub-paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations as sub-paragraph (g);

(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and

(c) paragraph (c),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

1267
Council tax benefit
4. In regulation 3 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 4A of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub-paragraph added to regulation 4A(4) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations as sub-paragraph (g);

(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 4A(5) of those Regulations; and

(c) paragraph (c),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.
General
5.—(l) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and

(b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

(a) by virtue of regulation 12(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or

(b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations) (2) of this Act.

PART II
SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1996
Preliminary
6. In this Part of this Schedule "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.
Income support
7. In regulation 4 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support (General) Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as paragraph (j); and

(b) paragraph (3)(b), shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed.

Housing benefit
8. In regulation 5 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub-paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as sub-paragraph (g);

(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and

(c) paragraph (c), shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed.

General
9.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support or housing benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—
1268

(a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and

(b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

(a) by virtue of regulation 11(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or

(b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations)(2) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Clauses 9 to 12 and the schedules reported with amendments; then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with pursuant to Resolution of 28th June, Report received. It was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
6.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Extension of special appeals procedures]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("without giving a reasonable explanation of his failure to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 5. I shall do so briefly, but there is a Motion now before the House, or there will be, and if the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, wishes to intervene after I have introduced Amendment No. 1, it would be appropriate for him to do so. I am sure that he will find a way of relating his remarks to my amendment.
We debated Amendment No. 1 at an earlier stage, but the Government gave a quite inadequate answer on it and the issues are still far from clear. Clause 1 is concerned with the special appeals procedures, the so-called fast-track procedure. Subsection (3) deals with the issue of whether the appellant produced a valid passport. Subsection (3) applies if the appellant,
"failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so" or; "produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact".
In Amendment No. 1, we propose that the proviso:
"without giving a reasonable explanation of his failure to do so",
should be added to subsection (3)(b). In other words, the same proviso as is contained in paragraph (a) should also be provided in paragraph (b).
Without going over all the ground which was debated at an earlier stage, I wish to make a point which may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. It is a matter on which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has given us specific advice and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the issue of adherence to the United Nations convention on refugees of 1951 and, from time to time, the views of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is of enormous importance and pervades the whole of the Bill. The UNHCR specifically allows that genuine refugees may have false papers, they may break the law and may lie at the port of entry. That is relevant to the decision which the Committee has just taken about applications at the port of entry. People who are perfectly genuine refugees may find it necessary to produce false papers; they may have a reasonable explanation of their failure to produce a valid passport, but they fail to produce it.
The all-pervasive point, which relates to the decision which the Committee took on Amendment No. 6 which we have just debated, is that using such methods—in other words, lying at the point of entry, having false papers and breaking the law—is often an indication of genuine fears. If you wish to come to this country you do not come and produce a fake passport unless you have fears about being returned to your own country. You do not try to talk your way in if you wish to be an asylum applicant, unless you have the kind of fears which are often shown by prevarication or even lying at the point of entry. So genuine fears should only count if no reasonable explanation can be given.
I do not deny that there are people who come to this country who tell lies in order to get here and seek entry for economic reasons. It is not our concern to deny the Government's intention that there should be a fast-track procedure for such people. However, the clause as drafted provides so many other ways of excluding the possibility of people's claims being given full consideration that it would be reasonable to make this modest change and to provide that there could be a reasonable explanation for having a passport which is not valid and failing to inform the officer of that fact. That is not a way of telling whether a person is a genuine applicant. I fear that the fast-track procedure could, under those circumstances, work to the disadvantage of genuine applicants. I beg to move.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I am intensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving me a reliable peg on which to hang remarks which, for reasons I shall now explain, I could not make earlier. I have only just returned from a seven-week academic assignment in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, I could not participate in earlier debates on this important Bill. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to speak briefly at this stage. This may be as good a slot as I am likely to find for remarks on a Bill of deep and profound concern to me.
Let me say at once that I must declare my interest. I myself entered this country as a refugee from Nazi oppression about 60 years ago. How lucky I was to arrive before refugees were renamed "asylum seekers"
1270
with, I think, overtones or connotations of being mentally unbalanced. I owe my life and the lives of my immediate family to Britain's hospitality and magnanimity in offering us a home and a refuge, not to mention the undreamt of opportunities which have come my way. I am obviously keen to see similar blessings made available to others in need.
Permit me to recall my maiden speech just over eight years ago on the Immigration Bill of 1988. I concluded with a plea:
"to remember that we are all, each one of us, temporary residents on this planet where we have to learn the art of living together in harmony before our visa expires and we are called to migrate to another world".—[Official Report, 4/3/88: col. 377.]
In the present debate one cannot but deplore the deep divisions, passions and antagonisms aroused on both sides of the argument, inside as well as outside this House. It is surely a thousand pities and an irony that a measure designed to encourage and regulate the practice of kindness and charity should sow so much bitterness among ourselves.
In my remarks I want to attempt to narrow the divisions and find some common ground likely to command maximum agreement and consensus. On the one hand, surely as a nation nurtured in the biblical heritage we ought to be united in submitting to the precept in the Book of Leviticus:
"And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger … shall be with you like the home-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself".
Other injunctions, too, call on us to extend social benefits to the native-born and the stranger alike.
Once an alien finds himself on these shores, whatever his legal status on arrival, it would be quite wrong and cruel to deny him the elementary claims to food and shelter granted to any native citizen. It would be morally unacceptable to expose him to hunger or homelessness. One hopes that, by decisions made in the course of this debate and the one earlier, that will indeed be effected.
On the other hand, whether such an alien alighting on our shores should be admitted or allowed to stay is a different matter altogether. Clearly there are grave and widespread abuses. Many plead political persecution when, as we heard, what draws them to this country is economic advantage rather than escaping from some threat to their lives or their freedom.
Britain is among the world's most densely populated countries. It is only realistic to accept some limit on fugitives from countries with populations numbering scores of millions or more, if the social health of our society is to be maintained and especially if the innate tolerance of our citizens is to be preserved against excesses and prejudices born of fear or deprivation.
In an unstable and increasingly hungry world, drained by civil wars, famine and over-population in many countries, the pressures of migration could mount dramatically and far beyond the capacity of a single country to absorb. An equitable balance, based on existing economics and populations, ought to be worked out on an inter-European or global basis to determine how any anticipated or actual flow of refugees is to be allocated in a manner that does justice to hosts and refugees alike.

