Sitting of 2 July 1996

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

    Local Authority Capital Programmes
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has received from the local authority associations concerning councils' capital programmes. [33931]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): This and other topics are discussed regularly at my meetings with the local authority associations.
    Dr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that local authorities, such as Birmingham, need increased—not reduced—capital investment to provide new homes and to renovate existing, but crumbling, schools, homes and the road infrastructure? Will he ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities last year is honoured and that the private finance initiative is used to generate additional resources rather than to substitute for public borrowing?
    Mr. Gummer: The city of Birmingham has gained a considerable amount of money through the single regeneration budget. Birmingham City Pride, as an organisation, has provided the basis for many of the council's claims, and Birmingham will doubtless make an application under capital challenge. The private finance initiative will give many opportunities for Birmingham to operate satisfactorily. The council needs to make its relationships with the private sector even more effective, and that will give a result of which Birmingham can be proud.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way in which so many Labour councils misrepresent capital receipts, capital funding and the standard spending assessment? In Ealing, the Labour council is already pretending that it will get £10 million less than it should have in the coming year, even though it cannot possibly have the slightest idea what its position will be. It also pretends that it did not have an increase last year, when it had a very good increase of £5 million. What can my right hon. Friend do to assert the truth when councils misrepresent the situation so badly?
    Mr. Gummer: Ealing is one of the worst councils for such statements. I live in Ealing during the week and it is difficult to find much that Ealing council says that has much to do with the truth.
    704
    On the question of paying set-aside receipts, it is interesting that the Labour party has not yet admitted that, to do what it wants to do, it would have to take receipts from some boroughs and give them to other boroughs; otherwise, the two most needy boroughs in London, Hackney and Lambeth, would get no money because they have no receipts to apply and, no doubt, the money would come from other boroughs, such as Enfield and Barnet, which were sensible enough under Conservative control to gain receipts. Sensible boroughs' receipts would be taken away, their council taxes would go up, because they would no longer be able to subsidise them from the interest rates, and the money would go to Lambeth and Hackney—the boroughs that wasted the money in the first place.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Local authority capital programmes, especially social service ones, will be affected by last week's decision by the Court of Appeal on social service charges. What help and assistance will the Secretary of State give local authorities whose budgets will be depleted as a result of that ruling?
    Mr. Gummer: No doubt local authorities will have to decide how that ruling affects them and the capital effects it will have. Local authorities spend large sums of capital and the opportunities have been enormously increased by the private finance initiative. The problem is that many local authorities fail to use the private finance initiative, even though it is available. For example, Ipswich has failed to use the PFI to build a crematorium and wants to use money from the taxpayer.

    Out-of-town Retail Developments
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reflect (a) through uniform business rates and (b) otherwise the effect of out-of-town retail developments on high streets and town centre retail businesses. [33933]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Where the presence of an out-of-town centre affects the value of town centre shops, this will be fully reflected in rating valuations. We have just issued revised planning policy guidance, PPG6, which will encourage developers of retail and other town centre uses to locate in town centres. We also encourage local authorities to develop town centre management to improve their competitiveness.
    Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is aware that in Northdown road in Cliftonville, formerly one of the south-east's fine shopping centres, there are now 40 empty shops, and there are more in Margate high street. That situation is common across the south-east of England and the coastal towns. Some of those voids are undoubtedly due to out-of-town shopping. Another out-of-town retail development has just been granted planning consent on appeal. Has not the time now come for my hon. Friend to consider whether the 1995 revaluations were hopelessly unrealistic, and should we not be considering a zero increase in business rates for the coming year?
    Mr. Jones: Where there is a material change of circumstances, retailers and others can go back to the Valuation Office and have their cases reconsidered; but

    705
    my hon. Friend must remember that not only are we restating our principles in PPG6 but we are vigorously carrying that forward into effect.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is it not a fact that merely devaluing the rates because a property has been devalued does nothing to compensate shop-holders whose livelihoods may be lost and, more important, does nothing to help the community whose heart is being ripped out by out-of-town developments? Is it not a fact that the latest announcements by out-of-town retailers of further plans for further superstore developments show that the Government's policy to get people back into town centres is failing?
    Mr. Jones: Retailers can make as many proposals as they want, but they still have to get through the planning system. My experience during the time I have been doing this job is that it is primarily Labour-controlled and hung councils that ask us to relax our planning approach, admittedly generally in the interests of regeneration, but not necessarily in the interests of the town centres.
    Sir John Cope: Is my hon. Friend aware that the existence of out-of-town shopping is not the only reason for giving careful attention to the burden of uniform business rates on small firms, particularly on small retail firms? My hon. Friend should consider it carefully for all sorts of other reasons as well—notably, the system of valuation.
    Mr. Jones: The system of valuation has been with us a long time, but that is not to say that it is perfect, and I am happy to consider any suggestions that my right hon. Friend may make for its refinement. My right hon. Friend is right to say that small firms in particular tend to be concerned about the swings that occur between different valuation periods, but the economy has been different at those different points and that has led to changes in the valuations, both in the south-east and, latterly, in outer parts of the country.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is not the truth of the matter that the uniform business rate now accounts for a higher proportion of local government expenditure than when the Government imposed the system? If we add to that laissez faire planning policies that have led to more out-of-town shopping centres, has not the small business in inner-town areas suffered a double whammy? Given the seriousness of the situation, is not the Minister's response totally inadequate?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should visit Hemel Hempstead in my constituency, where a recent audit of the town centre has shown vigorous and increasing prosperity.
    On the uniform business rate, the Government have ensured that the take is limited to the rate of inflation each year. When Labour-controlled councils had control of the business rate locally, they used to rip off businesses every year. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if the Labour party were ever to come to power it would get rid of the uniform business rate, that would mean new taxes with new Labour.

    Challenge Funding
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to extend challenge funding. [33934]
    Mr. Gummer: We announced on 15 May the Government's decision to proceed with a pilot scheme for the allocation of local authority credit approvals through competitive bidding.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know that there are no greater fans of the Government's challenge fund than the people of Gravesend. For years, we waited for our county and borough councils to bring about urban regeneration and the relief of the ancient area of Old Denton. Now, the Government's challenge fund is bringing together voluntary organisations, companies and the local councils to find a solution in that urban area. So great is that enthusiasm, that Gravesham borough council is putting in a new application for improvements along the riverside, on which I hope my right hon. Friend will look benevolently.
    Mr. Gummer: I cannot prejudge what the decision will be, but it is interesting that Labour councils such as Gravesham are beginning to realise that the challenge fund is a way of bringing together need and the ability to meet that need, instead of making decisions according to need. In the past, we wasted a great deal of money by allocating it to areas that were in need, but were unable to use the money effectively. By using the challenge fund, we ensure that they can meet the need, and they do so in partnership with the private sector, voluntary organisations and other agencies. That is the way to regenerate our cities, not the old-fashioned, socialist manner.
    Mr. Vaz: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept what everyone now realizes—that competition, the policy principle at the heart of his regeneration strategy, has been totally discredited? Is it not patently absurd to set towns and cities against each other to compete for diminishing regeneration funds? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore publish what Labour has requested for the past two years—comprehensive regional statements on which councils can bid for regeneration funds against an understandable, clear and coherent criterion of need?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has already lost the argument. The Environment Select Committee has said that the competitive system, the single regeneration budget, is extremely successful. Labour council leaders around the country tell me that they like the competitive system because it shows them to be successful when they do it well and it shows up their Labour neighbours when they do it badly. The only people who do not like the competitive system are bad Labour councils and those dominated by trade unions who do not want any competition. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. New Labour not only means a new attitude; it means a new attitude to measures that have been good—that is, to deny them and destroy them.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, Sheffield city council made two successful bids in city challenge amounting to £74 million. That is to be commended, as it has brought in £140 million from external funding, including £90 million from the private sector. Some of that money will be used to improve property and assist with training and business start-ups. Is it not the way forward? Should not cities such as Sheffield—even Sheffield—be commended?
    Mr. Gummer: Oh, yes. My hon. Friend will accept that, when I want to Sheffield, the Labour council leader had no complaints about his success. His only complaints were about the two previous leaders, both of whom sit in the House, who had run Sheffield into the ground so that it now needs urban regeneration. He is still paying the debts left by previous council leaders. He is still paying debts on the backs of the people of Sheffield because such a capital system did not exist.

    Pollution
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the latest levels of atmospheric pollution and the plans he has to reduce it. [33935]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): Air quality in the United Kingdom is generally good or very good most of the time. We shall shortly be publishing a consultation draft national air quality strategy.
    Mr. Griffiths: Would the Minister like to tell us whether he intends to give local authorities additional powers to act against pollution black spots, and whether there are any proposals for a national approach to deal with pollution problems, which are very severe in some cities and cause real damage to the health of adults and children?
    Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman may know, 80 local authorities in 14 different areas—including some in south Wales—are trialling the duties under the Environment Act 1995. Resources have been made available to assist them and we shall look at the implications of that trial period.
    The national air quality strategy to which I referred is a comprehensive strategy for dealing with emissions and will lead to major improvements in air quality, in addition to the improvements that we have already made in reducing lead, sulphur and other harmful emissions under our international commitments.
    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. It is a shame that there is not more constructive interest from those on the Labour Front Bench. The only emissions that are apparent from the Labour party are internal emissions, particularly from south Wales.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern about air quality in my borough of Bexley? When he publishes his draft document, will he include some proposals to deal with the growing problem of air pollution in the London area?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities will have powers: local authority air management areas will be established. My hon. Friend will also be interested in the action that we have taker to deal with summertime smog, and in the recent conference of north-west European countries, hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which discussed that international problem. The conference set the aim of reducing it, and if possible eliminating it, by 2005.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree with the report published recently by the Environmental Industries Commission, which states that those industries have lost £2 billion because of the Government's failure to regulate? The problem has been exacerbated by the two-year delay in the control of volatile organic compound emissions. Is this not another example of the Government's producing warm green words and absolutely no action?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady completely misunderstands the VOC issue. As she will know, we have entered into a protocol on VOCs under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and we are well on the way to meeting our international commitments—as we are in regard to other emissions. What we are prepared to be judged on is our success in meeting international obligations. When we set targets and agree to obligations, we meet them, and that results in better air quality.

    Local Authority Houses
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what, at the latest date for which figures are available, was the number of local authority dwellings. [33937]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): At the beginning of April 1995, there were 3,565,000 local authority dwellings in England.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not almost unbelievable that, during 1995, local authorities, deprived of money by this Tory Government, were unable to build more than 612 houses in one year? In 1978, which we regarded as a bad year for Labour, 78,000 houses were built. The ratio between the number of houses being built now and the number being built in the years before the Labour Government were kicked out of office is about 80:1. Is it not high time that the Government worked it out? There are millions of bricks in stock; people are lying on the streets and in doorways; builders and construction workers are without jobs. You do not have to be a Pythagoras to solve that theorem—but then this Government are not capable of anything.
    Mr. Curry: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how pleased I am to see him here and in such good voice.
    Earlier today, the hon. Gentleman gave notice that he was unstarring his question. I knew that the Labour party intended to discipline dissident Members, and I was rather afraid that the hon. Gentleman had already been liquidated. I am glad that he is back—but he is back with exactly the same attitude that he had nearly 20 years ago,

    709
    which is that housing must be built by councils. We have moved on from that old agenda to allowing building by housing associations, giving tenants the right to own their property and letting local authorities transfer property to the private sector.
    Three weeks ago, I announced estate challenge results that allowed some of the worst estates to be moved to new landlords, subject to a ballot. Just three weeks later, Durham has already balloted its tenants. Those tenants do not want the hon. Gentleman's old-fashioned style; they want the new policies that give them better opportunities and new hope. The hon. Gentleman will die with the old Labour ship.
    Mr. Yeo: In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will my right hon. Friend join me in looking forward to his enthusiastic support for recent proposals from the Ministry of Defence which will ensure that the most effective use is made of the large number of houses that it owns?
    Mr. Curry: One can always live in hope, although it must be said that, in the case of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), there is not much hope.
    The MOD's proposals will produce two important results. First, they will enable empty stock to be brought into productive use; it is a scandal that it has not been already. Secondly, they will allow houses inhabited by service personnel to be brought up to a proper standard, so that those people have the houses that they deserve. That is not the case at present, which is a very good argument for going ahead.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now recognise that under his Government, the output of new housing for renting has fallen to its lowest level since the end of the second world war? At the same time, the number of homeless people in Britain has doubled since Labour was last in power. When will the Government face their responsibilities and get unemployed building workers back to work building the homes that are needed, letting councils use their capital receipts to finance that building?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to his old anthem about capital receipts, but it is a myth that that money is doing nothing. Those receipts have been invested and are earning interest. If they were not, council tax bills would go up.
    The hon. Gentleman is at pains to say, "No spending commitments." Even in the most informal setting, one could not prise a spending commitment out of him with forceps. If that money were put into house building, it would be bound to affect the public sector borrowing requirement, and other expenditure by local authorities would have to be pruned if public expenditure were not to rise. The hon. Gentleman must answer that question.
    Like the hon. Member for Bolsover, with whom I doubt he would want to compare himself, the hon. Gentleman still represents the old municipal side of Labour. We and the agenda have moved on from that, and we are moving tenants with us to much greater opportunities. They will not want the hon. Gentleman's remedies thrust down their throats.
    Mr. Dunn: In the context of local authority dwellings, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are thousands of empty properties in housing black spots such as Lambeth, Lewisham and Liverpool which are not well administered by local authorities? Is this not the question that we should be asking: "Why do these black spots exist and which party has created them"?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The essential skills of a local authority are to fill voids and collect rents. When it does not do that, people are deprived of homes and the borough is deprived of revenue for its services. There are 600,000 to 800,000 empty properties around the country and they must be brought back into use. It would be more sensible to do that than to have them lying idle. Some of them are in the private sector, but too many are still in the public sector and need to be utilised.

    Local Authority Capital Programmes
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he estimates the private finance initiative will make to the capital programme of local authorities. [33938]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The private finance initiative offers potential for significant additions to local authority capital investment in the coming years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on 21 May substantial changes to the local government capital finance regulations to facilitate the further development of the private finance initiative.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister accept that, in the absence of proper local capital spending programmes by central and local government, the private finance initiative is becoming increasingly attractive to many local authorities? Does he also accept that the 32 regulations are red tape that needs to be removed and that we need clear, open guidance for local authorities so that the backlog on the private finance initiative is made available? In future, local authorities must have a clearer idea of what the private finance initiative means.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the private finance initiative, and I hope that he will get that message across to some of his hon. Friends who still seem hostile to the idea of involving private sector capital.
    Of course we want to make sure that there is no red tape. That is why my right hon. Friend has had three different tranches of measures to strip away the bureaucracy. We are prepared to look at any suggestions by local authorities about other areas that are worthy of examination.
    Of course bureaucracy is a problem not just on the regulatory side. We have to ensure that local authorities, as clients, do not have fussy contract documents or overlong tender lists or other measures that would block a good package.
    Ms Armstrong: The Minister's staggering complacency is almost beyond words. Has he not noticed that, in the past few weeks, the confidence of the private sector has virtually collapsed? The legal decision added to the regulatory regime have prompted it to say, certainly to us, that it has no confidence in the ability of the private finance initiative further to push capital development by local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore quickly review the position, because the construction industry and, more important, the public are suffering enormous losses as the necessary capital investment is simply not being made?
    Mr. Jones: What we have witnessed is the staggering ignorance of the hon. Lady. If she talked to individual construction companies throughout the country that are involved in submitting projects and having them assessed, or met the construction industry on a national basis, as I do, she would know that they are enthusiastic about this and view it as the way forward.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the condition of the construction industry with particular reference to the house building sector. [33940]
    Mr. Gummer: There is evidence of increasing activity in the housing market as the effects of our sound economic management work through to improve consumer confidence. We look forward to a continuing recovery this year.
    Mr. Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent and far-sighted speech to the Royal Town Planning Institute, and on highlighting the need to build more houses to meet the growth in household numbers, but is he aware that his wise words are falling on deaf ears, with county councils from Devon to Oxfordshire and from Hampshire to Cheshire ignoring the housing numbers required in regional guidance? Will he assure me that he will advise those county councils seeking to pass the housing buck that he will ensure that housing numbers in the structure plans are properly adhered to?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the House would want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance Ltd., which has been expressing these views. I am especially concerned that we use all the land that has already been used to rebuild in the centres of our cities. I am still concerned about many local authorities that are not prepared to put together the land and to create opportunities for private builders, to build in those circumstances. I am insisting that the amount of land that needs to be released because of the figures shall be so released.
    Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State said in his speech, to which reference has been made, that the Government were estimating that an extra 4.4 million homes would be needed just to meet the needs of new households in the next 20 years, and that that excludes the 1.5 million homes that need to be done up because they are unfit for human habitation. Is it not the case that we are building only
    712
    137,000 homes a year, which means that, at the present rate, the Government will fall 1.5 million homes short of their target? Would it not be a better idea if, instead of calling for national debates, the right hon. Gentleman got on with getting some houses built now, rather than talking about the far blue yonder, when he will not be in power because new Labour will be in new government?
    Mr. Gummer: I had to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity for the debate, because he has already contributed to both sides of it. First, he told the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians that not enough houses were being built.
    Mr. Dobson: Liar.
    Mr. Gummer: Then the hon. Gentleman told the Council for the Protection of Rural England that he would not build as many houses. [Interruption.] Oh yes.
    Mr. Dobson: Liar.
    Mr. Gummer: I will quote the hon. Gentleman's words in case he forgets them:
    "we are looking at … shifting … from the present presumption in favour of development … 4.4 million households is a major threat to rural England."
    That is the opposite of what he said only a few days before. His speech to the CPRE was a disaster. It knows that the only defenders of rural England are Conservative Members, that the only people who protect the green belt are Conservative Members, and that new Labour means a new threat for the countryside of Britain.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I do not take points of order until after questions.
    Mr. Greenway rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. How can I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying with everyone bawling and shouting? Do shut up until Mr. Greenway has said what he wants to say.
    Mr. Greenway: I distinctly heard the Labour party spokesman use the unparliamentary term "liar" at least five times. Is that in order?
    Madam Speaker: Is that the case?
    Mr. Dobson: I did use that word and I withdraw it.
    Madam Speaker: I am obliged. The hon. Gentleman admits to using the word and it has now been withdrawn. Who was I about to call? I want somebody who can put a direct question. I call Mr. Coombs.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that recent surveys by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors show a significant improvement in sentiment in the housing market and considerably improved activity? Is

    713
    that not the result of sustained low interest rates? Is it not a bit rich for the Labour party, in the form of its shadow spokesman, to talk about improving consumer confidence when the last time the Labour party was in government there was an average rate of interest—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he should not need reminding, that Ministers of the Crown are responsible for their policies. They are accountable to the House not for anybody else's policies, but for their own actions. Let us now see if we can find a decent question somewhere. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

    County Hall, London
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations have been made in respect of an aquarium in county hall, London SE1. [33941]
    Mr. Clappison: None.
    Madam Speaker: That is a good answer.
    Mr. Banks: You may think so, Madam Speaker, but it is a terrible answer.
    Madam Speaker: At least it is a straightforward answer.
    Mr. Banks: Unfortunately, it is not a helpful one, as an aquarium is due to open at county hall and it would appear that the Shirayama corporation, which is to run the aquarium, has not yet sought permission from the Department of the Environment for the species that it intends to import. Will the Minister check what species the organisers intend to put into the aquarium? It is not at all acceptable in terms of animal welfare. In view of what the Japanese are doing in the Antarctic—killing minke whales under the guise of scientific whaling in order to eat them—will the Minister check that they will not use the aquarium in county hall to bring in dolphins so that they can serve whale meat in the restaurants?
    Mr. Clappison: I can help the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the organisation has applied under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Notwithstanding the building's former use, apparently such an application is required. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would approve of the use of county hall as an aquarium. I cannot say whether there will be any newts in the aquarium, but it will definitely contain dog-faced puffers, tomato clown fish and red-bellied piranhas, among others. I understand that no application is required under CITES. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is an expert on endangered species, and also something of an authority on endangered species within the Labour party—Members who speak their mind.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend recall a time when certain unattractive species used to inhabit county hall? Can he give an undertaking that those
    714
    dangerous and expensive species, who promised to spend a great deal of money to no good effect, will never be allowed back into county hall?
    Mr. Clappison: Thankfully, that species is becoming endangered and will become even more so when the public hear of the plans to create unnecessary bureaucracy and waste in London with organisations which duplicate work being done by others, all of which will result in substantial expense for London taxpayers—a new form of danger from new Labour.

    Millennium Exhibition
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the riverside amenities in the vicinity of the north Greenwich peninsula in preparation for the holding of the millennium exhibition there. [33942]
    Mr. Gummer: We shall ensure that the Greenwich peninsula is properly reorganised and redeveloped in a manner that will be not only important for the millennium exhibition but valuable to the citizens of London for the rest of the century. If my hon. Friend has any supplementary questions, I shall be happy to answer them.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is important that the millennium exhibition should not introspectively gaze only at its navel but should look outwards to the river, that great but greatly underused natural highway which flows through our capital and around the north Greenwich peninsula? Impressive though the Jubilee line extension will be when it is completed, should we not give every encouragement to those wishing to experience an approach to the exhibition from the water, as was the case with the festival of Britain, when more than 5 million people took to the Thames for their transport?
    Mr. Gummer: The Thames should be used as one of the accesses to the millennium exhibition. It is also important that we improve that area of London, which has been particularly damaged by successive Labour councils in the borough of Greenwich, where the development has not been helped. I hope that the effect of the single regeneration budget, which is certainly one of the ways in which to help that development, will enable other sources to be tapped. The river is crucial to the overall development of an area which, sadly, has been neglected for many years.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately to the north of the chosen millennium site at Greenwich are two sites available in the London borough of Newham? As he knows, the first is within 500 yd of the millennium site and is the two and a half miles of the royal docks. It has great potential for development, including a national exhibition centre. Secondly, within a mile to the north, the lower Lea valley could add to the millennium celebrations 100 acres of land for which the Government have so far failed to provide a reasonable and imaginative scheme, as we should all like.
    Mr. Gummer: Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, who has made a great contribution, I wonder how he can celebrate all the work that has been done by the London Docklands development corporation in view of the extent to which he and his fellow socialists attacked it and said that it was unacceptable. The LDDC has done more for London's development than any other organisation, perhaps for a century. I merely hope that when it winds down and hands on many of its responsibilities to the boroughs, the hon. Gentleman will ensure that those boroughs do half as good a job as the LDDC has done.

    Eutrophication
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer in European Standing Committee A on 12 June at columns 4–6, if he will make a statement on measures to counter eutrophication and algal bloom. [33943]
    Mr. Clappison: Phosphorus removal is being installed at 41 sewage treatment works discharging into 29 designated eutrophic sensitive areas in England and Wales as part of our implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is being done to lessen the environmental and ecological havoc caused by phosphate and nitrogen from fertiliser going into rivers and streams?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point. He will be aware of the experiences of other parts of Europe, including Germany, with the effects of algal blooms and black spots caused by the types of problems that he has described. Because of those experiences, we are monitoring eutrophic effects in inland waters and in coastal areas. Knowing of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter, I will keep him informed of the results of that monitoring.

    Asbestos
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional resources to local authorities and housing associations to deal with properties in their possession which contain asbestos. [33945]
    Mr. Curry: It is for local authorities to decide how they allocate their resources.
    Mr. Cohen: My borough of Waltham Forest has suffered enormous housing investment cuts and borrowing restrictions. There is a severe maintenance backlog for council tenants and severe delays for those waiting for improvement grants. Now that asbestos has been found in some tower blocks, the safety of those tenants must come first, but that means that all the other tenants will have to wait that much longer. May I urge the Government to provide special extra funds to councils and to housing associations to deal with asbestos problems?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman really wants improvements in the quality of housing and renovation in his borough, he should recommend to his council that it makes an application under the estates renewal programme. If Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham, Lambeth and Brent, among the London boroughs, can do so successfully, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can encourage his council to do the same. It is all subject to tenants' ballots and everyone will benefit substantially.