1271
Moreover, in our own minds we should convert the country from appearing to be an asylum into becoming a sanctuary. That will turn us all in the end into beneficiaries, being, as we hope, advantaged rather than impoverished by the newcomers and by their culture, and perhaps even by their economic contributions, as happened notably in the United States of America. To the degree that new arrivals feel welcome and appreciated, they will work harder to become an asset rather than a liability. Successful integration depends on hosts and newcomers alike. And that success is a true measure of our civilisation.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I have enormous admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. He has made a wide-sweeping speech but, I believe, a Bill do now pass speech. He was invited personally by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to make that speech. At this stage of the proceedings I am charged to respond to an amendment to the Bill. Therefore I shall respond to the noble Lord's remarks when I come to wind up the debate. He made some important points and it would be right for me to respond to them. However, if the House will forgive me, I shall reply to the amendment on the Marshalled List.
Identical amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, were debated fully in Committee and on Report. I am therefore very surprised that the noble Lords have again decided to return to this issue at Third Reading. I explained in detail in Committee and on Report why the amendment was unacceptable. Therefore I shall have to be repetitious; the amendment has not changed, nor has my retort to it.
We have consistently made clear that we expect asylum seekers to be completely honest and frank with our immigration authorities on arrival in this country. Dishonesty and concealment damage credibility. Of all people, they damage the credibility of the asylum seeker himself. We accept that there might be circumstances where a genuine refugee would need to use false papers in order to flee a country in which that person had a genuine fear of persecution. Under the Bill, no adverse consequences arise for the asylum seeker merely because that person presents an invalid, forged or stolen passport on arrival here, provided that the applicant declares the forgery to the immigration officer. But what is unacceptable, and casts doubt on credibility, is an attempt to pass off a fake identity or forged passport as genuine. It is the dishonesty inherent in such an attempt which triggers the accelerated appeal procedure. That is why we are unable to accept this amendment.
Those presenting false papers to our immigration officers are, after all, not doing so out of necessity. By definition, they have already fled the country in which they claim to fear persecution and have arrived at their chosen place of safety. Such deception cannot be condoned. They have even been asked about the forged document or the papers that are not in order. In order to answer that question they will have to be dishonest if they choose deception rather than honesty at the point of entry. I regard that as needing some courage, too.
1272
Like the rest of Clause 1, sub-paragraph (3) will not prejudice the consideration of the asylum claim on its merits. If the claim is valid, asylum or exceptional leave will be granted regardless of document deception used on arrival. And the Bill will not penalise the genuine asylum seeker who has to travel on false papers, provided he is honest and declares the false papers on arrival.
I reject the argument that sub-paragraph (3)(b) as currently drafted is contrary to the terms of Article 31 of the 1951 United Nations convention, as hinted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Article 31 states that refugees shall not be penalised on account of their illegal entry provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry and presence.
First, the issue of a certificate only comes into play after the claim has been considered fully and on merit and has been found to be invalid. By definition, therefore, the Secretary of State has concluded that the applicant is not a refugee under the terms of the convention.
But, secondly, applying a certificate to a refused asylum claim, thereby triggering an accelerated appeal procedure, cannot be construed as imposing a penalty in terms of Article 31. As I have just said, repeating what I have said on many occasions, all claims will still be considered on merit in the usual way. All applicants will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator if the claim is refused. This is a perfectly adequate procedure in such cases and cannot be termed a penalty. Moreover, those who enter or attempt to gain entry using false papers would have had ample opportunity to present themselves to the UK authorities to apply for asylum when examined by an immigration officer on arrival. It is the dishonesty inherent in deceiving the immigration officer that triggers the certificate if the claim is refused.
I confirm that the noble Lord coupled Amendment No. 5 with this amendment. That was my understanding. As I understand it, Amendment No. 5 appears to proceed from the misapprehension that any asylum seeker who uses deception in order to secure his passage to the United Kingdom will automatically and consequently fall within the terms of the offence which would be created by Clause 4. That is simply not the case.
As I have said during consideration of the Bill, we recognise that asylum seekers may have to practise deception in order to leave their own country and travel to this country. I say again that what we do not accept is that having arrived in the United Kingdom, the deception, such as reliance on false travel documents, is maintained in an effort to secure entry in a capacity other than as a refugee. An asylum seeker who has employed deception in order to reach the United Kingdom but then presents himself at the control and seeks asylum will have absolutely nothing to fear from the offence in Clause 4.
However, the effect of the amendment would not only be felt on entry. It would also completely remove a criminal sanction when an asylum seeker practises deception in order to secure leave to remain. It is

1273
difficult to imagine any circumstances where an asylum seeker would need to employ deception in order to secure leave to remain as a refugee or on an exceptional basis unless he actually had no claim to such status and his asylum claim was a work of fiction or deception. I am unclear why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and colleagues who support him in the amendment wish to see such people free from the threat of criminal conviction and punishment, but I have to accept that that is what the noble Lord does mean. For all of those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister quoted, entirely properly, from Article 31 of the 1951 convention. However, I should remind her—I am not entirely clear whether the point was made at an earlier stage—that the UNHCR in April this year produced guidelines on detention which explain the provisions of Article 31 in more detail. It is not that I am concerned with detention. I am concerned with the interpretation which is to be placed on Article 31. The document says:
"Given the special situation of a refugee, in particular the frequent fear of authorities, language problems, lack of information and general insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one refugee to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied associated with the term `without delay' … Along with the term 'good cause'… it must take into account all of the circumstances under which the asylum seeker fled (e.g. having no time for immigration formalities)."
That places a slightly different complexion on the issue from that the Minister put on it. However, this is not a matter which I wish to pursue to a Division.
Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that I quite understand the difficulty which the Minister had in responding to the more general comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I am sure he also understands the position. Of course, the problem is that the normal time to intervene is on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. That will not actually happen until tomorrow. I am sure that honour is satisfied by having allowed the noble Lord to make his very valuable remarks at this time without blaming the Minister for not responding to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("in the country or territory to which he is to be sent") and insert ("prior to his arrival in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for detaining the House briefly on this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that someone who has shown evidence of torture should not be returned to a country other than the one from which he comes if there is a likelihood that he will be tortured or returned to a country which will torture him if he is sent back to that country.
In Committee an amendment was agreed to deal with people who showed evidence of having been tortured. The Government responded, at least to some extent, to that decision. In the amended Bill subsection (5) of Clause 1 states:
"This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the evidence adduced in its support establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured"—
That was what the House wanted—
"in the country or territory to which he is to be sent."
What that means, I understand, is that the protection would only cover someone who was about to be returned to the country in which he had been tortured. It would not cover someone who was about to be returned to a country other than one in which he had been tortured, which might nevertheless torture him, or might send him on to a country in which he might be tortured.
In case noble Lords feel that I am making a purely abstract argument, I shall give two examples. All noble Lords will have read of the desperate plight that the state of Myanmar finds itself in. It is what used to be called the country of Burma. Very terrible things are happening to those who, with an extraordinary degree of courage, are supporting the almost certain victor of the last election in Burma, Miss Aung San Suu Kyi. She is defying the whole of the military government by persisting in arguing claims for democracy to return in Burma. Burma is a country which does not have any inhibitions about torturing dissidents and opponents of one of the most terrible governments in the world.
There have been cases in which people returned to other East Asian countries, specifically Thailand, have then been sent back to the country from which they came. Thailand is a country to which it is quite probable that people would be returned. It is apparently a safe sort of country. There is a great danger that Thailand, which has practised so-called reforms—meaning the return of people to the country of origin, directly in the face of the United Nations convention relating to refugees—might do it again.
The second example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred, relates to the case of Belgium. The noble Lord said, justly enough, that most of us would regard Belgium as a safe country, certainly one that does not torture its citizens or those who flee to it. The trouble is that there is already clear evidence that in certain cases Belgium has returned Zairean refugees to another of the most dreadfully governed countries in the world, namely, Zaire. Indeed, some refugees have been sent straight from the airport in Brussels on to Zaire without so much as their cases being considered even for a matter of moments.
It is against that background that this modest amendment is directed, so that the Government cannot return someone, and I repeat the phrase,
"if the evidence adduced … establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured".
We are not questioning that. We want to make sure that the person cannot be returned to a country which might continue to torture him.
It is a modest amendment. However, because I move an amendment about torture, I want to raise two questions with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I raised these questions previously but the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not respond to them, no doubt for reasons of lack of time. They are so important to the intentions of this House that I raise them again on this amendment about torture.
At the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"We are trying to arrive at a situation whereby a genuine claim of torture is properly considered and, if genuine, is well-founded at the first stage of consideration".—[0fficial Report, 23/4/96; col. 1057.]
Later she went on to say:
"I referred to the very great importance and weight which are attached to any evidence of torture, especially when supported by a medical certificate".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; col. 1058.]
A few moments ago this Chamber decided that it would extend the right of asylum seekers from asylum given at port of entry only to three days, although that decision was taken against the advice of the Government. I ask the House to consider two situations. The first is where somebody who has been tortured applies for asylum at the port of entry. He is likely to have at most half an hour, perhaps an hour, with the immigration authorities. By the nature of things, he cannot advance medical evidence, unless it is highly improbable that he has medical evidence of torture from his own country. How then does he obtain the medical evidence? By leave of this Chamber, he may now be given three days to get that medical evidence.
The noble Baroness shakes her head. I repeat that I asked that question before and no answer was given to me. Therefore I am entitled to raise the matter again. What steps does he take to get medical evidence in this country if he is on the fast track? I am still not clear how far victims of torture will be removed from the fast track. I repeat the question. Can we hear from the noble Baroness how somebody establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that he is a victim of torture in a matter of an hour or so before an immigration officer at the port of entry? Or, if he applies under the new amendment within three days, how can he establish that likelihood, unless he is able to get a medical examination in this country, which, as most of us know, is very difficult to do within three days? Indeed, in some cases it is close to impossible. That is my first question. How does he establish what brings him within the amendment agreed by this Chamber?
My second question relates to how asylum seekers can establish likelihood, if they remain on the fast track. I am not yet clear whether the amendment takes all possible people who claim to be victims of torture out of the fast track. I am sure that the Government will say, with some justice, that they cannot simply accept an a priori statement of torture as grounds for establishing likelihood. So my second question is: what establishes the likelihood of the claim? How do they go about establishing that likelihood and what would the Government regard as adequately fulfilling the conditions that they themselves have now laid down as a way of meeting the mood of this Chamber?
It is on the basis of the answers to those questions, which I believe are absolutely crucial in terms of the intention of the House, that I shall decide whether to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. On the first day of Committee on the Bill, the Minister entirely conceded the major premise on which my noble friend's amendment rests. The Minister said that it was quite impractical, before returning a person to another country, to gain an undertaking that that country would consider his claim. That was a very significant admission. It means that, when we return a person to another country which is not the country from which he came, we cannot be certain that that country will not again "billiard ball" return him, until he ends up back in the country from which he came. So for that reason, if for no other, my noble friend is quite right. It is whether he has been tortured in the country from which he comes and not whether he has been tortured in the country to which he is to go which is material.
I shall not detain the noble Baroness now with all the case law. She has heard it from me before. Although we disagreed profoundly at the beginning of the Bill on the significance of the judgment in ex parte Bostam by Mr. Justice Hidden, the noble Baroness on her own interpretation of that case concedes that such "billiard ball" returning to a third country may be possible. It has happened. That is all that the supporters of my noble friend's amendment need to prove. As I see it, one case would be enough. I have with me a great many more cases but I shall not detain the House with them.
We next need to consider my noble friend's point about how a claim to torture can be established. I have two points on the torture amendment, which I very much welcomed. One concerns the exemption from the fast track; the other comes under paragraph (7) in Clause 1, that the invocation of the torture amendment disapplies the prohibition of appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Those are both crucial matters.
We are agreed that the mere assertion that one has been tortured is not enough by itself to establish a foundation to a claim. But obtaining the most eminent medical experts from Oxford takes time. They tend to have other engagements and other commitments, not all of which can instantly be set aside. So establishing adequate evidence to lay the foundation for a claim of torture must take some time. It is our recurrent fear that that time will not be available under the fast tracking procedure and therefore that victims of torture who are fast-tracked will be returned before they have been able to establish the evidence.
The appeal point is also vital. The Minister heard what my noble friend had to say about the case of Mr. Igbinidu. I cannot understand why the Home Office has not accepted that case. It tends to show that initial decisions on the question of torture may give rise to a need for appeal. I feel that there is here a question of natural justice. If the Minister were to accept my noble friend's amendment, she would protect the Government