    Unitary Authorities
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has recently received about the cost of establishing the new unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [33946]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): A system of supplementary credit approvals is being used in response to bids to cover reorganisation costs. However, there are clear opportunities for new unitary authorities to make considerable efficiency savings.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of East Sussex county council at the very special costs being incurred by the new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove and the fact that that may lead to a need to increase council taxes within the East Sussex area? Can he reassure people living in East Sussex that that will not be the case?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking at all the bids and bearing his point in mind. I should be very concerned if I had anything to do with East Sussex council as it is at the moment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33961]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government's attacks on the Labour party are being scrapped because they were not hurting and not working?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, our campaign has already worked and already hurt new Labour. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me explain precisely why: new taxes on jobs, on Scotland, on parents, on employers, on shareholders; new chaos in schools, in hospitals, on roads; and new weakness in defence and in Europe. That campaign will run and run.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Should the Government not be congratulated on embarking upon the long overdue reform of the legal aid system? Does my right hon. Friend agree

    717
    that it has been widely abused and, too often, used for blackmailing purposes? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous if Britain had litigation on the scale of the United States, where everyone seems to be suing everyone else?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will publish a White Paper setting out the Government's plans to reform the legal aid system in England and Wales. It is right that we should ensure the proper use of money, which is why we believe that legal aid should be directed towards those whose need is greatest. That means stopping weak or undeserving cases being pursued at public expense.
    Mr. Blair: In respect of the sale of Ministry of Defence homes, will the Prime Minister confirm the following facts that have emerged? Not only is the MOD guaranteeing the property developer the full market rent for 25 years: on top of that, if the aggregate rents fall beneath a specified minimum the taxpayer is guaranteed to make up the shortfall for each of the 25 years; on top of that, every year a certain quantity of vacant homes will be made available to the property developer to sell at a profit; and on top of that, the property developer can exchange the sites of MOD homes for comparable sites, without the consent of the tenants. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in each of those four respects my understanding is right and, if so, what is the justification for that extraordinary deal?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the two most salient facts. [Interruption.] All the details will be made plain when the sale is concluded. He has overlooked, first, the extra £100 million released by the sale to provide better homes for the services throughout the United Kingdom and, secondly, the £1.5 billion or thereabouts that will be available to the Exchequer for other resources. He has a lot to say about how he is going to be stringent on public expenditure, but at the first difficult decision he wants to toss away about £1.5 billion.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that we should wait until the sale is concluded. With all due respect, I think that we should know the details now. It is precisely the worry about public spending that leads me to put this question. The right hon. Gentleman says that the services will get £100 million, but will he confirm that over the next 25 years there will be a recurring liability to the taxpayer—
    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has not disputed a single one of the four points that I put to him. Will he say which of those four points is wrong and, in particular, whether the Government are guaranteeing not just a market rent but that if the aggregate of rents falls beneath the specified minimum the taxpayer will be obliged to make up the shortfall? We should know how much it will cost in future years.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman still does not understand. This is going to yield substantial
    718
    resources for the Exchequer. With the shadow Chancellor sitting next to him, I am surprised that he so lightly tosses £1.5 billion aside. There is no doubt that all he has to say about stringency in public expenditure is for public consumption but will not stand up to the first whiff of controversy when it comes to decisions. We are negotiating a good deal for the taxpayer, now and in the future, and a good deal for the service man—now and in the future—as in due course the right hon. Gentleman will be forced to acknowledge.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the Prime Minister is talking about the amount of money that he will get in this financial year, but we are asking the question because we expect to be dealing with these problems in future years. That is the difference between the short term and the long term, between the Tory party and Labour. Will the Prime Minister say which of those four facts he denies? Is not the truth of the matter that he is attempting to boost the capital sum in this financial year for pre-election purposes while leaving a recurring liability to the taxpayer for years to come for a sale that no service men or women want?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has just done is to advance the precise argument against the windfall tax that he himself proposes. Perhaps he will now withdraw the windfall tax, which the shadow Chancellor has spent on three or four occasions already. The right hon. Gentleman still misses the substantive point: it is to provide better accommodation for our service men and that is what it will do, both now and in the future. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a worthwhile proposition.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the police on the success of their Euro 96 operation? Does he agree that this showed Europe at its best, acting in harmony and co-operation, and does he think it likely that there will be any plans to prosecute for racial incitement?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which Euro 96 was policed and about the behaviour of the overwhelming majority of people. I had the pleasure of attending the final and of hearing from football administrators across Europe how much they admired the way in which the competition had been run and the behaviour of the crowds at football grounds across the country. I very much hope that this will help us to obtain further such competitions. Prosecutions are, of course, a matter for the police, but I am sure that they will have noted what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Ashdown: Further to the Prime Minister's answer to a previous question, does not a large part of the cost of our legal aid come from inefficiencies at all levels in the legal system? Why do the Government not attack those inefficiencies instead of attacking access to justice for ordinary people?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to ensure that people have proper and equitable access where there is a need for it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the

    719
    legal aid system has very few friends at the moment because of the way in which it operates, and it is right that we should examine it in a White Paper and reform it, which is what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to do. His plans will ensure better value for money, with the right services going to the right people, and greater fairness between legally aided people and their opponents.
    Mr. Sykes: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about Scotland? He will be well aware that the people of Scotland have much in common with the people of Yorkshire, chiefly in the fact that we will not wantonly part with hard-earned cash. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition that that is why the Scots will never, in a month of Sundays, vote for a tax-raising tartan parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The speed of the Opposition's changes on that policy become more bewildering day by day, so it is not at all clear what their policies will be by the end of this week or the end of next week. What we have seen in the past week or so illustrates clearly the total absurdity of the plans that the Labour party has been preparing for a long time but apparently has not thought about. Labour spokesmen have answered none of the questions asked here or in Scotland about that policy because they have no credible answers to them.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33962]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) that there is a "get Portillo" campaign—a dirty tricks campaign—in the Tory party? Does he not think that such a serious issue—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Prime Minister about policies for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thought that the Defence Secretary was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
    Should such a serious issue as homes for the families of service men and women who serve this country so well be used as a political pawn by contenders for the Prime Minister's job?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, like me, is determined to ensure the best possible accommodation for service men, and to ensure that an extra £100 million is available to be spent on them. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about criticism of one Member against another, I suggest that, after the past few days, he should begin to protect his own leader.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33963]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the international influence and unity of the kingdom, the interests of England and the practical needs of his constituents and mine, will be assisted by radical constitutional change? Does he think that it was just a coincidence that, immediately after his strongly argued speech on the constitution, the Opposition's policies collapsed in disarray, posing a multitude of new dangers for our nation?
    The Prime Minister: It is only the beginning of the collapse of those policies; there will be more progressive collapses to come. Whatever U-turns the Opposition continue to perform on their devolution policies, their policies for a devolved, tax-raising parliament in Scotland are bad news for the United Kingdom and bad news for Scotland, and they will prove to be bad news for the Opposition—of that I have no doubt.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33964]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the way his party's £10 million attack on new Labour today stooped to exploiting the blindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? Will he instruct his party chairman to withdraw that disgraceful attack and exploitation and apologise immediately?
    The Prime Minister: No one would conduct such an attack. There are ample policies in new Labour to attack, and those are the policies that we find distasteful and wrong. They are concerned about controls to take rights away from parents, they are producing taxes that they are trying to hide, and they would produce chaos in our public services. Now that we have been able to focus on what the allegedly new Labour party actually stands for, we can identify its dangers and make sure that everyone is aware of them. New Labour and the new dangers will become very apparent to everyone, and it will be the policies that we shall attack, because they are wrong and damaging.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [33965]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average family in this country will be £450 a year better off by next April as a result of the tax cuts announced by the Government? Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why the average family should trust and risk the Labour party's policies for tax and spend?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that growth in the economy and lower taxes mean that the average family will be £450 better off this year, even after taking account of inflation. I can also make it clear to the average
    722
    family that inflation is down, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, investment, exports and production are up and the prospects for individuals as well as for families are brighter than they have been for very many years.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was one of the lucky ones, in that my question was reached in Environment questions, but would you pass some comment on the Secretary of State for the Environment's constant habit of flouting the conventions, if not the rules, of the House in turning round to his supporters and ranting at enormous length? Question Time has become rant time, and it simply means that legitimate questions are not reached. What are the rules of the House about Ministers addressing you and the House?
Madam Speaker: I made a statement about those matters in the last couple of weeks, in answer to a point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman himself, so I would refer the House to the response that I made at that time: that I expect all Ministers to answer questions directly, and I expect all Ministers, from the most junior to the most senior Secretary of State, to speak into that microphone and to address me as Speaker of this House. It is through the Speaker of this House that all Members—Ministers and Back Benchers—speak to the House itself. and I expect Ministers to use that microphone to speak to this House through the elected Speaker of this House.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Madam Speaker, if inadvertently I have turned my head from you, I am the first to apologise.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I was referring of course, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, to all Ministers. I notice every day when I am in this Chair how Ministers address this House, and they do not always do so in the courteous way that I expect of them.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding the customary virtuoso performance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) last Thursday and our own natural sense of bi-weekly fun, did you see the excellent feature in The Independent on Friday, and those in other newspapers, referring to the excessive screaming and shouting at Question Time in the House?
Without us losing that sense of bi-weekly fun, is it possible, both through the usual channels and through your own good offices, to ensure that we have a calmer, more rational Question Time, especially at Prime Minister's Question Time? Without being sanctimonious, this is very important for the public, who I believe are getting increasingly fed up with this and want more accurate questions—and, indeed, accurate ministerial answers.
Madam Speaker: Yes, I certainly would like to see a much calmer Question Time. For a start, when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition enter the Chamber, hon. Members on both sides should remain respectful and quiet—they should not jeer and shout. Hon. Members could begin by doing that on Thursday.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my point of order. On 12 June, I tabled questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the latest information on BSE cases. I received holding answers on 18 June from all four Departments, and I received substantive answers from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices on 20 June.
I still have not received an answer from the Ministry of Agriculture. However, the Minister issued a press release giving those figures at the royal agricultural show yesterday. Madam Speaker, is it not a grave discourtesy to you and to the House for the Government to govern by press release?
Madam Speaker: I have made a pronouncement on this matter before. I expect Ministers to give the House information first. I cannot verify the figures or what the hon. Gentleman has said, but no doubt Members on the Treasury Bench will have noted his point of order. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he continues to pursue this matter with the Ministers concerned.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding has been that you take points of order at this time of the day. However, you took a point of order from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) during Question Time. Under what circumstances are points of order taken during Question Time? Is it in relation to the conduct of hon. Members during the particular Question Time?
Madam Speaker: No, it is not the conduct of Members; it is the use of foul language. I will always take a point of order immediately if it is drawn to my attention that unacceptable language has been used.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced today that he is taking legal action against South West Water because of the poisoning of some 400 people with cryptosporidium. Have you had any indication that he intends to explain to the House what is happening in this regard?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been informed that the Secretary of State is seeking to make any such statement.
Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give me some guidance about the amount of time taken by Ministers to answer ordinary written parliamentary questions? I tabled a question to the Minister of Agriculture on 22 April and I received a reply only yesterday, following a further parliamentary question. I have looked into this matter, and I have found that over half the questions tabled for ordinary written answers to the Minister of Agriculture since 20 March have taken more than one week to answer. Is there any guidance on this matter? I think that a nine-week wait for a written parliamentary answer is an extraordinarily long time.
Madam Speaker: I have a good deal of sympathy with the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will look at the matter and come back to him. If what the hon. Gentleman has told me is correct, it is an inordinate length of time. Ministers appear sometimes to be taking a great deal of time to answer questions.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHARTER TRUSTEES
  Sir Colin Shepherd, supported by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. John Townend, Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Key, presented a Bill to provide for the creation in England of parishes in cities and towns where charter trustees have been constituted: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

  Access to Schools (Disabled Persons)
  3.38 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure the findings of the Access Audits (as laid down in the Education Act 1993) be reported to Parliament; to improve access to schools; and for connected purposes.
  I wish to congratulate some of the people who have made my Bill necessary and possible. I congratulate the National Union of Teachers, and Scope—formerly the Spastics Society. In 1992, it commissioned a study by Coopers and Lybrand into access for disabled children into mainstream education. This resulted in a report which found that the Government had little available information on accessibility, that the local education authorities and the funding agencies, and even schools, had little information. The report recommended that access audits be carried out. When no action was forthcoming in 1993, a second report was produced to emphasise existing need. That report, "The School Survey", investigated the proportion of primary and secondary schools that are accessible to pupils with physical disabilities. It identified the amount of work that was needed to improve disabled access in schools, and it estimated the initial cost of that work.
  The findings presented a bleak picture, but they also drew some reassuring conclusions. The survey found that only 16 per cent. of primary and 7 per cent. of secondary schools were completely accessible. It found that only 18 per cent. of secondary schools were 75 per cent. accessible and that 65 per cent. of primary schools and 55 per cent. of secondary schools had no suitably adapted toilets.
  The survey also showed that three out of four primary schools could provide 75 per cent. access to teaching, including toilet facilities, at an estimated cost of £59 million. It discovered that half of secondary schools could provide 100 per cent. access to teaching, including toilet facilities, at a cost of £251 million.
  Although we are talking about millions of pounds, hon. Members should recognise that they are quite modest sums in the context of the total school spend. The report identified the existing problems in schools, but for the first time it offered a solution. It found that disabled students could achieve access to schools at a fairly modest cost, if a planned programme were set in motion.
  I now wish, rather uncharacteristically, to congratulate the Government. The Government decided to act upon the report, and they amended the Education Act 1993 to allow for access audits of all schools. The Government went still further: partly as a result of the "Within Reach" schools survey, they established an access initiative to enable schools to bid through their local education authorities for money to improve their accessibility. The survey showed that some schools could become accessible for as little as £2,800. I congratulate the Government on taking that initiative.
  Some people will claim that the Government were under pressure from disabled people. They will say that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 did not go far enough, and that it came too late. Nevertheless, the Government introduced an initiative that has the potential to do an awful lot of good in many schools and help many children with disabilities.

  727
  Access audits have now been conducted, and schools have been allowed to bid for a pot of £10.5 million, comprising Government and partnership money. I am pleased and proud to report that my local authority, Nottinghamshire county council, submitted a bid for £180,000, which was approved. Almost every authority across the country bid for a share of the money.
  However, I am concerned that nothing seems to be happening with the access audits. It is commendable that the audits have been conducted, but they must now be analysed and presented to the House. I am worried that, although the initiative may be working perfectly, we might find that the money could be spent more efficiently within that initiative. We might find that more, or even less, money is needed. I am not asking for additional money at this stage: I am simply saying that we need to know the facts, and to debate in the House the next move forward. The access audit findings that were announced on 21 March showed that 11,694 schools had less than 50 per cent. access to teaching accommodation. Some 68 per cent. of toilet facilities in primary schools and 49 per cent. of toilet facilities in secondary schools were inaccessible.
  The Government's initiative has given us a chance to move forward. We have recognised for a long time that it is a necessity that all children have a good education. The problem is that we have recognised only for the past 25 years that children with special needs have a right to education. Initially, children with special needs were segregated, but Government policy—we had a consensus across the Floor of the House—has recognised since 1981 that, in the vast majority of cases, segregation is damaging not only for children with special needs but for other children.
  When I was a councillor, I tried to get people with disabilities employed on the council; the best way to ensure that the rest of the work force accepted people with disabilities was to employ someone with a disability. The
  728
  best way to do away with discrimination and people's prejudices is to make them face up to their prejudices. 'We have to accept that discrimination still exists in our schools, to the disadvantage of children with disabilities.
  Some 52 per cent. of head teachers claim that their schools are inadequately resourced for special needs, and 42 per cent. of disabled adults have no formal qualifications, compared with 13 per cent. of the population as a whole. Disabled students make up only 0.3 per cent. of the entire student population in universities, although they comprise more than 2 per cent. of the school population.
  Despite legislation to encourage inclusive schooling, the number of children in special schools in 1989 was not even 1 per cent. lower than it was in 1977. That rate of progress would be shameful in any civilised society, but it is even more shameful when the country needs to ensure the best education possible for all our children. Children with disabilities have a right to be included, and I hope that the Bill will go some way towards giving them that right.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Neil Gerrard and Mr. Keith Hill.

  ACCESS TO SCHOOLS (DISABLED PERSONS)
  Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to ensure the findings of the Access Audits (as laid down in the Education Act 1993) be reported to Parliament; to improve access to schools; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
Orders of the Day
  Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New clause 18

  EXEMPTIONS FROM TELEVISION LICENCE REQUIREMENT OF CARAVANS AS SECOND HOMES
  '.—(1)Part II of Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) regulations 1991 (SI., 1991, No. 436) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After paragraph 8 there shall be inserted—
  "9.—(1) Any person in possession of a licence to install and use a television receiver at their normal place of residence shall not require an additional licence to install or use a television receiver in a caravan, provided that—

  (a) the licence entitles them to install and use the additional receiver

  (b) the caravan is not used for permanent residential purposes or made available for commercial hire or let.

  (2) In this paragraph "caravan" means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted." '.—[Dr. Moonie.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.48 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: 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 new clause 42—Concessionary television licence schemes (sheltered accommodation)—
  '.—(1) Part II of Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulation 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 436) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(c), for the words "either lines in one of the dwellings within the group or" shall be omitted.'.
  Dr. Moonie: I shall say at the outset, in case anyone is in any doubt, that I shall not seek to divide the House on new clause 18, which seeks to exempt caravans and mobile homes—used for holidays, not for permanent residential purposes—from the requirement to possess a television licence. New clause 18 would amend the television licensing regulations, and we have tabled it to highlight an anomaly that many hon. Members will have noticed through the contents of their postbags.
  Only in recent months has the BBC, through the licensing authority, been collecting licence fees for caravans and in a number of other areas. At present, only tens of thousands of pounds have been collected from that source, compared with the £1.7 billion from the general licence fee.
  A legal ruling forced the BBC to start collecting that money, although it is obvious from the regulations that every holiday home, even if a television is taken there for only a week, every caravan, every boat, even every lorry driver's cab, has always required a separate licence.
  730
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) highlighted an anomaly in the licensing regulations relating to sheltered accommodation. The Minister kindly agreed to table new regulations to rectify the problem. I hope that, in turn, the Minister will agree to consider this matter in some detail.
  It is obvious that second homes that are occupied for much of the year, such as those that hon. Members occupy in London, should be subject to the full licence fee. It is also obvious that commercially let properties should be subject to the full fee. But it may be possible to come up with a scheme for a lower-price supplementary licence in certain cases, or a similar, more pragmatic, arrangement.
  The new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to undertake to review the regulations in general, in order to make them more satisfactory and to tidy them up. I hope that, for everyone's benefit, he will take that opportunity.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I want to comment on new clause 18, but my main remarks will be addressed to new clause 42 in my name.
  As we all know, caravan sites comprise a variety of establishments. I have recently received letters from one in my constituency which consists mainly of static caravans, and I have written to the Department on the issue. Most of those static caravans are used by old-age pensioners. The possibility exists for a rebate on their television licences for the five months during which the caravan site is closed, but that means a substantial amount of administrative work and bureaucracy.
  I wonder what expense such organisations face in ensuring that those who are eligible benefit from that concession. To reclaim such a sum would involve a huge amount of bureaucracy and cost. I hope that the Minister will refer to that.
  New clause 42 relates to sheltered housing, which I understand was debated in Committee. I want to consider some of the anomalies that have resulted from the various regulations on that issue. This is a complex sphere, which must be addressed in order to give people in sheltered accommodation a concession on their television licence fee.
  Having read the papers, I understand that the redefinition of sheltered housing eligible for concessions appears in SI 1988/899, and consolidation regulations were brought into force by SI 1991/436. That meant that a communal facility was not required. The Department of National Heritage is responsible for setting the fees and the content of the regulations.
  The Department of National Heritage and its predecessor have left huge anomalies in the regulations. Since I tabled the new clause, hon. Members from other parties have spoken to me on the subject. Those anomalies are causing much concern, and often anger.
  A sheltered housing complex in my constituency has one warden and one deputy warden, who take equal responsibility for all the residents. There are no communal facilities, but the warden visits all the residents each day, monitors the alarm system and assists with medical appointments. Concessionary television licences are allocated to the residents in one group of houses, but not to those in the other section of the complex, because the warden is resident there. I cannot see the rationale behind that argument, and I ask the House and the Minister to look again at the anomaly.

  731
  Yesterday and today, we have been celebrating the memory of those who lost their lives in the battle of the Somme. The elderly community deserve our support. We have a piecemeal approach to concessionary television licences for sheltered accommodation. The anomalies must be addressed, to eradicate the sense of injustice felt by many of my constituents. I sincerely ask the Minister to take on board the possibility of reviewing all the legislation which applies to the concept of concessionary licences for those who live in sheltered accommodation.
  Mr. Roger Gale: As I represent a constituency with a large number of mobile home parks and touring caravan parks—in common with other hon. Members representing Kent and south coast constituencies—I must express my sympathy with new clause 18.
  Those who take trailer caravans on holiday and park them in the excellent caravan parks in Thanet find it quite incomprehensible that, while they are away—not using the television at home—they should suddenly require a second television licence to use a portable television in the caravan. That applies equally to those using portable televisions in canal boats and other forms of mobile habitation. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look sympathetically at the new clause.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: A couple of years ago, I sat on the Select Committee on National Heritage when it examined in depth the anomalies relating to television licences. As any hon. Member who receives representations on this will know, the system is a shambles from top to bottom.
  Many of my constituents are pensioners. Some are unemployed miners who had to take early retirement. They use some of their redundancy pay to spend the summer on caravan sites at places such as Skegness. They enjoy watching television when they are away, and they continue paying for it when their houses are locked up. Suddenly, out of the blue, they receive a letter saying that they now have to pay again.
  I took up the matter with the BBC licence fee unit. The Select Committee discovered that, since that unit took over from the Home Office about five years ago, it has been much tougher and harder, without achieving much more success—except for sitting ducks such as poor pensioners.
  The letter I received from the licence fee unit referred to
  "a change as a result of legal advice we received".
  Who asked for legal advice? Who demanded that lawyers should look into the matter? The licence fee unit demanded it, in order to take more cash. It was nobody else. The letter states that the licence fee
  "was called into question and we took legal advice."
  Nobody asked the licence fee unit to take legal advice. The House did not ask it to do that. I do not know whether the Minister made such a request. There was certainly no debate in the House. Those people receive a bonus according to what they bring in.
  The letter referred to my constituent Mrs. Perry, who lives in Holderness close, Harworth, South Yorkshire. The local council gives pensioners free bus passes. If pensioners do not want bus passes, they can exchange
  732
  them for the equivalent of a black and white television licence costing about £35 a year. Astonishingly for a niral area, 30 per cent. of pensioners prefer a television licence to a free bus pass. Many of them shop in the village shop. They do not travel long distances on buses, and travel into town only about twice a year at Christmas, so a television licence is extremely useful.
  Anomalies have existed for many years. At one time, big hotels such as the Savoy had one television licence for 400 bedrooms. Very smartly, the Labour Government of 1968 changed that. When I first became a Member of Parliament, we told the then Labour Government that the Savoy hotel should be treated no differently from old people's sheltered accommodation. There is a link, although it may be horizontal rather than vertical. That was how the cheap television licence came into being. Every pensioner in sheltered accommodation with a warden paid a shilling—5p—and the BBC did not like it at all.
  That arrangement was spoilt by a council in Huddersfield, which said that rent collectors were like wardens, and that every pensioner from whom rent was collected was therefore entitled to a cheap television licence. The BBC went to court, and the system was stopped. It has always been the BBC's aggression, rather than the House, that has caused anomalies.
  Our Select Committee then said, in the context of the Savoy hotel, that any hotel with more than 50 bedrooms—it did not want small boarding houses to be included—ought to pay a licence for each television set in each of the extra bedrooms. The licensing unit people would riot have that, however. The law was amended, and the Savoy must now pay a licence for every 15 sets; but if the Savoy can have just one licence for 15 television sets when it charges £150 a night for each room, why the hell cannot pensioners and other hard-up people continue to have their television sets at the seaside? It is time that the Minister looked into what the licensing unit is doing.
  4 pm
  The Select Committee discovered that 40 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland never pay for television licences. They call the licence fee an English tax, and stick two fingers up at the men in the detector vans. The men in the vans are terrified to do anything about it, and avoid certain parts of Belfast because of the problems that there have been in the past. The Committee found that, in the east end of London, 15 per cent. of licence fees had not been collected: owing to the rapid turnover Of bedsitters, with six people living in a house divided into six rooms, no one knew who owned the television set. As the authorities did not know who should be prosecuted, they simply walked away.
  Representatives of the magistrates courts begged the Committee on bended knees to do something about the problem. They were fed up with sending people—mainly women—to gaol. Last year, nearly 800 people were imprisoned for non-payment of licence fees. The magistrates told us that they were not people who would not pay, but people who could not. They did not have the £84. They were single parents, faced with the choice between having their electricity cut off and not paying their television licence fee.
  People do not go to gaol if they do not pay their water, gas or electricity bills; they are disconnected. But if they cannot pay for their television licences, and cannot pay