1277
from a good many court cases in which I do not believe she would wish to become involved. I am delighted to support the amendment and hope that it is accepted.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised at least two important points on this amendment. I am very happy to support her. However, to my mind the matter goes somewhat wider.
When the Bill left this Chamber after Committee, page 1, line 20 read:
"(2)(b) a person who is claiming to fear persecution in a country which has a recently documented record of torture".
That wording was agreed in this Chamber by a substantial majority of votes. I have no doubt that it could be argued that it was a form of words which went rather too wide. But to my mind constitutional convention would indicate that the Government should have accepted it and not attempted, as they have done, to eliminate it by their own amendment, which was carried at Report stage.
In my view, the very least that would be acceptable is that the country in which the person claims to have a fear of persecution, which may involve him being tortured if he is returned there, should be a country named in a report of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or possibly named in a report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. I do not know whether that point can be considered at this late stage; in my opinion it is extremely important.
7.p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have debated the safeguards for victims of torture at length during Committee and Report. Sub-paragraph (5) exempts applicants from having their appeal accelerated if it is reasonably likely that they have been tortured in the country to which they are to be sent.
During Report, I argued against an amendment to cover countries from which applicants had come. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, now returns to this point. Her amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper—who is not in his place—also put his name, proposes to extend the scope of sub-paragraph (5) even wider, so that it would apply regardless of the country in which the applicant had been tortured.
The case for sub-paragraph (5) is that where torture has occurred there is likely to exist a sufficiently strong prima facie case that the appeal ought not to be accelerated. But that argument cannot be advanced if the torture has occurred in a different country. The fact that the applicant has been tortured elsewhere has no bearing on whether he is at risk in his own country.
I return to the example I gave at Report. If we are returning an Indian national to India, the fact that he may have been tortured in a third country—say Iraqis irrelevant to whether he is at risk in India. In other words, if after examination an asylum claim is refused and meets one of the criteria in Clause 1—for example, because it is manifestly unfounded—the accelerated appeal procedure should normally be available. The fact
1278
that the applicant may have been tortured in a country other than the one to which he is to be sent ought not to prevent us from applying it.
The noble Baroness raised the case of an applicant who has been tortured in his own country but whom we are sending elsewhere. Might not the country to which we are sending him return him to his own country where he was indeed tortured? The answer to that is that we are discussing Clause 1 and Clause 1 is concerned only with removing people to their country of origin. Removals to third countries are governed by Clause 2. The Secretary of State has to certify that the third country will not itself remove the applicant elsewhere otherwise than in accordance with the 1951 convention. The great majority of such removals would be to other European Union countries or to other designated safe third countries with highly developed legal and asylum systems. Where the third country has not been designated and is not a member state of the European Union, the applicant will have a non-accelerated in-country appeal.
The noble Baroness said that I had not responded to her questions. Indeed I have, but I shall do so again because it is important that I should. Applicants do not have to prove on entry that they have been tortured. On entry they are making their claim for asylum. That is important. If they make their claim for asylum on entry, that claim must be considered. If, however, as part of that claim, part of their case is that they have been or are in fear of being tortured, it is important that they establish that at the first hearing. It is not until after that first hearing that the certification process applies.
If somebody needs to find medical evidence to support his claim, then time for that evidence to be found is given. That has nothing whatever to do with the three-day amendment that we passed earlier. The three days relate to making the claim for asylum, not to providing substantive evidence that the person has been tortured. The same explanation applies to establishing a likelihood. The point at which an applicant needs to establish the likelihood of having been tortured will be at the adjudication point. Where the adjudicator has given time for the applicant to amass his evidence, he will consider it and then make one of three judgments. First, he may dismiss the case because it is manifestly unfounded; secondly, he may take the view that the evidence is so overwhelming and what has been said in support of the claim is such that he believes that torture has taken place—in which case Clause 1 would be disapplied; or, thirdly, he may believe that a likelihood has been established, in which case again Clause 1 would not apply.
The problem the noble Baroness introduces in regard to time to provide the evidence is taken into account. However, as a caveat to that, judgments will have to be made about somebody who takes an unreasonable amount of time and clearly is not showing signs of producing or securing evidence. All reasonable accommodation is made at the adjudication point.

1279
I believe that there is confusion between applying for asylum at the point of entry and having to prove or establish a likelihood that an applicant has been tortured.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her further explanation. I read carefully through all stages of the Bill and now the noble Baroness has made the situation clear beyond peradventure. I am grateful to her for that.
We mentioned the case of Mr. Igbinidu, about which we were particularly concerned. Perhaps I may take another example from my noble friend Lord Avebury. He has an instance of an asylum seeker who came from Iraq. He was returned to France as a safe country and was then sent from France back to Iraq, where we understand he has again been tortured. It is that kind of case that led me to ask these questions in such precise terms. I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for pressing her for more clarity. I am sure she will understand that these are precisely the kinds of case about which the House is concerned.
In the light of the Minister's response I shall not press the matter to a Division. I thank her once again for her answer and will send her details of the specific case that I mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that proceedings on the Bill begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on 17th June 1996, be approved.
In moving the Industrial Tribunals Order, I shall speak also to the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order. The purpose of these interrelated orders is to consolidate by re-enactment the Northern Ireland provisions dealing with industrial tribunals and employment rights. At present these provisions are scattered throughout eight much amended enactments, the earliest of which dates back to 1965.
Recently, your Lordships dealt with the consolidation of the provisions covering industrial tribunals and employment rights in enactments relating to Great Britain. In Northern Ireland the legislation on industrial tribunals and employment rights is in line with
1280
that in Great Britain. However, the successive amendment in Northern Ireland of one enactment by another since 1965 and the resultant spread of provisions over many instruments is not conducive to an easy understanding of the law on these important areas, which affect the rights of individuals.
As regards the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order—that is, unfair dismissal, maternity, redundancy and entitlement to detailed statements associated with wages—the law in Northern Ireland is completely in line with that in Great Britain. That order follows the form and terminology of the Great Britain consolidation but there are differences in the content of the Northern Ireland orders.
One difference between the Employment Rights Act and the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order concerns Sunday working. In Northern Ireland, there is no legislative provision for Sunday betting and at present Sunday trading law is the same as it was in England and Wales prior to the Sunday Trading Act. There is therefore no need in the order to reproduce those important rights for shop workers and betting office workers which were introduced in England and Wales when Sunday trading and betting provisions were amended.
Another difference arises from the fact that in the Northern Ireland statutes the right of an individual under trade union legislation has always been regarded as an integral part of an individual's employment rights. Those rights include access to employment, action short of dismissal, rights in relation to trade union duties, interim relief upon complaint of infringement of those rights and procedures for handling redundancies.
Before turning to the Industrial Tribunals Order, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the minor new provision amidst what is otherwise the re-enactment of extant provisions. Article 14, paragraphs (7) to (9), makes special provision for the reckoning of the period of continuous employment for those whose professional training of necessity requires successive periods of employment with different health service employers. With the special provision, the move from one health service employer to another will not break the continuity of employment in calculating a period of continuous employment for a health service employee undergoing professional training.
I now turn to the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order, which re-enacts the industrial tribunal provisions scattered throughout the present legislation. There are no new provisions and the Northern Ireland ones are in line with the Great Britain provisions for industrial tribunals in the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. However, in Northern Ireland there is no equivalent of the employment appeal tribunal. A person in Northern Ireland may take his or her case to the Court of Appeal on a point of law by way of a case-stated. In 1995, I initiated a review of the industrial tribunal procedure which elicited comment on the lack of a Northern Ireland employment appeal tribunal system. Consideration of the review is under way and more work is needed before a decision can be made on the advisability of changing the Northern Ireland system.