  733
  the fine, they go to gaol. The magistrates, the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the legal profession have protested about that. People who do not pay may be imprisoned for only seven days, but, if a single mother with three kids goes to gaol for seven days, it costs the local council £2,000 to look after those children.
  The people at the licensing unit receive bonuses related to the amount they collect. That is why women, kids and pensioners are roped in. They do not visit homes at night, when it is dark; they visit them during the day, when it is mainly unemployed people, pensioners and one-parent families who are sitting at home. They are continually chasing revenue with which to enhance their bonuses. They do not bother about the Savoy hotel; no legislation has been introduced to deal with it. This is simply vindictive revenue gathering, in the knowledge that people must pay or go to gaol.
  That is what is wrong with the legislation: it hits the people who cannot afford to pay, rather than catching the people in the big hotels who can. I hope that the Minister will reconsider, and withdraw the measure. If he does so, he will be a very popular man.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I support new clause 18. Let me draw the Minister's attention to my early-day motion 972, which seeks to persuade the Government to do something very similar.
  It is always useful for Opposition Members to be able to blame the Government for just about everything. The BBC asked for the new interpretation. If it had not, there would be no change, because the interpretation used to be that, if there was a licence for the main home, there was no need for another one. That is sensible, because no one can simultaneously watch television in his home and in his caravan or holiday home.
  The BBC sought an interpretation, and presumably it got the answer it wanted, which will cost some people a great deal of money. But the interpretation is ludicrous, because, as I have said, people cannot watch two television sets at the same time. I accept that, if part of a family is watching television at home while the other family members are watching another set, they should be required to buy two licences, but it is not fair to ask people to pay twice for one service, and I can think of no other area in which that happens.
  Many thousands of people—including many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members—enjoy their caravans and holiday chalets over the summer, and should not be penalised by having to pay twice for one service. I urge the Minister to accept the sentiments of the early-day motion and the new clause. He should revisit the situation and come up with a reinterpretation, so that people are not penalised in this way.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for putting such good points. The provision has given rise to massive grievance; many hon. Members are getting representations about it from people with caravans, chalets or other such accommodation.
  The BBC has been forced into the situation by the licensing system. The licence fee is not increased by as much as it should be or by the rate that BBC costs are
  734
  increasing, so the BBC is forced to extract the maximum revenue from it, and that leads to bullying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, people dare not use such bullying in Northern Ireland, where there is massive unpaid revenue. The process is exercised against the poor, the vulnerable, the old, and those who happen to be at home when the detector van calls.
  I, too, went to see Grimsby magistrates about the sending of people, especially women, to prison. The magistrates do not want to do it: it is a question of unpaid fees. The problem seems to arise because, when the detector vans call, it is often the woman who is at home watching television, while the man may be down at the pub boozing away the licence fee. Therefore, it is the woman who is charged. It is monstrous that, in effect, the BBC has opened a massive grievance to extract its revenue. We should do something about that.
  Our new clause is modest—it is a moderate clause from a moderate party—and covers only caravans that are used for holiday accommodation and are not let. It should also cover chalets and other such accommodation, which I do not know how to describe. There is exotic architecture along the sea front, especially in my area. It is "Costa del Caravan" there.
  In the summer, some people who live in Grimsby migrate two or three miles down the coast to get the better weather in Cleethorpes. They live in caravans or chalets, and they take the television set with them. They do not leave it at home, where it and the video could be stolen. It is not a question of watching one service: there is only one set, and it has to be portable—if it were not, it might be stolen.
  Those people naturally feel a grievance. They are told that they must have two licences, but that they can claim a rebate in each place for the part of the year that they are not in that place. The rebate, however, is not enough to reduce the charge to a fair level, so that is not a satisfactory solution. Our new clause is a sensible way of approaching the matter.
  I also support the proposals in new clause 42, which deals with another long-standing grievance. The matter has been argued over so much. It causes much bitterness that one set of pensioners can get the reduced licence fee and another set cannot. I am amazed that, after all this time, the Government have still done nothing about that grievance, which has been festering. Indeed, they have allowed the BBC to add the other grievance about caravans and chalets, which is dealt with in our new clause. I strongly support both new clauses.
  Ms Angela Eagle: I want to concentrate mainly on new clause 42. Since my election, the grievance about who has the concessionary television licence and who cannot qualify for it has been the one most affecting the elderly population in Wallasey, and the one about which they often write to me. One of the difficulties is its perceived unfairness, which new clause 42 seeks to deal with. It is about time that the Government considered what can be done about it.
  The inconsistency infuriates people. They often live next door to someone in the same circumstances and in sheltered accommodation of the same size. There is no difference, apart from the time when an individual moved in and qualified for the concessionary licence, but there is a large difference in the two payments that those

  735
  neighbours must make. The licence fee is £89.50, which is a significant sum for some of our pensioners on low fixed incomes to have to come up with every year.
  We know that many elderly people rely on television for their entertainment. If they are on a low income, they have few other pleasures. I therefore hope that the Government will take both the new clauses seriously. I know that it is a tangled problem, particularly in relation to sheltered accommodation, but I would be interested if the Government could come up with a way of solving some of the anomalies, and of at least helping neighbours to get on better with each other instead of rowing about one paying the £5 concessionary fee while the other must come up with nearly £100 for the same entertainment and service.
  The problem exists for many of our constituents, and I look forward to hearing what ingenious ways the Government have come up with for dealing with the problem, which has persisted for too long.
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): May I address myself to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) first? She has explained the purpose of her new clause. In responding, I shall refer to the "warden requirement" as a convenient shorthand for the term in the qualifying criteria for the concessionary television licence scheme:
  "a person whose function is to care for the needs of (the residents)".
  As we understand it, the new clause's intention is to relax the warden requirement in the regulations, so as to bring within the concessionary scheme sheltered accommodation with visiting warden services. I say to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that I take the matter extremely seriously. She and the hon. Member for Moray will know what we have done in Committee.
  The Government fully appreciate the importance of television to elderly and disabled people, and understand that those who narrowly fail to qualify for concessionary television licences may feel disappointed. However, having responded to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), in Committee, we changed the circumstance where, in sheltered accommodation, if only one person owned their flat, no one else could get a concessionary licence. That is coming forward.
  As the hon. Member for Wallasey said, it is a tangled matter. I try to go one step at a time. I have solved one problem, which was bitterly felt by many people in Merthyr Tydfil, in Worcester, and no doubt in other places, but we cannot accept new clause 42. I have considered it, as I have considered the other one. I found a solution to the other problem, but I cannot, at this moment at any rate, find a solution to this one.
  Mrs. Ewing: I think that we all appreciate the concession that was granted in Committee. However, the warden in the sheltered housing complex about which I am concerned tells me that her responsibilities are the same for both groups of residents. Therefore, she cannot for the life of her understand why there should be a difference in application of the concessionary licence. Is not that another anomaly that should be looked at? I ask
  736
  the Minister again to undertake a total review of the way in which we deal with concessionary licences for the elderly, disabled and vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. Sproat: I will certainly look at the anomaly in the hon. Lady's constituency, and I will see where that leads me.
  On new clause 18, the Government sympathise with the concern expressed by caravan owners and the tourist industry that a second television licence may be needed for those who wish to watch television in caravans.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) must have many caravans in his constituency. He has spoken to me about this matter before. In response to what he has said, and in response to the Opposition's amendment, I am glad to say that we will introduce regulations to take account of changes in the use of television in recent years, including those affecting touring caravans and other types of vehicles and vessels. We will aim to do that as soon as possible. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will withdraw the motion.
  Dr. Moonie: I thank the Minister for his helpful remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 19

  RESTRICTION ON RE-BROADCASTING OF PROGRAMMES FORMING SUBJECT OF FAIRNESS COMPLAINT
  '.—(1) No programme against which the BSC has entertained a fairness complaint shall, without the prior consent of the relevant regulatory body, be repeated in full or in part within the United Kingdom nor included in any service intended for reception outside the United Kingdom until the complaint has been adjudicated upon and the BSC's decision made known to the complainant.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a complaint shall be deemed to have been entertained by the BSC if on a preliminary examination it appears to the BSC to disclose a reasonable case to answer.
  (3) Where the BSC has upheld a fairness complaint in respect of a programme the relevant broadcasting body or, as the case may be, the relevant licence holder, shall not cause the programme to the repeated within the United Kingdom nor permit the inclusion of the programme in any service intended for reception outside the United Kingdom until it has been edited to remove the part or parts of the programme which the BSC has adjudicated to be unfair.'.—[Sir Michael Marshall.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.15 pm
  Sir Michael Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 137, in clause 101, page 91, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2A) It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when requested by a person or body of persons with reason to believe that their privacy has been, is being, or is about to be infringed in connection with the obtaining of material for a forthcoming programme, to investigate and satisfy themselves that the relevant code in force under subsection (2) above in respect of privacy has been properly applied; and any such request by a person or body of persons shall not prejudice any rights they may have under section 105 of this Act.'.
  Sir Michael Marshall: I believe that it would be more convenient to discuss amendment No. 137 first.

  737
  It is related to clause 101 and covers complaints by aggrieved parties of unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy. It is concerned with the role of the broadcasting or regulatory authorities and their relationship with the new Broadcasting Standards Commission, which I shall refer to as the BSC. It is concerned about a situation where complaints are made before a programme has been broadcast. It will become apparent that new clause 19 is about the handling of complaints after transmission.
  I make the point at the outset that the new clause and the amendment have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and myself in the light of our experience and that of our constituents in respect of the film entitled "Beyond Reason", which was shown on 20 February 1995. The scale of the problems and the distress caused to our constituents can be judged by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's subsequent adjudication of 12 October 1995. It said:
  "The Broadcasting Complaints Commission have upheld complaints about the drama, 'Beyond Reason' commissioned by Carlton Television and shown on the ITV network last February. The film tells the story of the killing four years earlier of Penny McAllister. wife of Captain Duncan McAllister, an army officer serving in Northern Ireland. Her throat had been cut by her husband's mistress, Susan Christie, a private soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment, who was given a sentence of five years—increased to nine on appeal—for manslaughter.
  The BCC found that the film unwarrantably infringed the privacy of Duncan McAllister and his family, and that of Penny McAllister's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Squire. Both families had repeatedly pleaded with Carlton Television not to go ahead with the film they had commissioned about the tragedy. The Commission found that, although there had earlier been widespread reporting of the tragedy, there was no public interest justification for showing the film, which had been made as a television drama for public entertainment.
  The BCC also found that the programme showed Duncan McAllister as a man far more heartless, selfish and uncaring than could be supported by all the evidence. The portrayal of his seeming callousness when told of Susan Christie's reported pregnancy and miscarriage was particularly unfair.
  Finally, the Commission upheld complaints from Mr. and Mrs. Squire that the film's opening captions did not make it clear to viewers that the programme was made despite their strong objections and without any co-operation from them."
  I have quoted that in full because it is important to understand the thrust of the new clause and the amendment. I should add that the dead girl's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Squire, are my constituents, and that the interests of Mr. Duncan McAllister and his parents were handled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire as their constituency Member of Parliament.
  It may also help to put the matter in context if I refer to the 1994 report of the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I had the opportunity during an Adjournment debate on 8 March 1995, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State responded, to quote the remarks of the chairman of the BCC—then Canon, now Lord Pilkington—to whose work I pay tribute, as I do to the work of the BCC. In 1994, he said:
  "We continue to be concerned by crime reconstructions particularly when they are based on cases which have occurred in the recent past. We feel it is very important that in the making of such programmes consideration is given to the position of the relatives of the victim."—[Official Report, 8 March 1995: Vol. 256, c. 435.]
  738
  Against that background, I shall explain why my right hon. Friend and I—because of our experience and that of our constituents—suggest that our amendment and new clause are necessary. When we were first approached by the families concerned, a year before the screening of "Beyond Reason", we used every opportunity to persuade the Independent Television Commission, as regulator, and Carlton (UK) Television Ltd., as the company commissioning the film, to give full weight to complaints of unjust and unfair treatment and of invasion of privacy, which we could see that the project represented.
  We stressed in particular the distress caused to our constituents in recreating that tragedy—including the murder in 1991 and the trial in 1992—so soon after the events, and that the outrage and distress were compounded by recreating the dead girl, her parents and Duncan McAllister by look-alike actors. Our appeals were rejected. The ITC said that the project did not breach its current guidelines and codes of practice for drama documentary.
  Carlton relied on public interest and other arguments, which our constituents found totally unacceptable—as, clearly, did the BCC in the adjudication that I quoted.
  That was in the recent past. What is the situation today? My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I have engaged in a long series of discussions and correspondence with the Department of National Heritage, the ITC and the BBC. The significance of all those parties is worth a few words.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have shown considerable sympathy with the case that we have made. Clearly, we have been determined to ensure that, as far as possible, there should be no repetition of the suffering inflicted on our constituents—or on the constituents of any hon. Member.
  On the general principle, we believe that there must be an advance opportunity to influence programme makers to prevent unfairness rather than merely being able to complain about it afterwards. However, the Department of National Heritage seems to be impaled on the hook of protecting the principle of self-regulation.
  I outline the situation as explained by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a letter to me of 12 June 1996. He wrote:
  "the programme in question led to a number of concerns being raised, even before its broadcast, not just by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission but also by the Independent Television Commission (ITC). I understand that the ITC was, at the time of broadcast, preparing to publish a revised Programme Code, containing new guidelines to be followed in respect of dramatised reconstructions. The ITC had no doubt that 'Beyond Reason' breached those guidelines, but was unable to take action, given that the revised Code was not, at the time, in effect. Nevertheless, the ITC made its views clear to the broadcaster, and made clear its intention to prevent any repeat, as a breach of the new Code, using its powers under the 1990 Act."
  It is not entirely clear whether that means a repeat of the offence or a repeat of the programme, for reasons that I shall mention later.
  My hon. Friend the Minister continued:
  "At the time of publication of its revised Programme Code, the ITC wrote to broadcasters, highlighting the new guidelines and explaining their implications."

  739
  Coming to amendment No. 137, in the terms before us, my hon. Friend the Minister then commented:
  "If I may turn now to … the amendment, my understanding here is that the measures you propose are unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent an individual from approaching a regulator in connection with an allegation that a broadcaster has infringed or is likely to infringe his or her privacy. In such circumstances, the regulator, even without the power of preview or veto, is free to approach the broadcaster or licence holder informally to remind them of their responsibilities under the relevant codes or guidelines. If the broadcaster ultimately ignores this warning, he does so in the knowledge that severe sanctions may result."
  That was the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister, which I have discussed with him, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. I shall return to the points that he made in a moment, but for the sake of completeness I want to refer to the arguments against the amendment put forward by both the BBC and the ITC, and which clearly have had a strong influence on the Department's thinking.
  I emphasise that it is important to note the problems of principle about which I am arguing, because they are not confined to the ITC. Discussions with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission show that examples of actual and potential problems in this area could affect BBC television and the Radio Authority. I want to concentrate my remarks on television, as the medium about which my right hon. Friend and I have been most concerned during recent months. I shall summarise the reactions of the BBC and the ITC to amendment No. 137, of which they were given advance notice. Perhaps, in these rigorous days, I should declare my interest as a former BBC cricket commentator. The chances of getting such work again in this egalitarian age, with women commentators—something I am sure the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) welcomes—are rather narrow. In passing, I point out that, as a strong proponent of the need to sustain the BBC World Service, I can generally be taken to be a fan and supporter.
  Having said that, I can only describe the BBC's reaction to the proposals in amendment No. 137 as one of, "Auntie knows best." I shall quote from a letter that I received from the BBC's parliamentary liaison officer, dated 21 May 1996:
  "The proposed amendment … would impose an additional burden on the BBC quite separate from the BSC complaints procedure. The question of whether the BBC's Code had been complied with will arise in any event as part of the consideration of the complaint. It is important to remember that the BBC's duty is to 'reflect the general effect of the BSC code as it is relevant to the programmes in question'. The amendment would give complainants an unnecessary and potentially alternative procedure."
  The ITC has consistently shown a greater willingness to address our concerns. Indeed, through correspondence with its chairman last January, it stated that the ITC was ready to accelerate the process of sanctions against those breaking relevant codes. I shall not detain the House with the detail, but that is a welcome assurance. However, the ITC, like the BBC, argues that amendment No. 137 is unnecessary because the procedure is already open to a potentially aggrieved party. In its letter of 28 May, the ITC also expressed fears that to formalise the procedure could lead
  "to a flood of appeals to the ITC, some of which might be self serving and mischievous."
  With that background, I shall now make the case for amendment No. 137. I have tried to give the full flavour of the objections from the BBC and the ITC and of the
  740
  way in which they have been reflected in the preliminary responses of the Department of National Heritage. Let us consider them in turn.
  First, all three parties—the Department, the BBC and the ITC—agree that the procedure outlined in amendment No. 137 is already open to those who wish to complain. Why then discourage its formal incorporation in the Act? Surely the argument that such formalisation would lead to a flood of complaints applies whether the powers are voluntary or statutory. Secondly, experience shows that the viewing and listening public have little or no idea of to whom they can turn. They cannot distinguish between the Broadcasting Standards Council, the regulatory authority, the ITC, the BBC board of governors, the broadcaster, the programme maker and so on.
  4.30 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I became involved through handling our constituents' complaints and acting as advocates for them at the hearings of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. We found the process lengthy and complicated. It was difficult for the ordinary citizen without full administrative support to make any headway. I have little doubt that many people have been deterred in the past.
  On amendment No. 137, I fear that I cannot accept the assertion of my hon. Friend the Minister and the regulatory bodies that such problems cannot recur. There has been some tightening: the ITC recognises that there are circumstances in which it would be difficult to justify programmes such as "Beyond Reason", where the likely distress to the people concerned is greater than the public interest. However, there is no certainty in the matter.
  What about the temptation facing a licence holder whose franchise may not be extended? Is there not a danger of a sensationalist end to the franchise designed to maximise final advertising revenue? As for the BBC, recent experience with the broadcast interview with the Princess of Wales shows that even the board of governors is not necessarily au fait with the corporation's production activity. For those reasons, I cannot understand why there should not be a clear statement in the Bill, which would emphasise the regulator's role in providing some public reassurance. Above all, it would give some hope to aggrieved parties that action may be possible before the damage is done. I commend amendment No. 137.
  New clause 19 logically follows amendment No. 137 in seeking to curtail the apparent disregard of the upholding of fairness complaints. I gave the House an outline of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's adjudication on "Beyond Reason", which could not have been more damning. But what followed? Within days of the adjudication, the programme was broadcast again in Australia. That raises the question whether the ITC was correct to advise my hon. Friend the Minister that it had exercised its power to prevent repeats. I shall return to that point later, but I ask the House to consider the effect on constituents of yet another round of publicity and correspondence, which added to their distress.
  New clause 19 addresses the prevention of repeats at home and overseas and would give additional teeth to the proposed Broadcasting Standards Commission to remove material that is judged to be offensive from such repeats. I emphasise that new clause 19 has been changed to try

  741
  to take account of what I accept were genuine objections to it. I should outline briefly the actions of the three main parties before I explain how we have amended it.
  The BBC's parliamentary liaison officer wrote:
  "Regrettably the proposed New Clause on Restriction on Re-Broadcasting of Programmes forming subject of complaint treads on essential editorial freedom and independence. The BBC is established and governed by a Royal Charter and Agreement as an independent broadcaster and is not subject to the editorial decisions of any other body. This is a matter of fundamental principle. The integrity and responsibility of BBC programmes are not just well attested.
  The new Royal Charter and Agreement specifically requires that independence. Impartiality and standards of good taste and decency and accountability are also required. No additional regulations are needed to guarantee these principles and practices."
  Does not that fly directly in the face of all the arguments put forward by those who have shown that the BBC cannot automatically count on the form of regulation suggested? Interestingly, no reference is made in those comments to the invasion of privacy. Many may feel that that shows the BBC at its worst, with an apparent declaration ofindependence from any future role of the BSC.
  By contrast, the ITC showed a desire to help. I quote again from the chief executive's letter of 28 May 1996. On the new clause, it said
  "The ITC is entirely sympathetic to the wishes of a legitimate complainant that a programme should not be repeated while the BSC adjudicated on the matter. However, current Broadcasting Complaints Commission processes may take many months and in some cases more than a year to reach adjudication. A mischievous complainant, who took exception to a programme (but had no legitimate grounds to do so) could block its repeat during this period. This clause would therefore have the unintentional side-effect of placing a significant block on broadcasters' legitimate freedoms."
  On restrictions on overseas use, it said:
  "The difficulty with this … is that it assumes that the UK broadcasting body or licence holder will also control secondary rights for overseas use. That is not always the case."
  In both correspondence and meetings, my hon. Friendthe Minister related our original draft new clause to one moved in another place by the noble Baroness Dean, who sought to help us in taking the new clause through the other place. I pay tribute to her work in that regard. However, the proposal was rejected, largely because of the ITC's objections, which I mentioned earlier. In fairness to all concerned, I therefore stress that the new clause moved this afternoon meets the genuine concerns put to us.
  The key element in the new clause is that it is covered by the words:
  "without the prior consent of the relevant regulatory bodies".
  Subsection (2) defines the basis on which the BSC will be deemed to entertain a complaint. With those changes, we have reasserted the principle of self-regulation, by confirming the power of the regulatory body to say yes or no to repeat programming. Thus we also meet the flooding and mischievous complaint concerns.
  I accept that overseas repeats will sometimes be beyond the powers of the regulatory body, but clearly not in all cases. Many broadcasters control both UK and overseas distribution. That sanction should be in place. The moral case must apply to those who seek to beat the system,
  742
  because I assume that they must look to a longer-term relationship with the regulatory authorities, as current and potential licence holders.
  For those reasons, new clause 19 would meet the needs that are plain for all to see. I wish to end on this thought. I have tried to present the arguments of the giants in this field of endeavour—the ITC, a major Department of state and the BBC—dispassionately. But I ask all hon. Members to consider how they and their constituents would feel against the background of an appalling piece of drama documentary such as represented by "Beyond Reason".
  In a spirit of seeking to prevent and deter such suffering, as well as to present a genuinely clearer statement of the options open to aggrieved parties, both before and after the transmission of a television programme, I urge the adoption of the new clause and amendment.
  Mr. Richard Needham: In his usual dispassionate way, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has put the case against the film "Beyond Reason" and expressed our concerns. They are simply that no such film should be made or shown again. To achieve that, something must happen to ensure that such films do not appear on television.
  This was a disgraceful and disgusting film, which started with the dead wife's blood being shown through rainwater pouring through ferns. The producers of the programme agreed with my hon. Friend's constituent that that was the least that they could do to show how the murder took place, and they took out the scene of the murder.
  It is not as if that film—a faction drama mixing fact and fiction—is unique. There are similar scenes in other documentaries made in this country and elsewhere. It is an absolute abuse of a modern producer's power, and its effects were devastating on those to whom it applied.
  My hon. Friend and I have the single concern that there should be sufficient provisions in the BBC and ITC codes to ensure that that does not happen again. The ITC tells us that, in its view, the new code should ensure that it does not happen again, although I have read the new code and found that some holes remain to be blocked.
  One of the most chilling aspects of the new code is that it says that, in considering whether such a film should be broadcast,
  "Consideration should be given to taking professional advice about the likely effects of the dramatisation. Of particular relevance would be the views of clinical psychologists specializing in this area, or of Victims Support organisations or, with the agreement of the individuals concerned, those counselling them."
  Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the feelings of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend, the parents of the murdered girl and the parents of the husband—who were themselves traumatized—on being told that the decision whether the film should be seen should depend on clinical psychologists and those who counsel them? It is unthinkable that it should be allowed to happen.
  Does the Minister feel that enough is being done? Although my hon. Friend and I accept that the ITC has moved a long way, we are not sure that the BBC has done so. It still appears to believe that the principle of editorial freedom means that such films should not be considered until they have been shown. Amendment No. 137 is a