1281
This order is not a suitable vehicle for such a major change, especially change which would require detailed consultation with many interested parties.
Together these orders consolidate for Northern Ireland the present legislation on industrial tribunals and employment rights in a convenient form, making it more accessible to the individual, the professionals and the tribunals. I commend these orders to your Lordships as a worthwhile and significant step in simplifying a code which should be available to all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. It is obviously sensible to bring together a mass of legislative provisions. I am not sure that I can entirely agree with the Minister's concluding description of a simple code, bearing in mind that its volume will provide happy employment for lawyers at least for many years to come. I particularly welcome the explanation for Article 14 because it gives additional and justified protection to those who work in the National Health Service.
I have one or two questions. Is there any present thought being given to altering the Sunday trading laws in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind a rather different religious culture, in that perhaps more people go more readily to places of religion in Northern Ireland than they do in England and Wales? Similarly, is there any question of introducing the opening of betting offices in Northern Ireland? Is that under contemplation?
The Minister was good enough to say that she had instigated in 1995 a review of the situation with regard to employment appeal tribunals and the lack of availability in Northern Ireland. The year 1997 is not far from us, so the EAT is rapidly going to become the brother of the CICB, I believe, in that the Government constantly cogitate but do not decide. The EAT is a very important part of the mechanism in England and Wales because it offers the opportunity of not simply a presiding judge but also of representatives of people who know industry. Subject to one blemish, it has generally worked well in this country.
The blemish is delay. I wish to focus on that briefly as regards the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. What is the average length of time that it takes to have a case determined from the point of first application? Certainly in south-east England delays are up to two years. That is wholly unacceptable for someone whose only means of income has been taken away, whose only capital is his labour and who is not helped in any way, unless he happens to be in a union, by legal assistance and advice. Have the Government any proposals or thoughts about the introduction of legal aid to assist people in industrial tribunals? If the answer is no, is it contemplated that legal assistance will be available on a law shop basis, for instance? After all, the industrial tribunal was introduced—a hollow laugh is called for here—to be speedy and informal. It is very slow and it has the most convoluted legislation which an ordinary
1282
lay person, acting alone, cannot deal with. What is the backlog in Northern Ireland in the industrial tribunals system at the moment?
Generally, this is a sensible, somewhat overdue mechanism for drawing together a mass of disparate provisions into two self-contained codes and on that basis I welcome it. But I believe that the industrial tribunals system still lacks resources to give what people really need, which is the speedy determination of what is at the centre of their lives; namely, loss of a job.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we too from these Benches welcome these orders in general. In particular, Articles 13 and 14 of the industrial tribunals order are worth while.
I have two questions. The first relates to the industrial tribunals order at page 7 in Article 6(3)(b) which introduces the unusual concept that if at any time the parties give their written consent for the tribunal to hear solely through the chair, they are not allowed subsequently to withdraw that consent and insist that two other members of the tribunal are present.
That raises two worries. The first is that people will be reluctant to give their consent to having the case heard solely by the chair because they know that they will be unable to withdraw their consent and insist on having other members of the tribunal there at a later stage if they are unsatisfied with the chair at the beginning. For that reason, the provision will presumably lead to more three-member tribunals, rather than fewer, as is presumably intended.
Secondly, it is an uncomfortable departure from normal practice. In criminal and civil proceedings most written statements can be withdrawn. Why is the case of industrial tribunals peculiar enough to warrant peculiar treatment? I realise that this is not specific to Northern Ireland. It is true in England. But I do not believe that it is a very good thing, and it needs to be justified.
I wish to ask a question about the employment rights order and Article 238 on page 217. The employment rights set out in this order do not apply to a significant number of people in Northern Ireland, including those who are in Crown employment. The public sector in Northern Ireland employs a far higher proportion of people than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The article is carefully worded so that it applies only to some people in Crown employment. Do these provisions remove the right for members of various security institutions to join a trade union, as in GCHQ? In that case, I believe that this is not to be welcomed. Approximately how many people are exempted from these employment rights by Article 238? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer those questions. But in general we give these orders a hearty welcome.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the general welcome for these orders. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that perhaps a simpler code is the correct description. I also thank noble Lords for their courtesy in notifying me of their concerns.

1283
As regards Sunday trading, that has been at consultation in Northern Ireland. The responses are being considered at the moment. My honourable friend will be bringing forward the results. However, a decision has been made in that there is a very strong groundswell in Northern Ireland against Sunday betting and there are no plans to proceed in that area at the moment. Should Sunday trading come forward, the protection of employees will be exactly the same as in Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked whether we plan to proceed speedily with the employment appeal tribunal review. I disagree with the noble Lord. There are, I hope, still five months left in 1996—and 1997 seems a long enough period to give us time to look at the aspects which are being reviewed. This matter must be looked at in considerable depth because the aim was to have a simple and straightforward way in which people could examine such questions.
In addition, a report is due from SACHR on the operation of the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. We look forward to that. We imagine that the report will have ramifications for the fair employment tribunals which operate alongside the industrial tribunals. A lot of information is now coming towards us on which a decision can be made. I hope to give some comfort to the noble Lord when I say that we have not felt any great dissatisfaction with the current modus operandi.
I believe that we are all concerned about delays in relation to industrial tribunals. With a routine inquiry, the average length of time from registration of an industrial tribunal complaint to an offer of a first listing date for a hearing is between 15 and 20 weeks. I stress that that is the period for a straightforward matter and when it comes to sex discrimination and equal pay cases, the delay is somewhat longer. There is a backlog of 8,631 cases if one includes those categories with industrial tribunal cases. I hasten to assure your Lordships that that figure is inflated by the fact that about 80 per cent. are representative cases—that is, the outcome of several cases depends on the result of one. However, it is recognised that the industrial tribunal system is under pressure. That is why there is at present a review of industrial tribunals and that is why various steps are being considered to speed up the resolution of cases and to streamline procedures. It is intended that the present backlog of cases, which concerns us all, will be addressed as part of that review.
Legal aid is not available for legal representation at industrial tribunals. That is the same as the position in Great Britain. If the position in Great Britain were to be reviewed, we would take that into account in Northern Ireland. I stress again that the two orders that we are considering consolidate the present legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to Article 6(3)(d) which again is a re-enactment. It is not a new provision. It is equivalent to Section 4 of the Industrial Tribunals Act, but that, too, will be considered in the review of industrial tribunals. I am sure that that will be the case here in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord rightly said, that is a matter of concern in both areas of legislation.
1284
These provisions do not deal with the right of employees to join a trades union. That is dealt with in the Trades Unions and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The numbers affected are therefore not relevant to this legislation.
With those answers, and saying that I shall read Hansard, I believe that I have covered all the questions that have been raised, and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 to 8.5 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 2 [Removal etc. of asylum claimants to safe third countries]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Obtaining leave by deception]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Assisting asylum claimants. and persons seeking to obtain leave by deception]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Restrictions on employment]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (IA) and (2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The wrongs and injustices which these amendments address date back as far as 1981, when the Government allowed rich employers coming to the United Kingdom to bring with them domestic workers. These workers were tied to one employer and risked deportation if they left that employer for whatever reason. This system led to abuse and exploitation, which continue at the rate of several hundred cases a year, as I mentioned at Report stage.
I give examples of actual and typical cases. A is a Nigerian brought here direct by Nigerian employers in January 1991. She escaped from them in December 1995. During all that time she received no salary, was

1285
continually slapped and beaten by the employers and locked in their house. On average she worked 17 hours per day without a day off. B is from India. She worked in Qatar. Her Qatarian employers brought her to this country in June 1995. She received no salary for three months before and three months after her arrival. She signed an unread contract in Qatar which the employer removed from her as soon as he left the British Embassy. She had no day off or time off and worked from 5.30 a.m. until 1 or 2 a.m. the following day. C is from the Philippines. She was interviewed in London by a voluntary organisation on 1st May. She worked in London for four years without receiving any salary. Her visa expired in April 1996 but her employers did not renew it. She suffered rape five times while on her employer's premises.
The figures that I gave in Committee on 2nd May (at cols. 1795 and 1801) and the cases that I have quoted indicate that the Government's safeguards of interviews in the country of departure, leaflets and model contracts do not provide effective protection. In practice, employers make a mockery of them. I explained this to the noble Baroness Lady Blatch at Report stage on 24th June (at col. 748). All she could say in reply was that the workers were part of the family staff. Unfortunately, that does not always protect them from grave abuses, often amounting to slavery.
The noble Baroness was kind enough to say to me on 2nd May that the Government would continue to consider ways of eliminating and dealing with abuses. Two months have now passed. What is the result of that consideration? How do Her Majesty's Government propose to eliminate these abuses? For example, have they studied the ways in which vulnerable immigrant workers are protected in the Netherlands, Canada and other countries?
On Report I made the modest suggestion of an interdepartmental committee to study the abuse and exploitation of which I am complaining. No fewer than eight noble Lords have supported me, and no one has attempted to justify the present situation which has lasted 15 weary years, punctuated by cases like that of Mrs. Swami and the Kuwaiti princesses. On 24th June the Minister told me that the Government saw no need for an interdepartmental committee. She assured me that the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the DfEE were in constant touch. If that is so, why has adequate protection for desperately vulnerable people not yet been provided?
I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that the Government do not want to do anything and that they hope the problem will just go away. I have suggested a means of achieving realistic solutions to serious problems. If the Government will not adopt the obvious means, I urge your Lordships to accept my amendments, even if they may be ill-drafted, as a measure to obtain improvements to what is a long-lasting and intolerable situation. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Clause 8 makes the problem of which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, complains much worse than it was before. You cannot escape unless you
1286
can work. So if the Government are not going to withdraw Clause 8, all they can do is accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is another amendment that we debated in Committee and on Report. As I said on those occasions, I understand the intentions behind the amendments. I have to say, and put on record yet again, that I utterly deplore any abuse or exploitation of domestic servants of the sort described.
However, I remain of the opinion that it would not be right to accept the amendments that the noble Lord has proposed. They would place the people concerned in a privileged position compared to all others subject to immigration control. They would not, however, rule out the possibility of the sort of abuse we have heard about by the original employer or indeed the new employer, even though the new employer would not be subject to any penalty as provided for in this Bill. The only thing from which they would be exempt is employing that person.
I have explained on previous occasions the measures we take to ensure that those who accompany their employers to this country do so of their own free will and only when proper maintenance and accommodation are available for them. We also take steps to ensure that those domestic servants who seek an extension of stay are protected. Extensions are granted only when we are satisfied that satisfactory arrangements continue. Servants also receive a further copy of the leaflet they received with their passport before entry—addressed to them personally—to remind them of their rights and of the protection given by the law in this country.
We keep these arrangements under close review in conjunction with other government departments. However, I do not think that the proposed amendments are the right way to improve upon them. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
The concession for domestic workers was introduced in 1980 when the Department of Employment ceased to issue work permits to unskilled workers. It was felt that such workers would be disadvantaged if unable to come to the United Kingdom with their employers and might lose their jobs and, as a result, the concession outside the rules was created. Such domestics are admitted only if they meet strict criteria and are not permitted to change employers or escape enforcement action, except in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances. We are talking about 12,000 entry clearances issued to overseas domestic workers every year. If the noble Lord is looking for a real answer, perhaps I may suggest that it is to abandon the concession. He is concerned about these young people who are domestic servants for their employers and who want to remain in their employ. The concession, by and large, works well for most of the young people.
The concession works well, but since it was introduced there have been several highly publicised cases of domestics being abused. I can give examples which may coincide with those given by the noble Lord. For example, there is Cindy Dindial, whose employers