  743
  belt-and-braces measure, so that those involved have adequate recourse to prevent the film being shown the first time.
  We can clinically and objectively debate the issues and perhaps the remedies, but we should never forget that we are dealing with desperate tragedy. In this case—there have been many similar cases in the past few years—two families were first traumatised by a vicious murder and then further devastated by the ruthless, careless men who were determined to make prurient entertainment by embellishing and exaggerating the horror that befell the families. As a result, the lives of both those families, not least the mothers of the murdered girl and of the husband, have been damaged.
  The House cannot allow innocent families or mothers to be damaged and scarred, perhaps irretrievably, by those who have neither feeling nor understanding. My goodness, how my hon. Friend and I and others spent time trying to persuade the bosses of Carlton, those who were making the film and everyone who was involved that the film should not be shown, but they could not have cared less. As my hon. Friend said, the day after the adjudication by the BCC, it was decided to show the film in Australia.
  In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that we are dubious about anything that comes before the House which involves self-regulation—shoulds, maybes, mights, coulds and woulds—instead of enabling us to be sure that such a thing cannot happen again.
  We believe that our amendment will achieve that and exactly that. If my hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, it is up to the Minister to prove us wrong.
  Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) know that I am extremely sympathetic to their concerns. The example of "Beyond Reason", which they cited, was especially shocking, in that the Independent Television Commission had already taken steps to deal with the problem, but the revisions to its code, especially on drama documentaries and faction, came into effect only after the programme was broadcast. The ITC was therefore unable to take action against the broadcaster. It has since, however, made clear the responsibility of its licensees in respect of programmes of this kind.
  4.45 pm
  Although it obviously has an important role to play in such matters, the Broadcasting Standards Commission is not a regulatory body; indeed, its independence from the regulatory framework is essential if it is effectively to perform its functions. New clause 19 would effectively, indirectly, establish the BSC as a regulator, which, by virtue merely of entertaining a complaint, regardless of whether that complaint was ultimately upheld, could prevent a broadcaster repeating the programme in question. However, although the BSC should not have such responsibilities, the ITC should, and does.
  The ITC has the power under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to prevent the broadcaster, or any other licence holder, repeating a programme which it judges to be in breach of its code. The ITC has the powers, including robust sanctions, to enforce compliance. It should use them to ensure—by making crystal clear its views and
  744
  the likelihood of any breach resulting in the most serious sanctions—that never again should there be a case such as that of "Beyond Reason", and certainly no repeat.
  Regarding amendment No. 137, there is at present nothing to prevent an individual approaching a regulator in connection with an allegation that a broadcaster has infringed, or is likely to infringe, his or her privacy. The regulator would then be free to approach the broadcaster informally, reminding it of its responsibilities. Any subsequent breach could be met with severe penalties.
  The Government do not, however, consider it appropriate for the BSC, as opposed to the ITC, to involve itself in such matters. The BSC is concerned with complaints about programmes after they have been broadcast. To play a role before that would, in effect, be to become entangled in the regulatory process. I have already explained why that is undesirable.
  Moreover, although the BSC's code must be reflected in the regulators' own codes and guidelines, it is with the regulators' codes that the broadcaster is obliged to comply.
  The Bill has given additional powers to the BSC, which will have an impact in that area. The code on fairness, which, as I explained, broadcasting and regulatory bodies will be obliged to reflect, will allow the BSC's acquired knowledge and experience to feed into the regulators' own expertise. In addition, the BSC will have the power to commission research into issues relating to unfair treatment and infringement of privacy, which will further add to the understanding of those issues.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire mentioned the BBC. The new BBC charter and agreement, which came into effect on I May, gives the governors specific responsibilities, equivalent to those of the ITC, to maintain standards, and those, if not fulfilled, could be subject to judicial review. The new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, has made clear his determination to enforce those obligations. The corporation is also committed to a thorough review of the producers' guidelines, which include detailed advice on matters of privacy and fair treatment.
  I believe that much has been done to prevent further programmes offending in that way, but I fully understand the fear of my right hon. and hon. Friends that that may not be enough. Although the Government do not believe that a legislative solution is called for, I hope that the regulators will take great notice of the concerns expressed today. The Government want never to see again what happened in the case of "Beyond Reason". I hope that, having heard those comments, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not press their new clause and amendment.
  Sir Michael Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for outlining the present position, and particularly for updating us on the BBC's consideration of those matters. I am sorry that he did not feel able to address the thrust of the arguments that we put forward. If an aggrieved person can raise any such matter with the BBC or the ITC—and they have assured us that they will take such concerns into account—it is a shame that we do not have something in the Bill that reiterates the significance of those activities and alerts members of the public to what is available to them at law.
  I recognise that there are genuine technical difficulties in drafting something that becomes statute law and that meets those situations precisely. I have detected sympathy

  745
  in this regard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Hon. Members' opinions will go on the record, and I hope that they influence the regulatory authorities when they look at those matters.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the need to keep the matter under constant review. It is all very well for us to create a fuss, but there is the danger that the issue will slip in a year or two. There is no certainty in such matters. I recognise that my hon. Friend and the regulatory bodies have moved in that regard; we shall do our part and keep an eye on those matters.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20

  USE OF CHILDREN IN TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS
  '.—(1) Section 9 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) The Commission shall take steps to secure that there is included in any code for the time being in force under subsection (1) above a provision prohibiting in any advertisement involving a child the use of voice—over technique or any similar method which has the effect of attributing to that child words or thoughts which, having regard to their sexual or other content, are inappropriate in a child of the age depicted in the advertisement in question.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above a child is a person who has not yet attained ten years of age.
  (2C) "Inappropriate" in subsection (2A) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance to be issued by the Commission as part of the code issued under subsection (1).".'.—[Mr. Tony Banks.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in clause 116, page 100, line 36, at end insert—
  '(d) the effects on viewers and listeners of advertising.'.
  Mr. Banks: New clause 20 has arisen because of a series of television advertisements by Safeway supermarkets. I shall explain the advertisements for the benefit of hon. Members who have not seen them—I am not recommending that they should. Two children—Harry and Molly—are used in the advertisement. In real life, the actor Harry is four and the actress Molly is three—if we can call children of that age actors. In the advertisement, they meet in a Safeway creche and, after some dialogue, an actor's voice-over has Harry say, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and Molly's voice-over replies, "On a first date? What sort of a girl does he think I am?"
  Some people believe that I am making a fuss and that there are better things for me to get on with—I deny that. Other people have said that the advertisement is cute—which is what I have heard from the advertising agency but, of course, it would say that. I believe that the advertisement is very tacky. After seeing the
  746
  advertisement a couple of times, I spoke to some hon. Members from both sides of the House. I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter.
  Safeway does not give a toss about this because it is simply trying to sell more groceries. If hon. Members look at the terms of early-day motion 911—it is signed by 26 Members of Parliament, from all parties—they will see that there are more serious implications involved in this genre of advertising. For example, if this advertisement had used two adults—and not voice-overs—who met in a Safeway supermarket and the man had said to the woman, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and she responded in the way that Molly does, there would have been far more protest. Safeway would have considered that to be vulgar, unacceptable and sexist. It would never have contemplated using such an advertisement and no copy would have been submitted by any advertising agency.
  Why is it that language that would be unacceptable if it came directly out of the mouths of adults is somehow acceptable when it is voiced-over on two children, one aged four and the other aged three? I am not known for being a spoilsport, for being a party pooper or for being particularly prurient. I find this sort of thing offensive and exploitative. What is cute about that sort of language coming out of the mouths of children—or purporting to come out of the mouths of children? Their innocence will be lost soon enough—we do not have to hasten that day in advertisements.
  What we see in this technique is nothing less than cynical and exploitative. The advertisement is not about showing children being cute and sweet; it is about selling groceries—that is the bottom line. The advertisement is not about promoting the welfare of children; it is about selling groceries. I am sure that Safeway can find other ways to do that.
  At one level, such techniques by the advertising agencies play to a silly sentimentality among us all. However, at another level, they run the risk of encouraging those who molest children, who like to convince themselves that children under five have advanced sexual thoughts. That was the fear that I had when I saw the advertisement, but sometimes even I wonder whether I am going over the top. Therefore, I was interested to read an article that backed me up. I refer to an article that appeared in The Independent on Sunday of 26 May that quotes Susan Hope-Borland, a psychologist who has worked with paedophiles for more than 10 years. It states
  "She fears these apparently harmless and amusing scenes will in fact serve to reinforce paedophiles' grossly distorted beliefs about normal childhood behaviour.
  'The implied message in this advert will, unfortunately, fit with the thought processes of many paedophiles,' said Ms Hope-Borland, who works with the North Wales Forensic Psychiatric Service.
  'Paedophiles interpret normal gestures by children as deliberate acts of provocation; they believe that children are sexually aware, and this cognitive distortion is used to justify their behaviour. This kind of advert is certainly not helpful and could be dangerous."'
  They are not my words, but the words of someone who has worked with paedophiles. When we realise just how abhorrent paedophilia is and how disgusted we feel by the actions of such people—indeed, I refer to the Government's recent decision in relation to a register of such people—we have to take this sort of matter seriously. I do not think I am over-reacting on this occasion.

  747
  Safeway's advertisement agency, Bates Dorland, naturally denied such a claim—of course, it would. Mr. Adam Leigh, the account director, has said how few complaints the agency has received about the advertisement—in fact, it received more complaints when, in an earlier ad, Harry said that he did not believe in Father Christmas. Mr. Leigh even had the temerity—it was insulting—to suggest that such criticisms reflect more on the accusers than on the advertising agency. It might be that Mr. Leigh does not have much of a conscience, but if he cannot accept that there could be dangers as a result of the advertisement, he is as witless as he is exploitative of children.
  I have looked at the ITC code to see whether the advertisements could fall foul of the code in relation to the use of children. Paragraph 13 of the code states:
  "Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner."
  Of course, the loophole is that adults are used to put sexual innuendo into the dialogue—it does not come directly out of the mouths of the children. The agency is able to get around the ITC's code by using this technique. The loophole must be closed.
  I know that there is sympathy for my new clause. I hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply. On this occasion, I feel that I am reflecting the views of many hon. Members—this is not just an over-reaction on my part. I have identified a serious matter. I am sure that the Minister will take it seriously.
  Mr. Cynog Dans: I wish to address amendment No. 50—which is grouped with new clause 20—which touches on a similar area of concern. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has referred to the protection of children, which is a large part of my motivation in tabling amendment No. 50. I also tabled a number of other amendments which were not selected. I believe that the competence of the Broadcasting Standards Commission should be extended to include advertising. I would like to see the BSC empowered to adjudicate on complaints about advertising and other related matters. However, the amendment simply gives the BSC the power and the responsibility to conduct research into the effects of advertising on listeners and viewers.
  I do not want to get into a debate about whether the BSC should exist or to start a competition between the BSC and the Independent Television Commission. The reality is that the BSC exists and, as its job is to deal with broadcasting standards, I believe that it should also address the question of television advertising standards. After all, advertising is as much a part of television as the programmes and advertising standards are of equal concern. People should be able to complain about advertisements to the body that is responsible for monitoring broadcasting standards.
  As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West emphasised, advertising is enormously influential—and not just in relation to which brand of product a purchaser selects. Advertising affects whether a product is purchased and in what quantities it is consumed by individuals and by society. It is important to emphasise that most advertising is not concerned with providing information, giving details about the product, or with explaining—by rational and evidential means—the virtues of a particular brand over other brands.
  748
  5 pm
  Advertising is essentially manipulative: it employs great creativity for decadent purposes. It works by establishing associations with ideas. It encourages fantasy and it appeals to a sense of status, emphasising ownership as a status symbol. It appeals to hedonism and many advertisements have eroticism at their heart. On the whole, advertising is a means of encouraging increased consumption: it is the linchpin of consumerism and the consumerist economy.
  I am particularly concerned about the effect of advertising on children. It is not difficult to argue that the manipulation of children for commercial exploitation is offensive. I believe that, by encouraging consumerism among children, we may be creating significant problems for the future. Sustainability will require husbanding the world's resources rather than squandering them. One hopes that thrift, rather than profligacy, will become a virtue in the future.
  Appendix 1 of the 1995 ITC code recognises the impact of advertising on children by prohibiting the advertising of certain products. For example, it prohibits the advertising of alcoholic drinks, liqueur chocolates, matches, medicines, vitamins and certain films before the 9 o'clock threshold. The code states:
  "Advertisements must not exhort children to purchase or to ask their parents or others to make enquiries or purchases."
  Rule No. 7 states:
  "No advertisement may lead children to believe that if they do not have or use the product or service advertised they will be inferior in some way to other children or liable to be held in contempt or ridicule."
  If one applied those rules literally, one would find that most advertising complied with them. In reality, parents know the pressure that their children place upon them as a result of the influence of advertising. It is clear that much advertising has the very effect on children that the advertising code aims to prevent.
  Advertising should be rigorously examined and researched—that is what the amendment calls for. I would particularly like to see that principle applied to advertising that encourages children to consume unhealthy food. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who announced the Government's policy on healthy eating, would welcome that move. It has been suggested that the code should prohibit advertising that encourages excessive consumption of fatty and sugary foods by children.
  The National Food Alliance has expressed considerable concern about that matter and its research has confirmed many of our fears. It found that children's diets are too high in fat, sugar and salt and too low in fibre. It found also that advertising on children's television is dominated by commercials for sweet and/or fatty foods and that advertising can have a powerful effect on children's behaviour, specifically in relation to food and drink. That is a clear recognition of the power of advertising and its influence on children's behaviour. That is a serious matter.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from advertising, a major influence on children's diets is the composition of school

  749
  meals? Does he agree also that reintroducing regulations on the contents of school meals would do a great deal to improve children's diets?
  Mr. Dafis: I agree strongly, but I suggest that we are straying wide of the subject for debate. As a schoolteacher, I remember being horrified when children in the dinner queue were presented with trayfuls of sweets. I thought that that was a thoroughly bad practice.
  However, today I am concerned about advertising. Encouraging unhealthy eating is a serious problem. The National Food Alliance points out that 25 per cent. of British women—it does not comment about men—will be obese by 2005. It suggests a number of amendments to the ITC code. I would like those amendments to be examined as part of the research that the BSC should carry out in relation to the influence of advertising on the public, and specifically on children.
  The National Food Alliance recommendations are supported by an impressive array of more than 50 organisations, including the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the British Dietetic Association, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the Low Pay Unit, the National Farmers Union and the British Heart Foundation. The recommendations were published in July 1994, but they were not taken on board in the ITC code that was published in autumn 1995. The issue of food advertising is only one reason for tabling the amendment. I believe that there are plenty more reasons and that the amendment deserves serious consideration.
  Mr. Sproat: I turn first to the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I understand his concerns about the potential exploitation of children in advertising and I know that the Safeway case that he cited disgusted many people. Both the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council received several complaints that the advertisement portrayed children in an inappropriate manner. The BSC has yet to deliver its findings on the complaints, but apparently the ITC did not find that the tone of the advertisement was sexually provocative or likely to encourage paedophilia. However, as I understand it, that was not the hon. Gentleman's charge: he objected to the advertisement's portrayal of children in a sexual situation. I hope that the ITC will view the hon. Gentleman's speech in that light and I shall certainly bring that point to its attention.
  I agree that advertising must not sexualise children. The ITC code of advertising standards and practice contains the clear direction that
  "Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner."
  That is not the hon. Gentleman's claim—he would complain if the advertisement did that. He is complaining that the advertisement associates children with a sexual encounter between adults and that that is offensive. It is open to the ITC to strengthen its code in light of its own experiences and concerns and that of others, and it may now wish to do so. However, I do not believe that the example cited by the hon. Gentleman represents a trend in advertising that merits a specific legislative measure of this kind. I certainly hope that no such trend develops.
  750
  As I have said, I share the deep unease of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about what took place and I shall draw his remarks, which echo the opinions of many hon. Members and others, firmly and specifically to the ITC's attention. Following that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw new clause 20.
  I shall turn now to amendment No. 50. Section 12(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 places a specific responsibility on the ITC to carry out or commission research into the effects of programmes, including advertisements. The Broadcasting Standards Commission may also, under the Bill, commission research into the effects of advertising to the extent that the research relates to matters falling within its remit, including issues of standards, fairness or privacy. The Government do not however feel that it would be appropriate to extend that power to cover issues relating to the effects of advertising generally. I hope, therefore, that in the light of that explanation the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will not press amendment No. 50.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I thank the Minister for what he has said. I know that he takes this matter seriously, as I do. I consider new clause 20 to be a shot across the bows of the advertising agency and the advertiser. A trend has not yet developed and I hope that, after our short debate and after the Minister has acted as he has undertaken to do, we will not see any such trend. I shall personally continue to monitor the situation, as will others. Under the circumstances and with the assurances that I have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 22

  MATTERS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL ACCESS SYSTEMS
  '.—(1) Any person who operates a conditional access system shall be required to first obtain from the Commission a licence for the operating of such a system.
  (2) The Commission may after consultation with the Director grant a licence for the operating of a conditional access system.
  (3) A licence granted under this section shall be in writing and shall continue in force for such period as may be specified in or determined by or under the licence.
  (4) A licence granted under this section shall include conditions requiring—

  (a) payment to the Commission on the grant of the licence or payments during the currency of the licence (or both) as may be determined by or under the licence;

  (b) any person who is authorised by the licence to operate a conditional access system to furnish to the Commission, in such manner and at such times as they may reasonably require, such documents, accounts, forecasts, returns or other information as they may reasonably require;

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

  (d) determination by the Commission of such questions arising under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified;

  (e) any person who is authorised by the licence to operate a conditional access system to provide services to all relevant television programme service provides without undue preference or discrimination; and

  751

  (f) compliance with such further conditions as appear to the Commission to be requisite or expedient having regard to the duties imposed on them by subsection (7) below.

  (5) Subsection 4(e) shall not apply to the holder of a licence under Section 72 of the 1990 Act to provide local delivery services.
  (6) Any sums received by the Commission under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
  (7) It shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions in the grant of licences hereunder in the manner which they consider is best calculated:

  (a) to ensure fair and effective competition between persons engaged in the provision of conditional access systems;

  (b) to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom of conditional access systems and to ensure that access to such systems are fair and reasonable.

  (8) The holding by any person of a licence authorising the provision of a conditional access system shall not relieve him of any requirement to hold a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 in connection with the provision of such a system.
  (9) Any person who operates a conditional access system within the United Kingdom shall be guilty of an offence unless he is authorised to operate such a system by licence granted hereunder.
  (10) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable:

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

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

  (11) No proceeding in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or on behalf of the Commission.
  (12) Without prejudice to subsection (9) compliance with this section shall be enforceable by civil proceedings for an injunction or interdict or other appropriate relief.'.—[Dr. Moonie.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Dr. Moonie.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 47—Licensing of conditional access technology—
  'After section 45 of the 1990 Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
  "45B (1) It shall be the duty of the relevant authority to ensure that any person operating a conditional access system for the digital transmission of a domestic or non domestic satellite service, or any digital terrestrial service for general reception

  (a) declares in advance of operating the conditional access system the type of system to be used, and

  (b) offers to licence, or as the case may be, sub-licence, the industrial and intellectual property rights to all manufacturers and broadcasters on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

  (2) In this section the "intellectual and industrial property rights" means those rights allowing for:

  (a) the manufacture of a decoding box which is capable of decoding entitlement management information transmitted with that service, and

  (b) the broadcast of encrypted television signals and entitlement management information by other broadcasters using that system.

  (3) In this section 'the relevant authority' means the Director General of Telecommunications.".'.
  Amendment No. 127, in clause 35, page 29, line 44, at end insert—
  '"Conditional access system" means any telecommunications systems or telecommunications apparatus designed or adapted for the origination, initial transmission and final reception of signals for the actuation, operation or control from another place of other telecommunications apparatus by means of which signals comprising encrypted television programme services in either analogue or digital form (or any combination thereof) are broadcast or transmitted for general reception and received and decrypted.'.
  Amendment No. 128, in page 30, line 3, at end insert—
  "Director" means the Director General of Tele-communications.'.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: We dealt with issues cognate to new clause 47 yesterday and it deals with the licensing of conditional access technology—the technology used at the receiving end in a set-top box. Some of the issues that we considered yesterday do not bear repeating, but because new clause 47 deals with a matter of great concern, especially for the consumer organisations, it is right to raise the issue explicitly again.
  New clause 47 has the support of the ITC, the BBC, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association. In Committee, the Minister recognised that the issue was perhaps the most serious and important of the Bill. I do not seek, through the new clause, to mandate a single conditional access system. It would provide that the operators of conditional access systems would have an obligation to license the key industrial and intellectual property on fair and reasonable terms so that other manufacturers could produce a dual-capable box that could access signals from both digital-terrestrial and digital-satellite transmissions. Proprietary systems would still emerge and their operators would be free to place them on the market—and even to subsidise them heavily, as seems likely—but consumers would still have the option to buy in the high street a box that includes the key technology needed to access the full range of digital services.
  5.15 pm
  It has been suggested that licensing would be expropriatory in some way. I fail to understand how that charge can be made because new clause 47 provides that the licensing would take place on fair and reasonable terms or, in other words, on payment of a fee.
  We cannot delay on this issue because we would hold up the development of digital television and sap consumer confidence. We should move clearly and quickly to take account of the problem. New clause 47 would simply remove a barrier to the operation of the market and, if one system is successful, ensure that service operators cannot be prevented from adopting that system.
  The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Some of the elements of new clauses 22 and 47 were touched on last night and, therefore, I too will refrain from going through the detail again. I realise that the House wants to make swift progress.
  New clause 22 would extend the conditional access regulations to analogue transmissions. In my judgment, that would not be a wise move. The analogue market is

  753
  likely to be constrained by the availability of transponder capacity and the market will probably decline as the push to digital happens. There will be an incentive to be first in the market and the new clause would, therefore, not be appropriate on technical grounds. It would also be inappropriate on market grounds. A stable series of investments were made in the analogue market under a particular regulatory environment and it would not be sensible to change that regulatory environment simply because the Bill provides a legislative platform. Any changes would not engender confidence in long-term investments by market players, who have a right to expect a proper return. The difference in conditional access in the digital market is that the whole market will require the conditional access systems. In the analogue market, the systems are principally required by those broadcasting via satellite.
  New clause 22 would also switch the conditional licensing system to the ITC whereas our proposals will hand it to the Office of Telecommunications under the Telecommunications Act 1984. Licences under that Act will be required in any event by people using conditional access systems. We do not believe in double jeopardy and, in our judgment, Oftel is the appropriate authority because it is used to dealing with detailed economic regulations. Telecommunications lines will also often be one of the means of broadcasting. The Government will therefore resist new clause 22.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned new clause 47. I dealt with some of the issues last night, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's motivation. We want to create certainty in the market and we do not want problems between different systems. The mandatory licensing of all conditional access technology appears, on the surface, to be attractive. However, as I explained to the House last night, the European directive and our regulations would meet the problems that most concern the hon. Gentleman. Broadcasters will be able to interconnect with conditional access systems under our proposals through the use of simul-crypt. The Bill will link the technology to interconnection rather than introduce further licensing conditions which would be more likely to create delay. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to delay the House, but I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how his system would prevent the emergence of a single powerful player and the consequent limited choice and constantly increasing prices for the consumer. How will the technology stop that?
  Mr. Taylor: The technology comes within the context of the overall competitive regulatory environment, as I explained to the House yesterday and is also made clear in the regulations that I tabled on 26 June. The framework of competition law obliges fair access for all broadcasters to the systems and the regulatory and competition authorities can take certain steps. That clear framework will enable us to encourage the necessary private sector investment to come into the market. The technical prospects behind the process of simul-crypting will enable the transmission signal to
  754
  contain a series of instructions that will enable the decoder to react to the different broadcasters. Therefore, through simul-crypt, the technology enables the operation to work, and the regulatory framework of competition law means that no one can resist the application of a broadcaster to send a transmission signal. That is a sufficient framework.
  We are talking about a system for the future into which, as of this date, no one has put any money. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has spent hours in Committee attempting to get the framework right. The Bill is designed to provide a clear and solid framework so that people are encouraged to come forward with proposals for investing risk capital in the industry.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The market solution which the Government are proposing led, with the introduction of video recorders, to competition between Betamax and VHS. I was one of the unfortunates who bought Betamax, believing it to be a superior technical solution, but, in the end, I had to throw it away because I could not get the videos to play on it. Will a similar situation arise in this case? Shall I buy a set-top box only to find that I shall have to throw it away after six months because I cannot use it?
  Mr. Taylor: That is the first time in the House that the hon. Lady has, to my knowledge, admitted making a technological error. There is a first even at this stage of the Bill.
  Manufacturers and other parties in the industry are well aware of the Betamax problem. That is why standards committees work constantly to ensure that such mistakes do not occur. Ultimately, a commercial judgment has to be made in the marketplace. It is not for me to tell any company that it should not try to go down a particular avenue if it believes that that will give a reward. If it has a dominant market position and abuses it, the competition regulations will come into force. That is the right way to proceed. Otherwise the Government will have to put up the risk capital. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not find much favour from the shadow Chancellor if she were to propose that.
  The simple reality is that no one has as yet put the money on the table to enable us to make the transfer to digital satellite or digital terrestrial television. The Bill must encourage private sector investment as much as possible. Any ill thought through regulations, or any attempt to be over-prescriptive, is likely to have a counteractive effect.
  Our proposals use a competition framework and then we have found a way, through technology, to stimulate convergence.
  Ms Eagle rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I am under great pressure, not least from those on the Opposition Front Bench, to make progress, so I shall not take any further interventions. I look to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) to withdraw the new clause.
  Dr. Moonie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 24

  APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 TO SALE OR TRANSFER OF BROADCASTING RIGHTS FOR SPORTS EVENTS
  '.—(1) Any agreement to which this section applies shall be an excepted agreement for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.
  (2) This section shall apply to any agreement by or among persons engaging in or conducting the professional team sport of association football, or any other professional sport which the Secretary of State may separately by regulations prescribe, by which any constituent league or other body in that sport sells or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of that league's participants in respect of the broadcasting of games engaged in or conducted by those clubs in events organised by such a league or other body.
  (3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercised by statutory instrument and a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.— [Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. David Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 146, in schedule 7, page 155, line 3, at end insert—'Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976—
  24A. In Schedule 3 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 there shall at the end be inserted—
  "Agreements for broadcasting of association football or other prescribed sports
  10. This Act does not apply to an agreement falling within section (Application of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 to sale or transfer of broadcasting rights for sports events)of the Broadcasting Act 1996".'.
  Mr. Mellor: I, too, do not wish to detain the House too long, so I shall be brief. I do want to say, however—I hope without any self-aggrandisement—that brief though my contribution and the debate may be, it raises an issue of fundamental importance to the coverage of televised sport in Britain. I am strengthened in that belief by the fact that one of the attractive features of our debates on broadcasting is that it is possible for us to set to one side the narrow partisanship that has figured in so many debates in this place and to talk together as sensible, reasonable adults, sharing our interests and experience of the world.
  Many hon. Members present today are deeply committed to sport. I am proud, therefore, that my co-sponsor of the new clause should be the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and to see others in their place, such as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), a director of Sheffield Wednesday, who understands from his own practical experience of football in just what a curious situation we find ourselves, with the threat of what I regard—I speak without any exaggeration from 11 years' experience as a Minister and nearly 20 years in the House—as the most foolish intervention by a regulator that I have ever encountered.
  That intervention is the decision of the Director General of Fair Trading to refer the right of Britain's Premier league collectively to sell its television rights to a
  756
  television station. That has nothing to do with the merils of Sky against the BBC or ITV; it is to do with the fundamental right of sports organisations to band together in a league to sell their product collectively as the only way of making sense of the ability to televise, for the enjoyment of a wider public, the games that they play.
  We have a situation that Alice in Wonderland would have difficulty embracing. Lewis Carroll at his most fanciful could not have imagined the situation that rosea in last night's debate on sports rights, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State properly said that the basic principle must be that sporting bodies have a right to sell their broadcasting rights to whomsoever they choose.
  We have chosen—I approve of this—to trench on that right by having the crown jewels of sport. I warmly endorse, and was one of those who worked for, the further changes that are now part of the Bill. But how can the sincere and proper words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State sit with the ludicrous situation of a regulator, who is part of the Government machine, condemning the Premier league for doing precisely that?
  Again, this is a moment that Lewis Carroll would appreciate. At the same time as politicians are condemning the Rugby Union for doing exactly what the Director General of Fair Trading wants, the director general is trying to translate the chaos that currently exists in international rugby union into the world of football.
  What is the nub of the point that lay behind all the condemnatory words that were said yesterday about the Rugby Football Union? It is that the English Rugby Football Union has chosen to break away from the other four and to sell its television rights. It has said, "To hell with the rest of you; we are having our own deal." The response to that will be, "In that case, you don't play in our league." There is then chaos, confusion and anarchy.
  In order to prevent that in Britain, for years now, long before the formation of the Premier league, the Football League had the right, and the Premier league asserts the right, to say, "Here is our fixture list. These are available for television transmission and we have the right to sell fixtures collectively." It is not as though it is a cartel. Teams remain at the top not because they choose to do so but because their results entitle them to do so. Over several years, the membership of the league changes, so it is not a cartel.
  Here we have a curious situation. In the United States, under anti-trust laws, American regulatory authorities are restricted from taking nominated sporting leagues to task for selling their product as an entire package. Everyone knows that unless that happens, chaos and confusion will be the inevitable result.
  If Manchester United has its own television contract and Chelsea has another, how on earth will fixtures between Chelsea and Manchester be managed if one says that its television contract gives its company the right to transmit a service and the other says to the contrary? That would be ludicrous. I cannot imagine how even some pointy-headed quasi-intellectual in the Office of Fair Trading could seriously believe that that lies within the world of practical reality.
  The tragedy is that that threatens football's future just: at a time when a situation for which we have all prayed has begun to happen: football has at long last managed to win through, to get resources flowing into the game and. to bring in on the back of those resources international

  757
  players so that, for the first time in the experience of football spectators, great players from the continent are playing in our league rather than avoiding it like the plague. We are net importers of players, not net exporters. Every club benefits.
  Last season, the distribution of the spoils from television coverage showed that although Newcastle walked off with just over £3 million and Manchester United with just under £3 million, the relegated clubs did well too—Queen's Park Rangers received £1.3 million and Bolton Wanderers received £1.2 million.
  In selling the product as an entire package, the Premier league insists, first, that a highlights package is available on BBC—it is one of the most popular weekend programmes—and, secondly, that those who win the right to show live matches must show a minimum of three games featuring each team in the league. Otherwise, only the most fashionable clubs would have a television contract and the rest would have nothing, making it impossible to spread resources sensibly through the game.
  I shall not detain the House long as the facts speak for themselves, but I should like to make a couple of points in conclusion. First, I hope that the restrictive trade practices court will reject the proposal with contumely. Every time lawyers are dragged into the matter, there are expenses. I know that I am a devil denouncing sin, but from practical experience of sin I should say that the Premier league confidently anticipates that it will have to spend some £2 million to £3 million on legal advice even if the proposal is rejected.
  5.30 pm
  I am glad that hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, for whom I have the highest regard, has returned to his place. Events of the past few weeks have shown that the world of football is not to be trifled with; it commands a good deal more support than many Government Departments, whoever manages them. The suspicion remains that if the Department of Trade and Industry had taken a firmer line with the Office of Fair Trading this nonsense may have been avoided.
  When the Department of Trade and Industry presented a public face in the world of football, the special adviser charged with meeting representatives of the Premier league sounded like a crazed ideologue even beyond my understanding of the furthest, most exotic fringes of the right wing of the Conservative party. Such people should be suppressed. They simply reduce confidence in the Government at a time when confidence should not be further diminished, at least in the interests of Conservative Members.
  The Department of Trade and Industry should have stamped on all this nonsense. It is absolutely clear that if that nonsense had the force of law it would totally destroy our great national game and the pleasure that millions of people derive from it. I wish to give my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage—a Department whose understanding of broadcasting may be more profound than that which prevails in the Department of Trade and Industry—the opportunity to say what the Government really think about it. That is why I took the liberty of proposing the new clause today.
  Mr. Ashton: The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made an excellent speech. I should
  758
  like to support him in slightly more detail, although I shall not detain the House long. I should declare an interest as a director of Sheffield Wednesday, although that job is unremunerated. Nevertheless, the club has an interest in these matters.
  The Sky package deal that ends next season is fairly clear. Sky shows 60 games a year, which guarantees that at least three and probably four games of each club are televised. Under the old system operated by the BBC and the ITV companies, many first division clubs such as Sheffield United or Oldham never appeared on television. Now, each club is guaranteed a fixed number of games, even if they are shown on a Sunday or a Monday. Cash is paid for each place in the league, so that the bottom club gets £50,000, the next one gets £100,000 and so on. Obviously, clubs at the top of the league such as Manchester United and Newcastle make a great deal more money than others, but that is acceptable to every member of the league.
  Some of the cash that has been negotiated under the new deal will be spent on coaching. Local Football Association bodies have been told that someone who cannot afford Sky can at least see the BBC highlights on Saturday night. Clubs receive a relatively small fee for that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I watched Sheffield Wednesday play Newcastle. The game was shown on "Match of the Day" for 25 minutes, yet each club received only £7,000. The BBC paid £1 million a hour for "Pride and Prejudice", which had a far smaller television audience, so the value for money that football provides for sports fans and for the BBC is absolutely clear. It is an excellent scheme that has worked well for three or four years.
  Now, however, the cable operators have had a different idea. Instead of negotiating a package deal with Sky, they want to negotiate separate deals with individual clubs. Obviously, the deal that they will negotiate with Manchester United or Newcastle will be far more valuable than the deal with Sheffield Wednesday or Wimbledon, but what will happen when two differently ranked teams play each other? The cable operators will not explain the position, but there will obviously be chaos. It will not work out.
  To the astonishment of everybody, the then Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, who was about to retire, objected to the Sky deal. Everyone thought that it was one of his enthusiasms, but his concerns were echoed by his successor, Mr. John Bridgeman, who referred the matter to the restrictive trade practices court and asked it to examine whether the Premier league—not just the deal with Sky, but the rule book as well—was operating as a cartel. If the restrictive trade practices court rules that the Premier league and other leagues are operating as a cartel, football on television will be plunged into chaos.
  That will affect not only the clubs, but the players. The players' union has agreed with the clubs that, unlike politicians, who sometimes get paid for appearing on television, players will not receive individual payments for television appearances. The players have agreed to accept a percentage of the Sky money that goes to the clubs, and that money goes to the players' union. It is used to train players, to pay for their university education when they finish their football careers or to help players who suffer a serious injury and have to retire from the game at 23 or 24. It is used for beneficial purposes.

  759
  If the copyright belonged to the player or the player's agent, an agent could say, "You cannot show the goal of the month without paying Cantona £1,000 and a repeat fee of £250 every time it is shown". The goals in the UEFA tournament could not be shown at any other time without constant repeat fees having to be paid, just as Andrew Lloyd Webber receives royalties every time anyone plays his music. It would be an absolute shambles. Unless the Government examine the clause carefully, the entire system will be thrown into Hollywood-type negotiations.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney said, football is now a great worldwide business. I accompanied Mr. Rick Parry, chief executive of the Premier league, to the Department of Trade and Industry—with respect to the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, it is also a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was most sympathetic. We pointed out that the President of the Board of Trade went to China with the England team because of the trade possibilities. If England want to play Chile, Chile will play at Wembley for nothing, but will require a fee of £250,000 to play at Manchester. The reason is simple. When Chile play at Wembley, there will be exhibitions and embassies will host trade delegations. We flew a planeload of business men to China when the England team played there.
  There are massive trade advantages to be gained. Sky makes deals not for fun but because they sell the game around the world. Last Thursday, a delegation from Thailand visited the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was there. The delegation was most enthusiastic about British football.
  British football is fast and exciting and everybody loves watching it on television. Other countries tend to play it like chess. They make 25 sideways passes and 15 backwards passes and bore everybody stiff. Our teams do not do that; they entertain. That is why British football sells around the world. It is a great money earner and helps our export trade. The current proposal puts all that business in jeopardy, so we are asking the Minister to accept our reasonable amendment.
  The European Competition Commissioner, Mr. Karel van Miert, is strongly in favour of the existing system—the governing bodies' right to sell centrally. He is not a particular friend of British football as he opposed the Bosman regulations on player transfer deals and supported something that was not so good for football. On this issue, however, he supports the present set-up as being fair competition and in the best interests of the industry.
  From the point of view of his own Department, the DTI, the Minister for Science and Technology would be well advised to discuss the new clause with some of his colleagues. He should accept, as the American sporting bodies have accepted, that a group of teams is not a cartel. Those teams compete with each other, and can be relegated. That is true of all leagues. Three teams may go down every year, and three may come up. It is not a case of a finite number of teams co-operating to extract the maximum profit; it is competition at the highest level, and as such it should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I declare a modest interest, as unpaid parliamentary adviser to the Scottish Professional Footballers Association. I support
  760
  the new clause. I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), but, before doing so, to disagree with what he said about the Bosman case. I think that its outcome was good for football.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rightly said that all teams benefit from television rights, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was also correct in pointing out that the Professional Footballers Association in England also benefits significantly from such rights and from the principle, established some 30 years ago, of enabling it to secure a percentage of what is paid by television companies. As a result, the association has been able to do a fantastic job for players.
  We are not talking just about the big earners; we are talking about jobbing professionals at all levels of the game, most of whom do not go on to stardom, fame and fortune. After a few years, many find that their football careers are behind them. That is why the role of the players' associations is so important. They must be given the money to enable them to do their job properly, as they have been in England for the past 30 years.
  I take account of the arguments advanced by the clubs, but I hope that in future the rights of players' associations to benefit from all the money that is flowing into the game will be statutorily underpinned. It would be a supreme irony if more and more money went into the game from the television companies, while the hard-earned rights that the players' associations have built up over the years were eroded by the clubs that were gaining increased funds from television rights. That is a simple point. Unfortunately, it cannot be debated in the context of a new clause that has not been selected, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that, while football could arguably continue without directors or even commentators, the one group of people without whom it could not continue is the players. If all this money is flowing into the game, it is right that players at all levels should benefit through their associations.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Opposition Members are pleased to be able to support the new clause tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Along with the accompanying amendment, it exempts football—and any other sport that the Secretary of State may add—from the provisions of the Restrictive Practices Act 1976.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, this new clause and others result directly from the Office of Fair Trading's decision to refer the Premier league to the restrictive practices court. According to the OFT, the league is acting as a cartel in the sale of broadcasting rights. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that it ignores the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, the composition of the league is constantly changing through promotion and relegation: over a five-year period, some 75 per cent. of its membership may have changed. As the Minister knows, I raised the matter with him in a letter on 15 February, in which I urged the Government to consider a measure such as new clause 24. Unfortunately the Minister was not able to respond to my request, but the House now has an opportunity to vote on the issue. I hope that it will support the new clause.

  761
  The OFT's decision is bizarre, and it is odd that it took it so long to make up its mind. The Premier league rules are the same as those of the Football League, which has been in business since 1888. They are also very similar to the rules of most other team sports in which a collective negotiation of television rights is at stake. God alone knows why the Premier league was picked out.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney pointed out, the decision will have severe consequences, not just for football but for all sports in which a governing body acts in the collective name of clubs to sell rights. I believe that the OFT is considering a further 18 such deals involving major sports. We may not always agree with the deals that are struck by those sports, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that any change to the current system of selling rights would bring chaos to sport as a whole. The logic of the OFT's referral decision would enable individual football clubs to sell their own rights, favouring the big clubs with financial muscle to the detriment of smaller Premier league sides. The big clubs would want to sell the rights of their games, perhaps on a pay-for-view basis, making millions in the process. Smaller clubs such as my own beloved Derby County—I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) is here, as it is his beloved club as well; it will be playing for the first time in the premiership next season—will have difficulty in reaching any reasonable deal if the legislation is passed.
  5.45 pm
  As I have said, the legislation will lead to chaos, not just in football but in other sports. We have all seen what has happened in the case of the Rugby Union Five Nations—or should we say Four Nations?—championship when one broadcaster has tried to strike different deals with different parties. That is clearly not a model that we would wish other sports to follow. I hope that the Minister agrees.
  I shall say no more. I think that we should all speak briefly in debates such as this, given the consensus between the two sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will respond to the pleas of those who have spoken so far, and will give us some idea of the Government's thinking.
  Mr. Sproat: The whole House will be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) for bringing this important and topical matter to our attention. I have great sympathy with what he has said and with his intentions, and I have taken careful note of the points that he has made. I understand, and to a great extent share, the concerns that he and other hon. Members have expressed, and, in particular, his view that the current agreements operate in the public interest and are necessary in the light of the character of the services and the game involved. As he will know, however, the referral of the Premier league does not necessarily mean that all such sports agreements risk ending up before the courts. At the time of the referral, the Director General of Fair Trading made it clear that he considered that the Premier league had a major, if not unique, position in the market for television programmes, and that other agreements for the broadcasting of sport being considered by the OFT
  762
  were unlikely to be so significant as to warrant investigation by the court, although each was being considered on its merits.
  It may offer some comfort to my right hon. and learned Friend, and to others who have spoken, if I explain that the existing competition regime includes protections against the negative effects that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned. When the Director General of Fair Trading identifies restrictions in a registrable agreement, he has a duty to refer the matter to the restrictive practices court. An example is the case of the Premier league's collective selling arrangements for broadcasting rights. The court will then consider whether such restrictions are in the public interest. When the parties to an agreement can satisfy the court that the arrangements are beneficial, the court may decide that the agreements operate in the public interest, and not strike them down. One way in which that may be done is by convincing the court that the restriction in question would bring specific and substantial benefits to the public. That is my personal view.
  The debate has given hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to make clear their belief that such an arrangement would not operate in the interests of sport. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, who is sitting next to me, has heard what has been said, and I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney that I shall ensure that the report of the debate and a covering letter are sent to the restrictive practices court, making the views of the House clear. I hope that, having been given that assurance, he will seek leave to withdraw his valuable new clause.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 40

  DUTY OF RADIO AUTHORITY TO SET CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION OF DIVERSITY
  '.—(1) Section 86 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
  (2) Before inviting applications for a licence to provide any of the services mentioned in section 84. the Authority shall publish in draft the criteria which appear to them to be necessary for the achievement of the objectives set out in section 85, with particular reference to the promotion of diversity.
  (3) The Authority shall, at the same time as publishing draft criteria under subsection (2) above, invite observations on them within such period, which shall be not less than three months, as may be specified by the Authority.
  (4) The Authority shall take account of any observations received under subsection (3) above before confirming the draft criteria, which shall be published with such modifications as the Authority think fit.'. —[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 240, in clause 87, page 78, line 27, leave out `eight' and insert 'five'.
  No. 238, in clause 88, page 81, line 11, leave out 'eight' and insert 'five'.
  Mr. Mitchell: The new clause and the amendments are an attempt to promote, support and encourage diversity

  763
  and pluralism in radio, to maximise the variety of radio stations. I think that those are also the aims of the Radio Authority. It is the logical future of radio because it is a medium in which there can no longer be monolithic radio stations serving a wide variety of tastes.
  Stations should cater for sectionalised tastes so that each can recruit its own audience on the back of music that is designed to appeal to that audience. That audience, which may have been recruited by classical music, talk, chart music or by golden oldies for people like me, will then be provided with the kind of news, information and advertisements that are relevant to it and will appeal to it. Identity is built up through the music.
  I sometimes think that new Labour is a Classic FM party. That is our kind of station. It has beautiful themes in short bursts and it is civilised, clean, well presented and eminently desirable. The technique is simple and straightforward and it emerged in American radio and is now being pursued in this country. It is logical to encourage diversity so that as many audiences as possible can be catered for by as many stations as possible. The question posed by the amendments is whether the Radio Authority is going about the provision of diversity in the right way. I question the effectiveness of its decision-making processes.
  The best example of the Radio Authority's inability to take good decisions is LBC. The name was abolished and the station was given to somebody else, who made a total mess of it. After going through changes of ownership and format, it has reverted to its original title but with different programming and it has lost a massive audience in the process. An odd decision led to that and another odd decision was made in relation to Jazz FM in the north-west.
  The Radio Authority's decisions based on its remit to provide diversity are in question. I mention that in the light of my own experience of an application—this is where I declare an interest—for a regional radio contract in Yorkshire. That is what gave rise to the new clause. We started by trying to decide the sort of audience to which we wanted to appeal. In a sense we wanted to appeal to new Yorkshire—to people between 25 and 45. We were advised, and our research and the experience of other stations told us, that we could reach that audience by presenting it with a diet of adult contemporary music. On the basis of that, we could also reach that audience with programmes on art, news and information about Yorkshire.
  Yorkshire has its own proud identity and we made our application on that basis. It was not an appeal to teeny-boppers or to the kids who listen to chart music, nor to geriatrics like me who listen to Capital Gold or easy listening stations. However, the Radio Authority had other ideas. It decided that the Yorkshire station should provide hip-hop dance music for kids. It said that Yorkshire had 3 million adults and that it would give the radio station to the kids. The station went to an outside organisation. The decision was an insult to Yorkshire.
  Regional radio stations are rather different from those in big conurbations where dance music might be appropriate for a teenage audience. The problem relates to the way in which the decision was reached. We were told that the authority would deliberate on the applications on a Thursday and announce the result that afternoon. However, two days before that press steers said that the
  764
  authority was likely to decide on a dance music station. That means that the programming that the authority desired was made known, presumably by steers from Radio Authority staff, before the authority decided which station was to provide that sort of music.
  If the Radio Authority thought that it should fill in the map on the basis of jazz for Lancashire, adult contemporary music for the west midlands, talk and contemporary music for Newcastle and dance music for Yorkshire, it would have been better to say so in advance. Those steers to the press must have come from the authority. They certainly did not come from the bidders, most of whom had bid for other sorts of music and were unlikely to release press statements stating that the station would be broadcasting material different from what they intended to provide. If the steer came from the authority, it must have known in advance the music format that it wanted in Yorkshire.
  The new clause would make the Radio Authority declare its views in advance of applications, because if it does not do so two problems will arise. The first relates to the Radio Authority staff and whether they communicate the authority's views to the industry. Members of the staff have friends and they play golf. They are bound, as they should be, to maintain contacts, to mix with people and to play leading roles. The imputation will be that if they know that the authority is thinking along the lines of dance music for Yorkshire and adult contemporary music for the west midlands, it will be mentioned in conversation with people who submit applications for radio stations. I want to free the authority's staff from the imputation that information is being leaked in advance.
  Secondly, I want to avoid the waste of time that is implicit in a process in which many people make applications at considerable expense. There were 13 applications for the Yorkshire contract, all of which involved expensive research, interviews, preparation, consultation and advice. It was an expensive business and it was a waste of time for applications which did not accord with the music format that the authority thought appropriate for Yorkshire. One applicant said to me, "We have put in five applications and none of them has been successful. We do not intend to put in any more. We are fed up with the whole business." If the authority thought that Yorkshire was right for hip-hop dance music, it should have said so in advance.
  The new clause would make the process transparent by requiring the authority to say in advance that a new station in, for example, region A or town B should transmit dance music or be an easy listening station. It should state the format that it wants in the overall plan. That information should be contestable, so that interested parties can say, "No, we think that an appropriate format for this region is something different." The authority would be required to justify its decision and, in the light of the arguments and representations received, it could ask for applications for a specific kind of music.
  People would know where they stand and those who did not want to apply need not bother. I would certainly not have applied for a dance music station because I would be wasting my time on it and such music is not appropriate to a regional station. Everything would be clear. Amendments Nos. 240 and 238 are designed simply to prevent renewal, because the radio industry is born free but everywhere it is in chains. Takeovers by big chains are

  765
  increasing and radio stations are losing their local identity. They have national promotion patterns, with disc jockeys who have no roots in the region being moved in and out and playing lists being decided outside the region. That is stultifying radio. Let us have more opportunities for people to apply by shortening the renewal period
  The new clause and the two amendments provide, therefore, for more diversity and greater frequency of change in radio. I commend them to the House.
  6 pm
  Mr. Sproat: Section 105 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 lays down four criteria that the Radio Authority must take into account in determining to whom a local licence should be awarded. They are: the ability of the applicant to maintain the service throughout the period of the licence; the extent to which the proposed service would cater for the tastes and interests of people in the area receiving the broadcast; the extent to which any proposed service would broaden the range of services available in the area; and the extent to which the application is supported by people living in the receiving area.
  In addition to those general criteria, new clause 40 would require the authority to publish more detailed criteria. I am not convinced that such detailed criteria would act in the public interest. They would risk fettering the authority's discretion and lead to blander and more formulaic applications. More generally, as a point of principle, politicians should not instruct the authority how to go about its business in fulfilling the task that it has clearly been set by Parliament.
  On amendments Nos. 240, 238 and 239, clause 87 provides for national radio licence holders—Classic FM, Talk Radio and Virgin—to have their licences renewed for a further eight years if they take up their guaranteed slots on digital radio. That provides those broadcasters with greater security to undertake the considerable investment needed to launch their digital services. Similarly, clause 88 allows a local radio station to renew its analogue licence if it has committed itself to digital broadcasting. Again, the renewal period is eight years, the length of the analogue licence.
  We believe that the prospect of renewal will be an important factor in decisions to invest in digital radio. I therefore cannot accept the amendments and I hope that, with my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not press them.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New schedule 2
  TRANSFER SCHEMES RELATING TO THE BBC TRANSMISSION NETWORK: TAXATION PROVISIONS

    Interpretation
    1.—(1) In this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires—
    "the Allowances Act" means the Capital Allowances Act 1990;
    "the BBC transmission network" has the meaning given by section 125(2);
    766
    "the Capital Allowances Acts" has the meaning given by section 832(1) of the Taxes Act 1988;
    "direct disposal scheme" means a transfer scheme which is not a preparatory scheme;
    "direct disposal transfer" means a transfer in accordance with a direct disposal scheme;
    "the documents regulating the BBC" includes—

    (a) the Royal Charter of 1st May 1996 for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and

    (b) the Agreement dated 25th January 1996 between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for National Heritage and the British Broadcasting Corporation;

    "the Gains Act" means the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992;
    "modification agreement" has the meaning given by paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 5;
    "preparatory scheme" means a transfer scheme whose main purpose is to provide for a transfer of property, rights or liabilities from the BBC to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC;
    "preparatory transfer" means a transfer in accordance with a preparatory scheme;
    "relevant transfer" means a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme;
    "successor company" means a company to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with a preparatory scheme at a time when the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC;
    "the Taxes Act 1988" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;
    "transfer", except for the purposes of paragraphs 13 to 18, includes—

    (a) any transfer effected by or under an agreement or instrument entered into or executed in pursuance of an obligation imposed by a provision contained in a transfer scheme by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(g) of Schedule 5;

    (b) the creation of interests, rights or liabilities by or under any such agreement or instrument; and

    (c) the creation of interests, rights or liabilities by virtue of any provision contained in a transfer scheme by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5;
    and references to a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme (or any description of transfer scheme) shall be construed accordingly;

    "transferee"—

    (a) in relation to a transfer scheme, means a person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with the transfer scheme; and

    (b) in relation to a relevant transfer, means the person to whom the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred in accordance with the transfer scheme in question;

    "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
    (2) In any provision of this Schedule "the prescribed amount", in relation to any transferee under a transfer scheme, means such amount as may he specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of that provision in its application to that transferee.
    (3) This Schedule—

    (a) so far as it relates to corporation tax, shall be construed as one with the Corporation Tax Acts, and

    (b) so far as it relates to capital allowances, shall be construed as one with the Capital Allowances Acts.

    Chargeable gains: preparatory transfers etc to be without gain or loss
    2.—(1) For the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, the disposal of property. rights or liabilities which is constituted by a preparatory transfer shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, be taken in relation to both—

    (a) the person to whom the disposal is made, and

    (b) the person making the disposal,
    to be effected for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the person making the disposal.

    (2) Section 171(1) of the Gains Act (which makes provision in relation to the disposal of assets from one member of a group of companies to another member of the group) shall not apply where the disposal in question is a preparatory transfer.
    Chargeable gains: amendment of section 35(3)(d) of the Gains Act
    3. In section 35(3)(d) of the Gains Act (list of provisions for transfers without gain or loss for purposes of provisions applying to assets held on 31st March 1982) after sub-paragraph (xi) there shall he inserted—
    "(xii) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions) to the Broadcasting Act 1996;".
    Chargeable gains: section 41 of the Gains Act
    Subsection (1) of section 174 of the Gains Act (which applies section 41 of that Act to cases where assets have been acquired without gain or loss) shall have effect, without prejudice to paragraph 2, where there has been a preparatory transfer as if the asset to which the preparatory transfer relates had thereby been transferred and acquired in relevant circumstances, within the meaning of that subsection.
    Chargeable gains: assets held before 6th April 1965
    5. Schedule 2 to the Gains Act (assets held on 6th April 1965) shall have effect in relation to any assets which are transferred to a successor company in accordance with a preparatory scheme as if—

    (a) the BBC and the successor company were the same person; and

    (b) those assets, to the extent that they were in fact acquired or provided by the BBC, were acquired or, as the case may be, provided by the successor company.

    Chargeable gains: sale of successor company group transactions
    6.—(1) For the purposes of section 179 of the Gains Act (company ceasing to be a member of a group), where any company ("the degrouped company") ceases, by virtue of a qualifying transaction, to he a member of a group of companies, the degrouped company shall not, by virtue of that qualifying transaction, be treated under that section as having sold, and immediately reacquired, any asset acquired from a company which falls to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section as having been at the time of acquisition a member of that group.

    (2) Where, disregarding any preparatory transactions, a company would be regarded for the purposes of section 179 of the Gains Act (and, accordingly, of this paragraph) as ceasing to be a member of a group of companies by virtue of a qualifying transaction, it shall be regarded for those purposes as so doing by virtue of the qualifying transaction and not by virtue of any preparatory transactions.

    (3) In this paragraph—

    "preparatory transaction", in the case of any qualifying transaction, means anything done for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the qualifying transaction;
    "qualifying transaction" means the disposal by the BBC of any shares or securities of a successor company.
    (4) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the Gains Act have the same meaning in this paragraph as they have in that section.
    Chargeable gains: sale or exchange of shares or securities of successor company
    7.—(1) Where a company issues shares or debentures to the BBC in exchange for shares in or debentures of a successor company which have not, before that exchange, been disposed of by the BBC—

    (a) sections 127 to 131 of the Gains Act (reorganisation or reduction of share capital) shall not apply by virtue of subsection (3) of section 135 of that Act (exchange of securities) in relation to that exchange, and

    (b) section 116 of that Act (reorganisations, conversions and reconstructions) accordingly does not have effect in relation to that transaction,

    and the following provisions of this paragraph shall apply accordingly.
    (2) The following provisions of this paragraph apply in any case where—

    (a) there is a preparatory transfer to a successor company;

    (b) the BBC disposes of any shares or securities of the successor company for a consideration in money or money's worth; and

    (c) those shares or securities are shares or securities which were—

    (i) held by or on behalf of the BBC immediately before the preparatory transfer takes effect, or

    (ii) issued to or for the BBC at a time when the successor company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC,
    and which have not previously been disposed of by the BBC.

    (3) For the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on the disposal mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b).
    (4) If the consideration for the disposal mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) consists of or includes a right to any variable deferred consideration, then, for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on the disposal of the right to the variable deferred consideration.
    (5) In this paragraph "variable deferred consideration" means any consideration—

    (a) which is not to be given until after the disposal mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b); and

    (b) whose amount or value, as at the time when it is to be given, is not ascertainable at the time of that disposal.

    No chargeable gain or allowable loss to arise on any disposal constituted by a direct disposal transfer
    8.—(1) For the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on any disposal constituted by a direct disposal transfer.

    (2) If the consideration for a direct disposal transfer consists of or includes a right to any variable deferred consideration, then, for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on the disposal of the right to the variable deferred consideration.

    (3) In this paragraph "variable deferred consideration", in the case of any direct disposal transfer, means any consideration—

    (a) which is not to be given until after the direct disposal transfer; and

    (b) whose amount or value, as at the time when it is to be given, is not ascertainable at the time of the disposal constituted by that transfer.

    No chargeable gain or allowable loss to arise on any disposal
    constituted by a direct disposal transfer
    8.—(1) For the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on any disposal constituted by a direct disposal transfer.

    (2) If the consideration for a direct disposal transfer consists of or includes a right to any variable deferred consideration, then, for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss shall be regarded as arising to the BBC on the disposal of the right to the variable deferred consideration.

    (3) In this paragraph "variable deferred consideration", in the case of any direct disposal transfer, means any consideration—

    (a) which is not to be given until after the direct disposal transfer; and

    (b) whose amount or value, as at the time when it is to be given, is not ascertainable at the time of the disposal constituted by that transfer.

    Chargeable gains: value shifting
    9.—(1) Nothing in Part VI of this Act, and no instrument or agreement made, or other thing done, under or by virtue of that Part or for the purpose of initiating, advancing or facilitating the disposal by the BBC of—

    769

    (a) the whole or any part of the BBC transmission network, or

    (b) any shares or securities of a successor company which are shares or securities which were—

    (i) held by or on behalf of the BBC immediately before a preparatory transfer to the successor company takes effect, or

    (ii) issued to or for the BBC at a time when the successor company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC,
    and which have not previously been disposed of by the BBC,

    shall be regarded as a scheme or arrangement for the purposes of section 30 of the Gains Act (value-shifting).
    (2) In any case where—

    (a) an asset which is the subject of a preparatory transfer has previously been the subject of a scheme or arrangements falling within subsection (1) of section 30 of the Gains Act,

    (b) in consequence, subsection (5) of that section (consideration on disposal to be treated as increased for certain purposes) would, apart from sub-paragraph (3), have had effect in relation to the consideration for the preparatory transfer, and

    (c) the consideration for the preparatory transfer falls to be determined, for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, under paragraph 2,
    sub-paragraph (3) shall apply.

    (3) Where this sub-paragraph applies—

    (a) subsection (5) of section 30 of the Gains Act shall not have effect in relation to the consideration for the preparatory transfer; but

    (b) on the first subsequent disposal of the asset which is neither a preparatory transfer nor a group disposal—

    (i) that subsection shall have effect in relation to the consideration for that disposal (whether or not it would otherwise have done so); and

    (ii) the increase that falls to be made under that subsection shall be so calculated as to include any increase which would, but for paragraph (a) above, have fallen to he made in relation to the preparatory transfer.

    (4) In this paragraph "group disposal" means a disposal which falls to be treated by virtue of section 171(1) of the Gains Act as made for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the person making the disposal.
    Chargeable gains: receipt of compensation or insurance money
    10.—(1) Subsection (4) of section 23 of the Gains Act (adjustments where compensation or insurance money used for purchase of replacement asset) shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) in any case where—

    (a) there is a relevant transfer such that—

    (i) a capital sum received by the BBC by way of compensation for the loss or destruction of an asset, or under a policy of insurance of the risk of the loss or destruction of an asset, becomes available to the transferee; or

    (ii) a right of the BBC to receive such a sum is transferred to the transferee, and the transferee receives that sum; and

    (b) the transferee acquires an asset in circumstances where—

    (i) had there been no such relevant transfer, and

    (ii) had the BBC acquired the asset by the application of that sum,

    the BBC would be treated for the purposes of that subsection as having so acquired the asset in replacement for the asset lost or destroyed.
    770
    (2) Subsection (5) of that section (adjustments where a part of any compensation or insurance money is used for the purchase of a replacement asset) shall have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) in any case where—
    (a) there is a relevant transfer such that—

    (i) a capital sum received by the BBC by way of compensation for the loss or destruction of an asset, or under a policy of insurance of the risk of the loss or destruction of an asset, becomes available to the transferee; or

    (ii) a right of the BBC to receive such a sum is transferred to the transferee, and the transferee receives that sum; and

    (b) the transferee acquires an asset in circumstances where—

    (i) had there been no such relevant transfer, and

    (ii) had the BBC acquired the asset by the application of all of that sum except for a part which was less than the amount of the gain (whether all chargeable gain or not) accruing on the disposal of the asset lost or destroyed,

    the BBC would be treated for the purposes of that subsection as having so acquired the asset in replacement for the asset lost or destroyed.
    (3) In a case falling within sub-paragraph (I) or (2) of this paragraph, subsection (4) or, as the case may be, subsection (5) of section 23 of the Gains Act shall have effect as if the transferee and the BBC were the same person, except that—
    (a) in a case falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i) or (2)(a)(i)—

    (i) any claim under the subsection in question must be made by the BBC and the transferee; and

    (ii) any adjustment to be made in consequence of paragraph (a) of that subsection shall be made for the purposes only of the taxation of the BBC; and

    (b) in a case falling within sub-paragraph (l)(a)(ii) or (2)(a)(ii)—

    (i) any claim under the subsection in question must be made by the transferee; and

    (ii) any adjustment to be made in consequence of paragraph (a) of that subsection shall he made for the purposes only of the taxation of the transferee.

    Loan relationships: disposal of securities by BBC
    11.—(1) This paragraph applies in any case where—

    (a) there is a preparatory transfer to a successor company;

    (b) the BBC disposes of any securities of the successor company for a consideration in money or money's worth; and

    (c) those securities are securities issued to or for the BBC in consideration for the preparatory transfer.

    (2) Where this paragraph applies, any debits or credits which, by reason of the disposal mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), would, apart from this sub-paragraph, be given by Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 (loan relationships) in respect of a loan relationship for an accounting period of the BBC shall not be brought into account for the purposes of that Chapter as respects the BBC.
    Transfer of trade: loss relief and capital allowances
    12. —(1) This paragraph applies in any case where, as a result of a relevant transfer,—

    (a) the BBC ceases to carry on a trade; and

    (b) the transferee begins to carry on that trade.

    (2) Where this paragraph applies, section 343 of the Taxes Act 1988 (company reconstructions without change of ownership) shall not have effect in relation to the event described in sub-paragraph (1).

    (3) Where this paragraph applies, the trade mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall not be treated as permanently discontinued nor a new trade as set up and commenced for the purpose of the allowances and charges provided for by the Capital Allowances Acts; but—

    771

    (a) there shall be made to or on the transferee in accordance with those Acts all such allowances and charges as would, if the BBC had continued to carry on the trade, have fallen to be made to or on it; and

    (b) the amount of any such allowance or charge shall be computed as if—

    (i) the transferee had been carrying on the trade since the BBC began to do so; and

    (ii) everything done to or by the BBC had been done to or by the transferee (but so that no sale or transfer which on the transfer of the trade is made to the transferee by the BBC of any assets in use for the purpose of the trade shall be treated as giving rise to any such allowance or charge).

    (4) For the purposes of this paragraph—

    (a) where, on the BBC ceasing to carry on a trade, a company begins to carry on the activities of the trade as part of its trade, then that part of the trade carried on by the company shall he treated as a separate trade, if the effect of so treating it is that this paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) on that event in relation to that separate trade; and

    (b) where, on the BBC ceasing to carry on part of a trade, a company begins to carry on the activities of that part as its trade or part of its trade, the BBC shall be treated as having carried on that part of its trade as a separate trade if the effect of so treating it is that this paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) on that event in relation to that separate trade.

    Capital allowances: industrial buildings and structures
    13. —(1) This paragraph applies in any case where there is a relevant transfer of property which is, for the purposes of Part I of the Allowances Act (industrial buildings and structures), the relevant interest in relation to any expenditure incurred on the construction of a building or structure.
    (2) Where this paragraph applies, the Secretary of State may by order make provision specifying, as respects the transferee,—

    (a) the amount which is to be taken for the purposes of Part I of the Allowances Act to be the amount of the capital expenditure incurred on the construction of the building or structure; and

    (b) the date which is to be taken for the purposes of that Part as the date on which the building or structure was first used.

    (3) This paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any property if paragraph 12(3) has effect in relation to it.
    Capital allowances: machinery and plant
    14.—(1) For the purposes of Part II of the Allowances Act (capital allowances in respect of machinery and plant) property which is transferred to a successor company in accordance with a preparatory scheme shall be treated as if—

    (a) it had been acquired by the successor company, for the purposes for which it is used by that company on and after the date on which the transfer of the property in accordance with the scheme takes effect, on that date; and

    (b) capital expenditure of the prescribed amount had been incurred on that date by the successor company on the acquisition of the property for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a).

    (2) This paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any property if paragraph 12(3) has effect in relation to it.
    Capital allowances: leased fixtures
    15. —(1) This paragraph applies to any lease which is granted in pursuance of an obligation imposed by a provision contained in a preparatory scheme by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(g) of Schedule 5.
    772

    (2) Where the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 55 of the Allowances Act (expenditure incurred by incoming lessee: transfer of allowances) are fulfilled in relation to a lease to which this paragraph applies—

    (a) the lessee shall be deemed for the purposes of Part II of that Act to have given as consideration for the lease a capital sum which falls to be treated for the purposes of that Part as expenditure on the provision of the fixture concerned;

    (b) the amount of that capital sum shall be the prescribed amount; and

    (c) subsection (4)(a) of that section shall he disregarded.

    (3) Where the conditions in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of section 56 of the Allowances Act (expenditure incurred by incoming lessee: lessor not entitled to allowances) are fulfilled in relation to a lease to which this paragraph applies—

    (a) the lessee shall be deemed for the purposes of Part II of that Act to have given as consideration for the lease a capital sum which falls to be treated for the purposes of that Part as expenditure on the provision of the fixture concerned; and

    (b) the amount of that capital sum shall be the prescribed amount.

    Capital allowances: connected persons
    16. In Part II of the Allowances Act (machinery and plant) references to a transaction (however described) between connected persons within the meaning of section 839 of the Taxes Act 1988 shall not include references to a preparatory transfer.
    Capital allowances: agricultural buildings
    17. —(1) This paragraph applies in any case where there is a relevant transfer of property which is the relevant interest in relation to any expenditure for which the BBC would be entitled to an allowance under Part V of the Allowances Act (agricultural buildings etc) apart from section 128 of that Act (balancing allowances and charges).
    (2) Where this paragraph applies—

    (a) the acquisition of the relevant interest by the transferee shall, as respects the transferee, be treated for the purposes of Part V of the Allowances Act as a balancing event falling within subsection (1)(a) of section 129 of that Act (so that, in particular, subsection (3) of that section applies by reason of its occurrence); and

    (b) it shall accordingly be assumed, as respects the transferee, that an election has been made under subsection (2) of that section (acquisition of relevant interest by another not to be a balancing event without an election under that subsection) with respect to the acquisition of the relevant interest by the transferee.

    (3) Where this paragraph applies, subsection (3) of section 129 of the Allowances Act (entitlement of the new owner to allowances) shall, as respects the transferee, have effect with the following modifications, that is to say

    (a) the period which, by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, is to be treated as if it were itself the writing-down period in which the allowances in respect of the expenditure in question were to be made shall be such period as the Secretary of State may by order specify; and

    (b) the expenditure which, by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, is to be treated as the expenditure in respect of which the transferee (as being the new owner, within the meaning of that section) is entitled to the allowances mentioned in that paragraph shall be equal to the prescribed amount (without any reduction or addition under that paragraph).

    (4) This paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any property if paragraph 12(3) has effect in relation to it.
    Corporation tax: BBC and successor company to be treated as one for certain purposes
    18. —(1) If any property, rights or liabilities are transferred to a successor company in accordance with a preparatory scheme, then, subject to sub-paragraph (2), the following provisions shall apply for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts in their application in respect of any accounting period ending on or after the date on which the transfer takes effect, namely—

    (a) any trade or part of a trade carried on by the BBC which is transferred in accordance with the preparatory scheme to the successor company shall be treated as having been, at the time of its commencement and at all times since that time, a separate trade carried on by that company;

    (b) the trade or trades carried on by the successor company on and after the date on which the transfer takes effect shall be treated as the same trade or trades as that which, by virtue of paragraph (a), is treated as carried on before that date;

    (c) all property, rights and liabilities of the BBC which are transferred in accordance with the scheme to the successor company shall be treated as having been, at the time when they became vested in the BBC and at all times since that time, property, rights and liabilities of that company; and

    (d) anything done by the BBC in relation to property, rights and liabilities which are transferred to the successor company in accordance with the preparatory scheme shall be treated as having been done by that company.

    (2) Sub-paragraph (I) shall not apply for the purposes of—

    (a) corporation tax on chargeable gains,

    (b) capital allowances, or

    (c) relief for losses incurred in carrying on a trade,
    and no provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 5 shall have effect for those purposes.

    Corporation tax: no profit or loss under Case 1 of Schedule D by reason of a direct disposal transfer
    19. In determining for the purposes of Case I of Schedule D the profits or gains or losses arising or accruing to the BBC, it shall be assumed that no profits or gains, and no losses, arise or accrue to the BBC by reason of a direct disposal transfer of—

    (a) any trading stock, within the meaning of section 100 of the Taxes Act 1988, belonging to a trade carried on by the BBC;

    (b) any right of the BBC to receive an amount which is for the purposes of corporation tax—

    (i) an amount brought into account as a trading receipt of the BBC for any accounting period ending before the time when the transfer takes effect; or

    (ii) an amount falling to be so brought into account if it is assumed, where it is not the case, that the accounting period of the BBC current on the day before the transfer takes effect ends immediately before that time; or

    (c) the whole or any part of the amount of a liability which falls for the purposes of corporation tax—

    (i) to be brought into account as deductible in computing the profits of any trade carried on by the BBC for any accounting period ending before the time when the transfer takes effect; or

    (ii) to be so brought into account if it is assumed, where it is not the case, that the accounting period of the BBC current on the day before the transfer takes effect ends immediately before that time.

    Corporation tax: group relief
    20. —(1) None of the following, namely—

    (a) the existence of the powers of any Minister of the Crown or the BBC under Part VI of this Act or under the documents regulating the BBC,

    774

    (b) any direction given by a Minister of the Crown under that Part or those documents, so far as that direction relates to a transfer scheme or (in a case where there is a preparatory scheme) to the sale of shares or securities issued by the successor company, or

    (c) any arrangements (of any kind, whether in writing or not) so far as relating to a transfer scheme or any such sale,

    shall be regarded as constituting arrangements falling within subsection (1) or (2) of section 410 of the Taxes Act 1988 (arrangements for the transfer of a company to another group or consortium).
    (2) Neither—

    (a) the existence of the powers of any Minister of the Crown or the BBC under Part VI of this Act or under the documents regulating the BBC, nor

    (b) any direction given as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b),

    shall be regarded as constituting option arrangements for the purposes of paragraph 5B of Schedule 18 to the Taxes Act 1988.
    (3) Any reference in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) to the documents regulating the BBC is a reference to those documents only so far as they have effect in relation to a disposal by the BBC of—

    (a) the whole or any part of the BBC transmission network, or

    (b) any shares or securities of a successor company, or the initiating, advancing or facilitating of any such disposal.

    (4) In this paragraph "Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.
    Corporation tax: leases at an undervalue
    21. —(1) Section 35 of the Taxes Act 1988 (charge on lease granted at an undervalue) shall not apply in the case of any lease which, in accordance with a transfer scheme, is granted—

    (a) to a company which is a transferee under that or any other transfer scheme, or

    (b) by such a company to the BBC.

    (2) Section 87 of the Taxes Act 1988 (taxable premiums) shall not apply where there is an amount which would have become chargeable in relation to any land but for sub-paragraph (1); and, accordingly, references to any such amount shall not be included in references in that section to the amount chargeable.

    (3) In this paragraph "lease" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Taxes Act 1988.

    Corporation tax: sale and lease-back
    22. —(1) Section 779 of the Taxes Act 1988 (sale and lease-back: limitation on tax reliefs) shall not apply where the liability of the transferor or of the person associated with that transferor is as a result of—

    (a) the creation, in accordance with a transfer scheme, of any interest or right in favour of a transferee or the BBC;

    (b) any other transaction for which a transfer scheme provides; or

    (c) the grant by a company which is a transferee under a transfer scheme ("the relevant company") to the BBC or to another company which is a transferee (whether under that or any other transfer scheme) of any interest or right, at a time when the relevant company remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, in a case where the ability of the relevant company to grant that interest or right derives from the transfer to the company in accordance with a transfer scheme of an estate or interest in land.