1287
were sent to prison; Helen Samuels, whose employer suffered a similar, although less severe fate; and Essaki Muttu Gopal, who was convicted of the manslaughter of his employer following prolonged abuse. These types of serious cases are few and far between, but the operation of the concession is kept under close review to ensure that the existing employer/employee relationship stays on the right lines when they are in the United Kingdom.
Apart from giving abused domestic workers free access to the employment market, the amendment would place an additional responsibility on police officers, doctors and solicitors. They would be left in the invidious position of having to make subjective judgments on what constitutes substantial physical abuse or serious economic exploitation and to be satisfied that those arose from the employment. That would be invidious. I have said before, and I repeat, that they have the full protection of the law, as does any citizen of this land. The only answer to address the noble Lord's concern would be to abandon the scheme. I do not make the case for abandoning the scheme.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she make it clear whether she is making an offer, on behalf of the Government, to abolish the concession?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I am certainly not doing that. We considered the concession carefully. We believe that it is right. Where young people have been continually in the employment of someone in a foreign country and but for the concession would be left without a job in their country and they are willingly working for their employer—when I spoke earlier, I made the point that these are young people who come of their own free will rather than lose their job—this is an important concession. We stand by it.
The amendment would give the young people for whom the noble Lord is concerned a licence to work for another employer. If we take this amendment with another amendment to which we shall come later, they could be employed in any other form of work in this country. That is a licence we do not give lightly to anyone. As I said, the numbers are rather large: 12,000 people have recently come under entry clearance. It would be a concession that I do not advocate from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we now know where we are. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that she utterly deplores these practices. We are seeking from the Government some means of preventing such practices from happening—by spot checks, by many different means, I do not know.
As for saying that my amendments would place people in a privileged position, after what they have endured that is small recompense. As for repeating what has been said over and over again, that while they are here with the first employer they enjoy the protection of the law, that is a dead letter. It is just not enforceable. It is not available to the people who are suffering these abuses.
1288
As for extensions of stay, that may provide some opportunity to exercise legal rights, but I am much more interested in preventing abuses from ever happening. I should make it clear that when I moved Amendment No. 7, I spoke also to Amendment No. 8. I wish to take the opinion of the House.
8.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McCarthy, L.

Avebury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Geraint, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston. L.

Gregson, L.

Sewel, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thurso, V.

Howell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L. [Teller]

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kennet, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Blatch, B.

Ailsa, M.

Blyth, L.

Aldington, L.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biddulph, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blaker, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

1289

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Digby, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Downshire, M.

Northesk, E.

Dudley, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Feldman, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goschen, V.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Harlech, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rodney, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hertford, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Wise, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in this section applies to an employee who was employed as a domestic worker and in respect of whom a police officer, doctor or solicitor has certified that he has previously suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation, arising from previous bonded employment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Any employer who invokes this section in order to refuse employment to a person protected by subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
( ) Any employer who invokes this section in order to refuse employment to a British subject shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 deals with the effects of Clause 8. Throughout we have argued that it will be a severe deterrent to employing people, especially black British people. If there is a threat put on employers one way, which I do not welcome, there must equally be a threat the other way; otherwise it will produce all the types of case I have already outlined of failure to employ black British and a worsening of race relations. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I have an enormous respect for the noble Earl and I suspect that noble Lords opposite will support him on this amendment. However, I wish that noble Lords opposite had been as much against racketeering in the United Kingdom as they appear to be against racketeering abroad. I have spent a great deal of time at the Dispatch Box trying to persuade noble Lords to support us in our attempts to take measures against racketeering in this country.
These amendments before the House create new criminal offences in Clause 8 which seek to take extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister must not make assumptions about what Members of the Opposition think. We have not spoken on the amendment and I did not propose to do so. She must make no assumptions about our attitude.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for making those assumptions because at previous stages of the Bill the noble Lord has shown some sympathy for measures which provide extra-territorial jurisdiction. This is not the first time that this matter has been before the House.
As I say, I should have more respect for the amendments had the noble Earl supported the Government in their attempts to deal with racketeering. Frankly, racketeering, wherever it takes place, is something up with which we should not put.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have pressed the Government hard for proper financing of the Serious Fraud Office and I have not got it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have put two very practical measures in the Bill designed to do something about those who exploit the most vulnerable people in this country. We could not look to the noble Earl for support of that nor could we look to other noble Lords opposite for their support. Therefore, I find the amendment before the House very strange indeed.
The amendment would create two further criminal offences within Clause 8. It would become an offence: to invoke Clause 8 in order to refuse to employ a person "protected by subsection (2)"; and to invoke Clause 8 in order to refuse to employ a British subject.
The intention behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to deal with the concerns outlined by the noble Earl during Report stage—not today because he seems to be in something of a hurry—about cases where employers have, in recent years, misunderstood the entitlement to work of a range of people who were in fact entitled to work in the United Kingdom.
I certainly do not want to deny that mistakes have been made by employers in assessing eligibility to work. However, I do think it is misleading to suggest that those errors imply that employers will not be able to carry out the checks which they may wish to make as a result of the provisions of Clause 8.