    (2) In this paragraph "transferor" has the same meaning as in section 779 of the Taxes Act 1988 and "associated" shall be construed in accordance with that section.
    Corporation tax: sale of lease of land
    23. —(1) Section 780 of the Taxes Act 1988 (sale and lease-back: taxation of consideration) shall not apply where—

    (a) the assignment of the original lease, and

    (b) the grant or assignment of the new lease, each fall within sub-paragraph (2).

    (2) The assignment of the original lease, or the grant or assignment of the new lease, falls within this sub-paragraph if—

    (a) it is a relevant transfer; or

    (b) it takes place between the BBC and a successor company at a time when the successor company remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC; or

    (c) it takes place between two successor companies at a time when both remain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BBC.

    (3) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the assignment of the original lease and the grant or assignment of the new lease shall be construed in accordance with section 780 of the Taxes Act 1988 and sub-paragraph (2) shall be construed accordingly.
    Corporation tax: leased assets
    24. —(1) For the purposes of section 781 of the Taxes Act 1988 (assets leased to traders and others) where the interest of the lessor or the lessee under a lease, or any other interest in an asset, is transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme to the BBC or a transferee, the transfer shall be treated as being effected without any capital sum having been obtained in respect of that interest by the BBC or the transferee.
    (2) Section 782 of the Taxes Act 1988 (deduction of payment under leases: special cases) shall not apply to any payments made by the BBC or a company which is a transferee under a transfer scheme if the payments are made—

    (a) under any lease created in favour of the BBC or such a company by virtue of, or in pursuance of an obligation imposed by, a provision contained in a transfer scheme by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5; or

    (b) under any lease—

    (i) which is granted to or by a successor company at a time when it remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC; and

    (ii) which is a lease of an asset which at any time before the creation of the lease was used by the BBC for the purposes of a trade carried on by the BBC and which was, when so used, owned by the BBC.

    (3) In this paragraph "lease" and "asset" have the meaning given by section 785 of the Taxes Act 1988.
    Stamp duty
    25. —(1) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable on any agreement or instrument to the extent that it is certified by the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as being—

    (a) a restructuring scheme,

    (b) a restructuring scheme modification agreement, or

    (c) an instrument giving effect to a restructuring scheme modification agreement,

    or as having been made in accordance with, or in pursuance of an obligation imposed by, a restructuring scheme.
    (2) No agreement or instrument which is certified as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

    (a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would be liable, apart from that sub-paragraph; or

    (b) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with that duty or that it is duly stamped.

    (3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 (collection of stamp duty in cases of property vested by Act or purchased under statutory power) shall not operate to require—

    (a) the delivery to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or

    (b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,

    and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this paragraph, stamp duty is not chargeable.

    (4) In this paragraph—
    "restructuring scheme modification agreement- means a modification agreement, so far as relating to a restructuring scheme;
    "restructuring scheme" means a preparatory scheme, so far as it provides for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities in accordance with the scheme—

    (a) from the BBC to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC;

    (b) to the BBC from a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC; or

    (c) from one wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC to another.

    Stamp duty reserve tax
    26. —(1) An agreement to transfer chargeable securities, as defined in section 99 of the Finance Act 1986, from the BBC to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC shall not give rise to a charge to stamp duty reserve tax if the agreement is made for the purposes of, or for purposes connected with, a restructuring scheme.

    (2) An agreement shall not give rise to a charge to stamp duty reserve tax if the agreement is a restructuring scheme modification agreement.

    (3) In this paragraph "restructuring scheme" and "restructuring scheme modification agreement" have the same meaning as in paragraph 25.

    Modifications of transfer schemes
    27. —(1) If the effect of any transfer scheme is modified in pursuance of a modification agreement, then the Corporation 'Fax Acts and this Schedule, other than paragraphs 25 and 26, shall have effect as if—

    (a) the scheme originally made had been the scheme as modified; and

    (b) anything done by or in relation to the person who without the modification became entitled or subject in accordance with the scheme to any property, rights or liabilities had, so far as relating to the property, rights or liabilities to which another person becomes entitled or subject in consequence of the modification, been done by or in relation to that other person.

    (2) If, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (1), the transfer scheme, as originally made, was a preparatory scheme, the scheme as modified shall be taken to be a preparatory scheme, whether or not any company which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC at the time when the preparatory scheme took effect remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC at the time when the modification takes effect.
    Orders
    28. —(1) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this Schedule in relation to any transferee under a transfer scheme except—

    (a) with the consent of the Treasury;

    (b) after consultation with the BBC; and

    (c) if the transferee is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, after consultation with the transferee.

    (2) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this Part of this Schedule—

    (a) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and

    777

    (b) shall include power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different assets or descriptions of assets.'. —[Mr. Wood.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New schedule 3

  TRANSFER SCHEMES RELATING TO THE BBC TRANSMISSION NETWORK: SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
  Interpretation
  1. —(1) In this Schedule—
  "the Charter" means the Royal Charter of 1st May 1996 for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation;
  "preparatory scheme" means a transfer scheme whose main purpose is to provide for a transfer of property, rights or liabilities from the BBC to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC;
  "successor company" means a company to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with a preparatory scheme at a time when the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC;
  "transfer" includes—

  (a) any transfer effected by or under an agreement or instrument entered into or executed in pursuance of an obligation imposed by a provision contained in a preparatory scheme by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(g) of Schedule 5;

  (b) the creation of interests, rights or liabilities by or under any such agreement or instrument; and

  (c) the creation of interests, rights or liabilities by virtue of any provision contained in a preparatory scheme by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5;

  and references to a transfer in accordance with a preparatory scheme shall be construed accordingly;
  "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
  (2) Any reference in this Schedule to vesting in accordance with a preparatory scheme or vesting effected by a preparatory scheme shall be construed as a reference to vesting as a result of a transfer in accordance with a preparatory scheme.
  Statutory accounts
  2. —(1) The following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect for the purposes of any statutory accounts of a successor company.
  (2) The vesting in the company effected by any preparatory scheme shall be taken—

  (a) to have been effected immediately after the end of the last financial year of the BBC to end before the coming into force of the scheme, and

  (b) to have been a vesting of such property, rights and liabilities as are determined by or under the scheme.

  (3) The value of any asset and the amount of any liability which is taken by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) to have been vested in the company shall be taken to have been—

  (a) in the case where the value or amount is determined by or under the preparatory scheme, that value or amount, and

  (b) in any other case, the value or amount assigned to the asset or liability for the purposes of the Account or Accounts prepared by the BBC for the purposes of Article 18(2) of the Charter in respect of their last financial year to end before the day on which the preparatory scheme comes into force.

  (4) If an Account or Accounts are prepared by the BBC for the purposes of Article 18(2) of the Charter in respect of the residual part of a financial year, that residual part shall be treated as a financial year of the BBC for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3).
  (5) In this paragraph "statutory accounts", in relation to a company, means any accounts of that company prepared for the purposes of any provision of the Companies Act 1985 (including group accounts).
  Distributable reserves
  3. —(1) Where statutory accounts of a successor company prepared as at any time would show the company as having net assets in excess of the aggregate of—

  (a) its called-up share capital, and

  (b) the amount, apart from any property, rights and liabilities transferred to it in accordance with any preparatory scheme, of its undistributable reserves,

  then, for the purposes of section 263 of the Companies Act 1985 (profits available for distribution) and of the preparation as at that time of any statutory accounts of the company, that excess shall be treated, except so far as the Secretary of State may otherwise direct, as representing an excess of the company's accumulated realised profits over its accumulated realised losses.
  (2) For the purposes of section 264 of the Companies Act 1985 (restriction on distribution of assets) so much of any excess of a company's net assets as falls, in accordance with a direction under this paragraph, to be treated otherwise than as representing an excess of the company's accumulated realised profits over its accumulated realised losses shall be treated (subject to any modification of that direction by a subsequent direction under this paragraph) as comprised in the company's undistributable reserves.
  (3) A direction under this paragraph may provide, in relation to any amount to which it applies, that, on the realisation (whether before or after the company in question ceases to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC) of such profits and losses as may be specified or described in the direction, so much of that amount as may be determined in accordance with the direction is to cease to be treated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) and is to fall to be treated as comprised in the company's accumulated realised profits.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this paragraph in relation to a successor company at any time after the company has ceased to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC.
  (5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving of a direction under this paragraph.
  (6) In this paragraph—
  "called-up share capital" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985;
  "net assets" has the meaning given by subsection (2) of section 264 of that Act;
  "undistributable reserves" has the meaning given by subsection (3) of that section;
  and references in this paragraph, in relation to a company, to statutory accounts are references to accounts of that company prepared in respect of any period in accordance with the requirements of that Act, or with those requirements applied with such modifications as are necessary where that period is not an accounting reference period.
  Dividends
  4.—(1) Where a distribution is proposed to be declared during any accounting reference period of a successor company which includes a transfer date or before any accounts are laid or filed in respect of such a period, sections 270 to 276 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounts relevant for determining whether a distribution may be made by a company) shall have effect as if—

  (a) references in section 270 to the company's accounts or to accounts relevant under that section, and

  (b) references in section 273 to initial accounts,

  779
  included references to such accounts as, on the assumptions stated in sub-paragraph (2), would have been prepared under section 226 of that Act in respect of the relevant year (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant accounts").
  (2) Those assumptions are—

  (a) that the relevant year had been a financial year of the successor company,

  (b) that the vesting in accordance with the preparatory scheme had been a vesting of all the property, rights and liabilities transferred to the company in accordance with that scheme and had been effected immediately after the beginning of that year,

  (c) that the value of any asset and the amount of any liability of the BBC vested in the successor company in accordance with the preparatory scheme had been the value or (as the case may be) amount determined by or under the scheme or (if there is no such determination) the value or amount assigned to the asset or liability for the purposes of the Account or Accounts prepared by the BBC for the purposes of Article 18(2) of the Charter in respect of their financial year immediately preceding the relevant year,

  (d) that any securities of the successor company issued or allotted before the declaration of the distribution had been issued or allotted before the end of the relevant year, and

  (e) such other assumptions (if any) as may appear to the directors of the successor company to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this paragraph.

  (3) If an Account or Accounts are prepared by the BBC for the purposes of Article 18(2) of the Charter in respect of the residual part of a financial year, that residual part shall be treated as a financial year of the BBC for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c).
  (4) The relevant accounts shall not be regarded as statutory accounts for the purposes of paragraph 2.
  (5) In this paragraph—
  "accounting reference period" has the meaning given by section 224 of the Companies Act 1985;
  "complete financial year" means a financial year ending with 31st March;
  "the relevant year", in relation to any transfer date, means the last complete financial year ending before that date;
  "a transfer date", in relation to a successor company, means the date of the coming into force of any preparatory scheme in accordance with which property, rights or liabilities are transferred to that company.
  Application of the Trustee Investments Act 1961
  5. —(1) For the purpose of applying paragraph 3(b) of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (which provides that shares and debentures of a company shall not count as wider-range and narrower-range investments respectively within the meaning of that Act unless the company has paid dividends in each of the five years immediately preceding that in which the investment is made) in relation to investment in shares or debentures of a successor company during the calendar year in which the transfer date falls ("the first investment year") or during any year following that year, the successor company shall be deemed to have paid a dividend as there mentioned—

  (a) in every year preceding the first investment year which is included in the relevant five years, and

  (b) in the first investment year, if that year is included in the relevant five years and the successor company does not in fact pay such a dividend in that year.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
  "the relevant five years" means the five years immediately preceding the year in which the investment in question is made or proposed to be made;
  "the transfer date", in relation to a successor company, means the first date on which any preparatory scheme in accordance with which property, rights or liabilities are transferred to that company comes into force.'. —[Mr. Wood. ]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New schedule 4

  AMENDMENTS OF COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1988 RELATING TO CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
  1. For section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is substituted—
  "Reception and retransmission of broadcast in cable
  programme service
  73. —(1) This section applies where a broadcast made from a place in the United Kingdom is, by reception and immediate re-transmission, included in a cable programme service.
  (2) The copyright in the broadcast is not infringed—

  (a) if the inclusion is in pursuance of a relevant requirement, or

  (b) if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided and forms part of a qualifying service.

  (3) The copyright in any work included in the broadcast is not infringed if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided; but where the making of the broadcast was an infringement of the copyright in the work, the fact that the broadcast was re-transmitted as a programme in a cable programme service shall be taken into account in assessing the damages for that infringement.
  (4) Where—

  (a) the inclusion is in pursuance of a relevant requirement, but

  (b) to any extent, the area in which the cable programme service is provided ("the cable area") falls outside the area for reception in which the broadcast is made (''the broadcast area"),

  the inclusion in the cable programme service (to the extent that it is provided for so much of the cable area as falls outside the broadcast area) of any work included in the broadcast shall, subject to subsection (5) be treated as licensed by the owner of the copyright in the work, subject only to the payment to him by the person making the broadcast of such reasonable royalty or other payment in respect of the inclusion of the broadcast in the cable programme service as may be agreed or determined in default of agreement by the Copyright Tribunal.
  (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if, or to the extent that, the inclusion of the work in the cable programme service is (apart from that subsection) licensed by the owner of the copyright in the work.
  (6) In this section "qualifying service" means, subject to subsection (8), any of the following services—

  (a) a regional or national Channel 3 service,

  (b) Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C,

  (c) the teletext service referred to in section 49(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1990,

  (d) the service referred to in section 57(lA)(a) of that Act (power of S4C to provide digital service), and

  (e) the television broadcasting services and teletext service of the British Broadcasting Corporation;

  and expressions used in this subsection have the same meaning as in Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  (7) In this section "relevant requirement" means a requirement imposed under—

  781

  (a) section 78A of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (inclusion of certain services in local delivery services provided by digital means), or

  (b) paragraph 4 of Part III of Schedule 12 to that Act (inclusion of certain services in diffusion services originally licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984).

  (8) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (6) so as to add any service to, or remove any service from, the definition of "qualifying service".
  (9) The Secretary of State may also by order—

  (a) provide that in specified cases subsection (3) is to apply in relation to broadcasts of a specified description which are not made as mentioned in that subsection, or

  (b) exclude the application of that subsection in relation to broadcasts of a specified description made as mentioned in that subsection.

  (10) Where the Secretary of State exercises the power conferred by subsection (9)(b) in relation to broadcasts of any description, the order may also provide for subsection (4) to apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, in relation to broadcasts of that description.
  (11) An order under this section may contain such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
  (12) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Royalty or other sum payable in pursuance of section 73(4)
  73A. —(1) An application to settle the royalty or other sum payable in pursuance of subsection (4) of section 73 (reception and re-transmission of broadcast in cable programme service) may be made to the Copyright Tribunal by the copyright owner or the person making the broadcast.
  (2) The Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  (3) Either party may subsequently apply to the Tribunal to vary the order, and the Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order confirming or varying the original order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  (4) An application under subsection (3) shall not, except with the special leave of the Tribunal, be made within twelve months from the date of the original order or of the order on a previous application under that subsection.
  (5) An order under subsection (3) has effect from the date on which it is made or such later date as may be specified by the Tribunal."
  2. —(1) Section 134 of that Act (licences in respect of works included in re-transmissions) is amended as follows.
  (2) At the beginning of subsection (1) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (3A)".
  (3) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
  "(3A) This section does not apply in relation to any application under section 73A (royalty or other sum payable in pursuance of section 73(4))."
  3. In section 149 of that Act (jurisdiction of Copyright Tribunal) before paragraph (a) there is inserted—
  "(za) section 73 (determination of royalty or other remuneration to be paid with respect to re-transmission of broadcast including work);".
  4. In section 205B of that Act (jurisdiction of Copyright Tribunal under Part II) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
  "(cc) paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 (determination of royalty or other remuneration to be paid with respect to re-transmission of broadcast including performance or recording);".
  5. For paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to that Act there is substituted—
  "Reception and re-transmission of broadcast in cable
  programme service
  19. —(1) This paragraph applies where a broadcast made from a place in the United Kingdom is, by reception and immediate re-transmission, included in a cable programme service.
  (2) The rights conferred by Part II in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast are not infringed if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided; but where the making of the broadcast was an infringement of those rights, the fact that the broadcast was re-transmitted as a programme in a cable programme service shall be taken into account in assessing the damages for that infringement.
  (3) Where—

  (a) the inclusion is in pursuance of a relevant requirement, but

  (b) to any extent, the area in which the cable programme service is provided ("the cable area") falls outside the area for reception in which the broadcast is made ("the broadcast area"),

  the inclusion in the cable programme service (to the extent that it is provided for so much of the cable area as falls outside the broadcast area) of any performance or recording included in the broadcast shall, subject to sub-paragraph (4), be treated as licensed by the owner of the rights conferred by Part II in relation to the performance or recording, subject only to the payment to him by the person making the broadcast of such reasonable royalty or other payment in respect of the inclusion of the broadcast in the cable programme service as may be agreed or determined in default of agreement by the Copyright Tribunal.
  (4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if, or to the extent that, the inclusion of the work in the cable programme service is (apart from that sub-paragraph) licensed by the owner of the rights conferred by Part II in relation to the performance or recording.
  (5) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) provide that in specified cases sub-paragraph (2) is to apply in relation to broadcasts of a specified description which are not made as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, or

  (b) exclude the application of that sub-paragraph in relation to broadcasts of a specified description made as mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

  (6) Where the Secretary of State exercises the power conferred by sub-paragraph (5)(b) in relation to broadcasts of any description, the order may also provide for sub-paragraph (3) to apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order. in relation to broadcasts of that description.
  (7) An order under this paragraph may contain such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
  (8) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (9) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section 73."
  6. After paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to that Act there is inserted—
  "19A. —(1) An application to settle the royalty or other sum payable in pursuance of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 19 may be made to the Copyright Tribunal by the owner of the rights conferred by Part 11 or the person making the broadcast.
  (2) The Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  (3) Either party may subsequently apply to the Tribunal to vary the order, and the Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order confirming or varying the original order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.

  783
  (4) An application under sub-paragraph (3) shall not, except with the special leave of the Tribunal, be made within twelve months from the date of the original order or of the order on a previous application under that sub-paragraph.
  (5) An order under sub-paragraph (3) has effect from the date on which it is made or such later date as may be specified by the Tribunal.".'. —[Mr. Wood. ]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: New schedule 1 and amendment (a) are not moved.

Clause 1

  MULTIPLEX SERVICES AND DIGITAL PROGRAMME SERVICES
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 2, line 5, after 'programmes' insert
  '(together with any ancillary services, as defined by section 22(2))'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 174 to 176.
  No. 143, in clause 8, page 9, line 4, after
  'services', insert 'and digital additional services'.
  Government amendments Nos. 177 to 180 and 182.
  No. 142, in clause 12, page 11, leave out lines 38 to 41.
  Government amendment No: 183.
  No. 144, in page 12, line 9, after
  'services', insert 'and digital additional services'.
  No. 145, in page 12, leave out lines 14 to 21.
  Government amendments Nos. 184 to 192, 14 to 16, 193, 17, 194 to 202, 18, 203, 207 to 211, 19 and 212 to 215.
  Mr. Sproat: There are many amendments and changes in this group of amendments and I assure the House that I do not aim to speak at such length again during further consideration of the Bill.
  I announced on the final day of Committee that the Government intended to end the current practice of advertising on ancillary services, following representations that my Department had received from the Independent Television Commission. Owing to the point we had reached in the Bill's passage, my announcement in Committee had to serve as the most effective means of alerting the ITV companies, Channel 4 and others to our thinking on the analogue regulation of ancillary services. My announcement has enabled the ITV companies, Channel 4 and other interests to make their views known to me on this issue and I met Mr. Leslie Hill, the chairman of the ITV Association last week, to discuss it.
  In the light of my discussions with the ITVA, I am persuaded that, on balance, we should not impose new regulatory controls in this area. The ITVA assures me that it regards the limited advertising that it carries on ancillary services as an adjunct to the services that it offers advertisers who purchase spot-advertising broadcasts in commercial breaks between programmes. Given that the ITC has the power to regulate this activity and to tighten
  784
  its current guidelines, if it believes that the distinction that I have outlined is being abused, I have decided not to pursue the matter.
  This large group of amendments adjusts the provisions of the Bill with regard largely to additional and ancillary services. Amendments Nos. 183, 185, 187, 188, 191, 194, 208 to 211 and 213 provide that ancillary services, electronic programme guides and conditional access data for television or radio programmes should not be counted towards the 10 per cent. limit for additional services. However, electronic programme guides will still need an additional services licence. Amendments Nos. 173 and 195 put it beyond doubt that digital ancillary services are within the scope of the regulator's general powers.
  Amendment No. 174 provides that, on television multiplexes, any service consisting wholly or mainly of still pictures will be an additional service. On radio, some additional services might be receivable either as sound or text, perhaps depending on technology in the receiver. Amendment No. 197 ensures that such services will be categorised as additional services.
  Amendments Nos. 175 and 198 allow the Government, by affirmative order, to amend the definitions of programme services, and therefore what is counted as an additional service, to take account of technological developments. Amendments Nos. 176 and 199 are technical. They ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently require local delivery service licensees to obtain a multiplex licence.
  Clause 9 allows the ITC to bundle multiplex licences, where it believes that that would be the most appropriate way to advertise them, so that they will be more commercially attractive. Amendments Nos. 177 to 180 clarify the way in which the ITC shall consider the award of multiplex licences that have been advertised in this way. The ITC had asked us to clarify the advertisements.
  Amendment No. 182 has also been made at the behest of the ITC. It allows it to include whatever aspects of a multiplex provider's technical plan it sees fit in the multiplex licence. Amendment No. 207 makes the same adjustment with provisions covering radio multiplexes.
  Amendments Nos. 192, 12, 15 and 16 tidy up arrangements for the order-making power that the Secretary of State will exercise to reserve capacity for existing broadcasters. Amendment No. 192 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may, in any order made under clause 26, provide that clauses 7 to 16 and 18 and 19, which are to do with licensing multiplexes and digital programme services, may not apply, or may be modified, with regard to certain multiplexes that are to carry existing broadcasters. That will allow us to deal with the particular circumstances of the channel 3/4 multiplex, which will be operated by the broadcasters, and the Channel 5/S4C multiplex, which will be shared with new broadcasters. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has tabled an interesting amendment on that matter, which we shall come to later.
  Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 clarify the terminology and purposes of clause 26(3)(c). Clause 26(3) allows the Secretary of State to provide, by order, for the ITC to vary the existing analogue licences under which channels 3, 4 and 5 provide their services. When they take up their guaranteed places and provide digital simulcasts of their analogue services, the simulcasts will be covered

  785
  by those existing licences, but some conditions of those licences will need to be varied to cover the different circumstances of the digital services.
  Amendment No. 17 corrects the definitions contained in clause 35 relating to channel 3. Amendment No. 200 reflects an undertaking that I gave in Committee. The Secretary of State may amend the simulcast requirements for national independent radio services. The amendment provides that she must consult bodies representing listeners before doing so.
  Amendment No. 201 introduces a flexibility, suggested by the Radio Authority, into the distinction between national and local radio multiplexes. It may, in certain circumstances, be desirable to provide for local radio stations to broadcast on a national radio multiplex. For example, early indications are that there may be problems in finding frequencies to provide any digital local radio in Northern Ireland. If that turns out to be the case, this provision will allow the Secretary of State to direct the Radio Authority to reserve some capacity on the national radio multiplex in Northern Ireland for such a service.
  Amendment No. 202 fulfils my commitment in Committee to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). The proposal was also made by the Radio Authority. As the Bill stands, the guaranteed radio capacity for the INR stations is what is needed to reproduce the service on digital at the same technical quality as on analogue. That ignores two factors. First, AM quality is inferior to FM quality, so it might put Virgin and Talk Radio at a disadvantage; secondly, broadcasters should be able to use DAB to improve quality. Amendment No. 202 puts that right by giving the authority discretion to take those factors into account.
  Amendment No. 18 is a simple drafting amendment. Amendment No. 203 makes it clear that in considering what capacity should be reserved for the BBC and local radio multiplexes, the Radio Authority should have regard to the likely pressure for places on the multiplex from the independent sector.
  Amendment No. 19 corrects an earlier drafting error which omitted the fine for breach of local radio multiplex licence conditions from the list of fines which could be amended by order. Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 add digital programme and digital sound programme services to the list of services carried by a local delivery—that is a cable service. Here end the Government amendments.
  I propose to respond briefly to the further amendments in this group since, as many hon. Members will know, we had detailed discussions in Committee regarding the balance that we are seeking to achieve between digital programme services and additional services. I said then, and I say again now, that while the Government believe that digital terrestrial multiplexes should be used primarily for television services, we fully recognise also that additional services may play an important part in the digital future and may help attract some customers to obtain digital receivers.
  We listened carefully to the arguments on the issue and we responded to ensure that the whole of the 10 per cent. of each multiplex that could be used for additional services is available for services that are genuinely additional and not taken up with the data that are really closely linked with programme services. That is the
  786
  purpose of amendment No. 183 and some of those grouped with it, which provide that all ancillary services, all electronic programme guides and all television conditional access data will count as part of the 90 per cent. reserved primarily for programme services.
  The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) seeks to include a variety of additional services as specific criteria for the award of multiplex licences. That is not appropriate. That does not mean that there is no scope for the ITC to take the proposals for additional services into account when awarding licences. The overarching criterion of clause 8 states that the ITC shall award licences to those proposals best calculated to promote the development of digital television broadcasting.
  Should an applicant have proposals for additional services which appear likely to be profitable and so will contribute to the viability of digital television and perhaps to a further investment in digital technology, that can be taken into account. Should proposals for additional services appear likely to attract substantial numbers of people to buy digital receivers, that too can be taken into account.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has finished.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: We are able to welcome these amendments, not least because, as the Minister generously conceded, many of them were suggested by Opposition Members in Committee. I should like to press the Minister a little on the Government's decision to withdraw amendment No. 21.
  The amendment arose out of a debate in Committee concerned with electronic programme guides for the new digital as well as existing analogue services. Concern was expressed in Committee that the original wording of section 48(3)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 was designed to allow electronic programme guides for analogue television. Since 1990, due to the uncertainty of the legislation, channel 3 companies in particular have not proceeded with such programme guides. On the other hand, Teletext was concerned that, having secured a public teletext licence on one financial basis, any amendment to the 1990 Act might require it to continue with the arrangements on another.
  It was obvious in Committee that there was a need for greater clarification. The Minister undertook in fairly clear words to table an amendment on Report. He said:
  "Following representations that my Department received from the ITC for clarification of the Government's intentions about the matter, we have decided to make it absolutely clear, by amending the 1990 Act, that advertising should not be carried on ancillary services. We shall bring forward an amendment on Report to implement that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 June 1996; c. 717.]
  Concern has been expressed, in particular, by Teletext, which has written to us saying that there may be serious commercial damage to the company as a result of the Government's decision to withdraw the clarification of the 1990 Act. By withdrawing the amendment, it seems that the uncertainty over the interpretation of the 1990 provision will continue. That is unsatisfactory.