1291
At the moment there is inevitably some confusion. However, common sense suggests that the position will be very different once Clause 8 is enacted. It will be a straightforward matter for all employers to make any necessary checks of documents in the future because the Government will be providing employers with written guidance and a helpline facility, neither of which exists at present. The sorts of misunderstandings about eligibility to work which sometimes occur at the moment without such advice should not be taken to mean that employers will not be able to understand passport endorsements, where this is necessary, when clear guidance is available to them.
I find it difficult to envisage that employers will in the future refuse jobs to people who have provided them with one of the specified documents because of Clause 8. Clause 8 will provide a reason for asking for some documentation from all potential employees. And failure to provide any of the specified documents will provide a reasonable justification for refusing to take on a potential employee. But, when relevant documentation has been produced, there is no reason to refuse employment because of Clause 8. The guidance and helpline facility should guarantee this.
Even those who are British need to be prepared to produce one of the specified documents to back up their claim to be able to work. A documented National Insurance number, a British passport, a British birth certificate or a certificate of registration or naturalisation would all be satisfactory documents to establish that no offence would be committed in relation to the holder of the document concerned. It would be entirely unreasonable to render employers liable to a criminal offence if they are not prepared to offer employment to British people who do not produce one of the specified documents and who cite Clause 8 as the reason. Noble Lords opposite profess to be concerned about employers. In view of that, I find these amendments quite outrageous.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must repeat what I said and ask the Minister to address her remarks to the mover of the amendment and not the official Opposition.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is so touchy about these things. I base my assumptions on what he has said on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading. I should indeed welcome it if the noble Lord had a change of heart. Perhaps he will make that clear to the House.
If an assertion of nationality is not backed up by a specified document, how could it be reasonable to make an employer liable? Employers would have to take assertions of nationality at face value if that was the case.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl refers to British subjects rather than British citizens. I assume that his intention was to refer to British citizens. For while there are still some people with the status of
1292
British subject, many of them are not in fact entitled to live and work in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the noble Earl will make that clear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I had intended to refer to those who are British subjects and British citizens. But the words "British subject" have a long and honourable history and I am not ashamed to use them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, but the amendment does not say that. I must take the amendment at face value. The amendment refers to "British subjects".
I appreciate that the noble Earl is concerned that people from the ethnic minority communities will be unduly affected by Clause 8. As I have made clear before, employers will need to treat all new employees in the same way. I have made equally clear that this legislation is positively not a licence to discriminate. Employers will need to check all new employees—if they choose to check any—if they are to comply with the Race Relations Act.
We do not think that there will be the sort of problems which the noble Earl clearly envisages based on cases which have been brought to his notice. When employers have guidance about Clause 8 we believe that they will be able to implement it fairly and without undue difficulty. The proposed new offences are not necessary and would not be helpful—and their drafting is defective.
I repeat once more that there is an inconsistency because noble Lords wish to use the very same type of measure to make racketeering an offence abroad but refuse doggedly to make it an offence in this country. That is an inconsistency that this House should not accept.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness really must try to avoid imputing to people on the other side of the House agreement with opinions which she happens to hold.
She imputes to us opinions which she has asserted. She assumes that our motives would be what they would be were we to agree with her opinions. I must explain this to the noble Baroness because it is important that she should get it right. She says that she has brought forward in this Bill two practical measures to deal with racketeering. She therefore thinks that we support racketeers because we do not support her measures. Were we to believe that she had put forward practical measures to deal with racketeers, of course we would support her. We believe that the noble Baroness has done no such thing.
We believe that the noble Baroness has introduced measures which will enormously increase racial discrimination and which will catch only the honest men while being evaded by the racketeers. The noble Baroness must have read the report by the Glidewell panel that national insurance cards are on sale for £500 each in Southall. Racketeers will have no difficulty with this clause.

1293
In general the noble Baroness must avoid making that mistake. She must assume that we have the motives which are appropriate to people holding our opinions and not to people holding hers. To do otherwise is the mistake of a bad politician.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have become increasingly fascinated by this debate as it has developed. If the noble Earl is tempted to take the opinion of the House, he owes to the rest of us an explanation of what seems to me to be a very confusing procedure and how it will work. The debate should then be widened from one between himself and my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is a fair request to which I shall accede.
On these Benches, we think that this procedure is mistaken but that, if it is mistaken, it must be even-handed. We believe that the proposal imposes a mistaken pressure on employers which encourages them to do something which in our view is illegal and should not be done. I accept that that is not the noble Baroness's view and we do not impute that intention to her. But we believe that the clause puts a great deal of pressure on employers not to employ black British. We do not share the Minister's confidence in the ability of employers to recognise such provisions as exceptional leave to remain. Indeed, there is ample evidence to the contrary.
If I may so put it, if you have to play on a pitch which is unfit for play, we believe that that pitch should be the same for both sides. The pressure on employers not to employ black people—and that is what the clause amounts to—should be equalled by a pressure on them to employ black British people against whom they are not allowed to discriminate by law. We do not think that the scales should exist; but, if they do, we believe they should be equal. I hope that the noble Lord finds that that explanation makes sense, whether or not it is acceptable. If he does not, I should be grateful if he would intervene again because I would like us to understand each other.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my difficulty is that, as I understand it, the noble Earl's speech is about protecting employees, whereas the effect of the amendment would be to protect those who are protected by subsection (2) of the clause which, as I read it, means employers not employees.
Earl Russell: My Lords, such a point necessitates a referral to my papers. I trust that the House will forgive
1294
me while I do so. I must admit that we on these Benches have always said that the time-scale within which this was being done was extremely short. Inevitably, our attention has been concentrated most heavily on the Government's amendment that we have been discussing.
Yes, on looking again at the clause, I now see what I have done. I thought that subsection (2) said that employers were protected in employing people who had those documents. My object was to deal with employers who refused to employ people who produced some of the legal documents. I believe that that is an exceptional intention but I accept that the amendment is defective.
However, employers have constantly refused to employ people who produced legal qualifying documents. Indeed, on Report I gave an example of a case, to which the Minister responded, where someone produced a German passport. Refusal of exceptional leave to remain is perfectly common. I tried to produce a draft amendment in order to prevent employers from refusing to accept perfectly good qualifying documents. I grant that I have done so in a hurry. As I said, I believe that the drafting is defective. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am much obliged. I believe that there is also some confusion about the way in which the noble Earl introduced the amendment. As I understand it—and the noble Earl can correct me if I am wrong—he is suggesting making a criminal of an employer who does not recruit to his company a person who does in fact produce the requisite documentation. Under the Bill, which the noble Earl has criticised so vigorously throughout—as, indeed, have other noble Lords opposite—we do not even make a criminal of an employer who secures one of the authorised documents, even if that document subsequently turns out not to be in order. We would regard such an offence to be that of the person who submitted and proffered the documentation. Am I right in my understanding of the noble Earl's amendment?
Earl Russell: Yes, my Lords; I believe that we are getting closer to an understanding now. There is a problem with employers declaring people ineligible who have produced perfectly good qualifying documents, but clearly I am not addressing that in the right way. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  Australia: "New Images" Initiative
  Australia: "New Images" Initiative
  War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia: Arrest and Trial of Accused
  War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia: Arrest and Trial of Accused
  CJD: Incidence in Young People
  CJD: Incidence in Young People
  CJD: New Variant
  CJD: New Variant
  Rendering
  Rendering
  Organophosphorus Compounds: Use in Guernsey
  Organophosphorus Compounds: Use in Guernsey
  BSE
  BSE
  Kudu: Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Kudu: Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Rat Infestation
  Rat Infestation
  Agriculture Council, 24th-26th June
  Agriculture Council, 24th-26th June
  BSE in Great Britain: New Report
  BSE in Great Britain: New Report
  Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
  Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
  Judicial Studies Board
  Judicial Studies Board
  The Derwent Ings
  The Derwent Ings
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Benefits
  Civil Service Training and Development: White Paper
  Civil Service Training and Development: White Paper
  Lots Road/Cremorne Road: New Traffic Lights
  Lots Road/Cremorne Road: New Traffic Lights
  Second Severn Crossing: M.5 Interchange
  Second Severn Crossing: M.5 Interchange
  Broadcasting Licensing to Exclude Political Activities
  Broadcasting Licensing to Exclude Political Activities