  787
  I listened carefully to what the Minister said about having a meeting with Leslie Hill of the ITV Association. It is understandable that there should be concern, but I wonder whether it would have been appropriate to have a meeting with Teletext or its representatives. It appears that part of a complicated compromise, and an undertaking by the Minister in Committee, have been abandoned in the face of representations from one interested party only.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I do not share the line taken by my hon. Friend that the amendments were tabled without any consultation with the regional television stations. A company such as HTV would certainly have been affected, and would have made its representations before amendments were tabled. The Minister is, rightly and properly, responding to the impact that the amendments would have had on the revenues of small regional television stations.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Hoon: I appreciate that argument, and I am not necessarily taking sides between Teletext and the channel 3 companies. Having had a discussion in Committee, where attempts were made to produce a sensible and workable compromise, what appears to have happened in the light of the Minister's undertaking is that only one argument has been addressed by the Government in their decision to withdraw the amendment. I am not saying that I would necessarily have reached a different conclusion, but, after a long and detailed discussion in Committee, it is unfortunate that the matter appears to have been resolved in this way.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister for not pursuing amendment No. 21. I listened carefully to his list of Government amendments. I attempted to intervene earlier to ask about amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which, as I understand it, would stop the ITV companies using their teletext pages in support of regional on-screen advertisements. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned, that would have cost HTV a significant amount, because, over the past year or so, it has invested £750,000 in providing that service to assist its advertisers. Teletext apparently does not operate in that area, so its monopoly would not be affected.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 142, 143, 144 and 145, which are in my name.
  The distinction that the Bill draws between programme services and additional data services in the licensing of digital television multiplexes is unnecessary and unhelpful. The further requirement that multiplex operators will be obliged to ensure that at least 90 per cent. of their capacity comprises what are called programme services, is arbitrary. I fear that, before long, it could emerge as a substantial roadblock in the development of a United Kingdom information super-highway.
  My central amendment, No. 142, would remove that distinction and the 90 per cent. requirement. The reason for doing that is the sheer speed of technological
  788
  development. The already blurred line between programme services and other services will very quickly become non-existent.
  The Government have attempted to clarify matters, and, as far as they go, I welcome amendments Nos. 183 to 185, which include in the programme section of the multiplex all the programme-related services and relevant technical services. There is a problem in that the amendments compound the confusion. The definitions are very difficult to make, and I worry that they are vague and will be very hard to interpret.
  There is already confusion in the industry about what will fall into which definition. If I understood the Minister correctly a few moments ago, he said that electronic programme guides will belong in the 90 per cent. of programme services. I welcome that, because there has been some debate about what will happen.
  The truth is that, within a very short time, the range of transmitted information on these services will cover a seamless continuum. In the Bill, we are creating a rather clumsy boundary by dividing programming from the rest—the 90 per cent. from the 10 per cent. Very soon, that boundary will become entirely unworkable.
  My amendments are widely supported in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. Perhaps it is not surprising that they are supported in the telecommunications industry. In a note to me about the amendments, British Telecom has stressed
  "the important contribution that the integration of broadcasting and interactivity can make—it must not be stifled through inadvertent. if well intentioned, restrictions on its development."
  I agree with that.
  The Government should know that there is strong support for these amendments from programme makers in the television industry. The ITV Association has confirmed to me today that it does not oppose the amendments, and Carlton Television has written to me to express its firm backing for them. Carlton said in its letter:
  "The ability to offer innovative services is an important feature of digital technology, and to arbitrarily restrict the capacity, may result in DTT [Digital Terrestrial Television] being significantly less attractive than other competing distribution systems."
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wonder if my hon. Friend is aware of the excellent electronic guide that is offered by the BBC on the Internet. It demonstrates very well how interactivity will work: it allows one to programme in available channels and one's programme preferences, and to receive daily a fully personalised list of possible viewing. That is a good example of the type of innovation that we will see in the future, to which interactivity will contribute a great deal.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent point. That service is exactly the type of innovative and imaginative new service that we will see growing up very rapidly. We must ensure that the regulatory framework allows the potential of digital television to grow and prosper.
  My amendments are not prescriptive or restrictive, and they do not set a minimum level for additional services. They simply allow the industry to pursue increasing convergence between broadcasting and interactive services, unhindered by arbitrary restrictions. They allow the ITC to encourage the development of a vibrant

  789
  interactive services industry—which we all want to see—overlapping and intertwined with digital television. That will hold out the prospect of all types of economic and social advantages in the years ahead.
  The amendments also remove the need to distinguish programme services from non-programme services, which will be extremely and increasingly difficult to do. For all those reasons, I commend these amendments.
  Mr. Rowlands: We are very relieved that the Government are not proceeding with their amendments. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) that he was not taking sides, because there would have been a point to consider other than that made by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). Not only HTV was affected; so was S4C. One had the bizarre thought that Teletext might have to provide an advertising service in Welsh, and I think that that might have defeated it.
  I should like to know about teletext's potential development, with the amount of digital space it has been offered. As I understand it, teletext is composed of graphics and no sound. With the new digital capacity, will the teletext service have some form of moving pictures and sound if there are sufficient megabytes? Will it be possible to develop CD-ROM quality?
  Mr. Gale: The fact is that Teletext has been given insufficient capacity to develop its services to the full extent, which means that very serious restraints will be imposed on the service it provides. The withdrawal of this Government amendment probably will enhance those restraints.
  Mr. Rowlands: I did not say which side I would support. I was trying to discover to what extent we are offering such a service. Presumably clearer pictures can now be developed with the given megabytes. I am not promoting the idea, but simply inquiring how far we have gone in the Bill in saying how teletext might develop.
  Mr. Sproat: I should like to tell the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) that I quite agree that it is undesirable that, late in the Committee stage, we should make a series of proposals and then decide to drop them. What happened—there is no criticism of anyone in this—is that, in the middle of the Committee stage, we received from the ITC proposals that we should act on teletext, as I described to the Committee. That was the first opportunity that I had to tell the Committee, and I did so.
  I subsequently received representations. Companies such as HTV would have been severely hit, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) has said. I was struck by the force of their arguments, and I invited the ITV Association to come to see me. My officials also heard the arguments of Teletext Ltd. It became clear in the course of those discussions—the majority of which I attended—that a serious under-estimate of the amount of advertising received by small companies had been made.
  Therefore, I decided—on balance, having listened to the ITVA and having heard what Teletext Ltd. had to say—that we should withdraw our proposals. Obviously
  790
  the ITC will monitor the situation very closely. However, I am satisfied that, on balance, we did the right thing in allowing particularly the smaller stations to maximise their income from this source.
  To answer the specific question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the teletext cannot be moving.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 174, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'service' to end of line 12 and insert—
  `(b) a teletext service, or
  (c) any service in the case of which the visual images to be broadcast do not consist wholly or mainly of images capable of being seen as moving pictures,
  except, in the case of a service falling within paragraph (b) or (c), to the extent that it is an ancillary service.'.
  No. 175, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
  '(4A) The Secretary of State may, if having regard to developments in broadcasting technology he considers it appropriate to do so, by order amend the definition of "digital programme service" in subsection (4).
  (4B) No order under subsection (4A) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'
  No. 176, in page 2, line 14, leave out `by satellite' and insert—

  '(a) by satellite, or

  (b) in the provision of a local delivery service (as defined by section 72(1) of the 1990 Act)'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 2

  MEANING OF "INDEPENDENT ANALOGUE BROADCASTER" AND "QUALIFYING SERVICE"
  Amendments made: No. 56, in page 2, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
  '(d) the public teletext provider,'.
  No. 57, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.
  No. 58, in page 2, line 27, leave out `(c) or (d)' and insert 'or (c)'.
  No. 59, in page 2, line 36, at end insert 'and'
  No. 60, in page 2, line 37, leave out from '5' to end of line 38.
  No. 61, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
  '(4A) If—

  (a) the public teletext provider notifies the Commission, within the period of one month beginning with the commencement of this section, of his intention to provide a teletext service for broadcasting in digital form, and

  (b) the Commission consent under section (The qualifying teletext service) to his provision of that service,

  that service (in this Part referred to as "the qualifying teletext service") shall be a qualifying service for the purposes of this Part.
  (4B) In this Part "public teletext provider" means the person who holds the additional services licence (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) which relates to the teletext service referred to in section 49(2) of that Act.'—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 3

  LICENCES UNDER PART I
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 268, in page 3, line 31, at end insert
  'which shall not be given until the licence has been publicly advertised and the Commission has assessed the existing provision against alternative bidders'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 267, in clause 38, page 32, line 14, at end insert
  'which shall only be given after the licence has been re-advertised, other bids invited and the Authority has compared alternative proposals to the existing provision and is satisfied that it is superior.'.
  Mr. Mitchell: My amendments are an attempt to stop the process of takeovers that has changed the shape of radio and television. The rash of takeovers in television—it has been worse in radio—was not allowed until 1990. Now Yorkshire Television has taken over Tyne Tees Television; Carlton has taken over Central; and Granada has taken over London Weekend Television.
  The rash of takeovers in radio started earlier, and now, across the country, local stations have been taken over and amalgamated into big radio chains such as GWR and EMAP. In many cases, the chains are centrally run, with centrally determined playlists and promotion patterns, while local figures have been moved around. All stations provide much the same type of service, although in different areas, with jukeboxes placed across the country—born free, but everywhere in chains.
  These developments have gone too far. My amendments are an attempt to stop further progress, although I realise that it is a belated attempt, because the takeover process has gone so far. Certainly the idea behind television—and, earlier, behind radio—was that there should be a federal system of locally based companies serving and putting roots down into the region, reflecting the region's life in its network programmes—whether Yorkshire life, northern life, or Lancashire life in "Coronation Street"—and providing centres of excellence in each area, which is important for diversity in this country There are centres of excellence in television in Leeds, Newcastle and so on, which would not otherwise exist, because there is a tendency, in such occupations, for talent to gravitate to London. All that is now being undermined; indeed, the undermining process has gone a long way. We have witnessed the rundown of Central Television in Birmingham and the way in which many companies have effectively become shell companies.
  6.30 pm
  The argument that bigger-scale companies are needed to compete in the world market is fallacious—those companies are not competing in the world market, but if they do, it must be on the excellence of their production from locally based talent, reflecting local life in the region. Scale just brings an ability to shed staff and increase profits, which is what has been happening. I do not want that process to go any further.
  My amendments would require both the Radio Authority and the ITC, when a change of control is threatened—when somebody is trying to get control
  792
  through the back door by taking over a company to which the Radio Authority or the ITC has given a licence to serve the area—to throw the whole matter back into the melting pot and allow other applicants to come forward to take up the challenge.
  It is not necessarily true that an outsider taking over an existing company can provide a better service than someone else starting anew. Therefore, the licences should be re-advertised to stop the threat of takeovers. I want the Government to pay more attention to that, rather than creating an environment in which everyone is waiting at the starting tape ready to take over companies as soon as the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Sproat: These amendments would, in effect, lead to new competitions for the licences whenever any change in control was proposed. The present arrangements allow the regulators to look carefully at any proposed transfer, so that they can satisfy themselves that there is no transgression of the rules on media ownership, and that the person to whom the licence is to be transferred is not disqualified and is a fit and proper person. This is as it should be. The licence remains in place, and if the new controller does not comply with its conditions, the regulator has the usual enforcement procedures at his disposal.
  With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister's explanation is not adequate. I want new competition to be allowed. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

  MULTIPLEX LICENCES
  Amendment made: No. 228, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'the service' and insert
  'all the multiplex services available in that area'.— [Mr. Wood.]

Clause 8

  AWARD OF MULTIPLEX LICENCES
  Amendment made: No. 229, in page 9, line 8, leave out `the service' and insert
  'all the multiplex services available in that area'.— [Mr. Wood.]

Clause 9

  POWER TO REQUIRE TWO OR MORE MULTIPLEX LICENCES TO BE GRANTED TO ONE PERSON
  Amendments made: No. 177, in page 9, line 29, leave out 'and 8(2)(c) and (e)'.
  No. 178, in page 9, line 32, leave out 'and'.
  No. 179, in page 9, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'to' and insert
  'in section 8(2), the reference in paragraph (d)'.
  No. 180, in page 9, line 35, at end insert
  'and other references to the proposed service shall have effect as references either to each of the proposed services or to all of them considered together, as the Commission consider appropriate'. —[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 11

  FAILURE TO BEGIN PROVIDING LICENSED SERVICE AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES ON REVOCATION OF LICENCE
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 10, line 34, leave out 'financial penalty' and insert
  `specified financial penalty not exceeding whichever is the greater'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 204 to 206.
  Mr. Sproat: These amendments fulfil a commitment made in Committee. Amendment No. 181 allows the ITC discretion to levy a fine of less than £50,000 or the specified percentage of qualifying revenue, whichever is the greater, when it revokes a multiplex licence because the multiplex provider has failed to begin providing the service. Amendments Nos. 204 to 206 make the same arrangements with regard to radio multiplexes.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

  CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO MULTIPLEX LICENCE
  Amendments made: No. 182, in page 11, line 11, after `timetable' insert 'and other proposals'.
  No. 165, in page 11, line 37, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 183, in page 11, line 41, leave out 'or qualifying services' and insert
  ', qualifying services, programme-related services or relevant technical services'.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 166, in page 11, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 12.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 260.

  Division No. 165]

  [6.34 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

  Bowis, John

  Allason, Rupert(Torbay)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, M(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mouth E)

  Bruce, Ian(South Dorset)

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth(Mole V)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew(Southport)

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John(Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

  Bottomley, Peter(Eltham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Ru'clif)

  794

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas(G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G(Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David(Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davies, Quentin(Stamford)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas—Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B(W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kellett—Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg(Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

  Kynoch, George(Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox—Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Sir James(Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter(Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam(Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus(Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wlson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson—Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John(Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  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)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David(NW Hants)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Patee, James

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, Sir James(Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  795

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sweeney, Walter

  Porter, Barry(Wirral S)

  Sykes, John

  Porter, David(Waveney)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo. Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Powell, William(Corby)

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy(Southend, E)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thumham, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Robertson, Raymond(Ab'd'n S)

  Townsend, Cyril D(Bexl'yh'th)

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)

  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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David(Dover)

  Walker, Bill(N Tayside)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Sir Colin(Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Sir Dudley(Warwick)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wggin, 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

  Steen, Anthony

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell—Savours, D N

  Ainger, Nick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

  Cann, Jamie

  Allen, Graham

  Chidgey, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet(Ros'dale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Church, Judith

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin—Walker, John

  Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Robin(Livingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

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

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Byers, Stephen

  Darling, Alistair

  Caborn, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Campbell Menzies(Fife NE)

  Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

  796

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

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Litherland, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Livingstone, Ken

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

  Evans, John(St Helens N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Loyden, Eddie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAllion, John

  Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Forsythe, Clifford(S Antrim)

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fraser, John

  Madennan, Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Maddock, Diana

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Alice

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, David(Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester, S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martin, Michael J(Springbum)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martlew, Eric

  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)

  Hall, Mike

  Milbum, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Harvey, Nick

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Henderson, Doug

  Morley, Elliot

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Estelle(B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John(Aberavon)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, William(Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George(Knowsley North,

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim(Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert Aberdeen N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy(Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Sir Ray(Ogmore)

  lllsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget(Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda(H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Jenkins, Brian(SE Staff)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Johnston, Sr Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne(B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George(Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles(Ross, C&S)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Salmond, Alex

  797

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Short, Clare

  Wallace, James

  Simpson, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wardell, Gareth(Gower)

  Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N

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

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Sw'n W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W(Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Wray, Jimmy

  Straw, Jack

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Young, David(Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 184, in page 12, line 14, after `(1)(h)' insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 62, in page 12, line 14, leave out from 'the' to end of line 15 and insert 'qualifying teletext service'.
  No. 185, in page 12, line 15, at end insert

  `(b) "programme-related service" means any digital additional service consisting in the provision of services (apart from advertising) which—

  (i) are ancillary to the programmes included in one or more television programme services (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) and are directly related to the contents of those programmes, or

  (ii) relate to the promotion or listing of such programmes, and

  (c) "relevant technical service" means any technical service which relates to one or more digital programme services.'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 19

  DURATION AND CONDITIONS OF DIGITAL PROGRAMME LICENCE
  Amendment made: No. 186, in page 19, line 30 at end insert
  `, in relation to each service provided under the licence,'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 20

  CODE RELATING TO PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
  Amendments made: No. 167, in page 20, line 47, after `services' insert 'and qualifying services'.
  No. 168, in page 21, line 5, at end insert—

  '(lA) In this section "assistance" means assistance of any of the following three kinds, namely—

  (a) subtitling for the deaf,

  (b) audio-description for the blind, and

  (c) presentation in, or translation into, sign language.

  798

  (1B) The code must require that, as from the tenth anniversary of the date of the commencement of the provision of any digital programme service, in each week—

  (a) at least 50 per cent of so much of the service as consists of programmes which are not excluded programmes in relation to subtitling for the deaf is to be accompanied by such subtitling, and

  (b) at least 10 per cent of so much of the service as consists of programmes which are not excluded programmes in relation to audio-description for the blind is to be accompanied by such audio-description.

  (IC) The code must specify—

  (a) in relation to subtitling for the deaf, those classes of programmes in relation to which the Commission consider that it would be inappropriate for the requirement in paragraph (a) of subsection (1B) to apply, and

  (b) in relation to audio-description for the blind, those classes of programmes in relation to which the Commission consider that it would be inappropriate for the requirement in paragraph (b) of that subsection to apply.

  (1D) If an order under section(Powers of Secretary of State in relation to code about provision for deaf and visually impaired)(1)(b) is in force, the code must also specify, in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language, those classes of programmes in relation to which the Commission consider that it would be inappropriate for the requirements specified to in the order to apply.

  (1E) In determining under subsection (1C) or (1D) whether it is appropriate for a particular requirement to apply to any class of programmes, the Commission shall have regard, in particular, to the benefit which the assistance would be likely to confer on the persons for whom it is intended and to the technical difficulty of providing it.

  (1F) In this section "excluded programme", in relation to assistance of a particular kind, means a programme falling within a class specified under subsection (1C) or (1D) in relation to assistance of that kind.

  (1G) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the code may—

  (a) require persons providing digital programme services, at any time or times before the anniversary referred to in subsection (1B), to meet specified targets in relation to subtitling for the deaf or audio-description for the blind,

  (b) require a specified percentage of so much of any digital programme service as consists of programmes which are not excluded programmes in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language, to be so presented or translated, and

  (c) require, in relation to assistance of any kind, a specified percentage of so much of any digital programme service as consists of excluded programmes falling within a specified class to be accompanied by assistance of that kind.

  (1H) In subsection (1G) "specified" means specified in, or determined by the Commission under, the code.

  (1J) Subsections (1B) and (1G), so far as relating to audio-description for the blind or presentation in, or translation into, sign language, shall have effect as if any reference to a digital programme service included a reference to a qualifying service.

  (1K) The Commission may determine that, for the purposes of any provision included in the code in pursuance of subsection (1B). a digital programme service provided by any person is to be treated as a continuation of a digital programme service previously provided by him.'

  No. 169, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
  No. 170, in page 21, leave out lines 10 and 11.
  No. 171, in page 21, line 16, at end insert—
  '(4A) In this section—
  "programme" does not include an advertisement;
  "qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.'—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 22

  DIGITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 187, in page 22, line 39, leave out 'or an ancillary service' and insert
  `, an ancillary service or a technical service.'
  No. 188, in page 22, line 41, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this Part'.
  No. 189, in page 22, line 44, leave out
  'provided by means of a teletext service'.
  No. 190, in page 23, line 1, leave out from 'which' to end of line 2 and insert—

  '(i) are ancillary to such programmes and directly related to their contents, or

  (ii) relate to the promotion or listing of such programmes.'.

  No. 191, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—
  '(3) In this Part "technical service" means a service which—

  (a) is provided for technical purposes connected with the encryption or decryption of one or more digital programme services or digital additional services, and

  (b) is of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

  (4) An order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 26

  PROVISION FOR BROADCASTING OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY INDEPENDENT ANALOGUE BROADCASTERS
  Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 250, in page 25, line 30, leave out 'one or two' and insert 'up to three'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 251, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
  '(2A) Provided that the Secretary of State shall exercise his power to make directions under subsection (2) above so as to secure that each of the independent analogue broadcasters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 2(1) either becomes the operator of the multiplex in question or is in a position to approve the operator.'.
  Mr. Rowlands: The amendments seek to amend clause 26, which empowers the Secretary of State to do what he has already stated in policy terms that he intends to do: allow channels 3 and 4 to decide who their multiplex operators will be. Thus the Government have agreed that the BBC will be its own multiplex operator, presumably through its privatised transmission system, and channels 3 and 4 will be able to make arrangements either to control or to determine who their multiplex operators will be. So all three public service broadcasters will have such a right.
  800
  In the broadcasting scene, however, there are two other public service broadcasters: the new Channel 5 and the present S4C. The Bill recognises that they are two additional public service broadcasters as they are qualifying services. The amendments empower the Secretary of State to give S4C and Channel 5 the same relationship with their multiplex operators as channels 3 and 4. I cannot see why a distinction has been made. They are public service broadcasters, exactly like channels 3 and 4, and their needs in terms of a multiplex operator are the same. I am sure that both Channel 5 and S4C have expressed to the Department their wish to collaborate and co-operate in that respect, as there could be considerable conflicts of interest between their needs and those of a commercial multiplex operator.
  In Wales, the whole of multiplex 3 will be taken up by the public service broadcasters, that is, S4C and Channel 5. In the rest of the United Kingdom, half of multiplex 3 will be taken up by Channel 5, which will be a public service broadcaster. It is therefore not unreasonable to propose that the Minister grant those two public service broadcasters the same position as he has granted to channels 3 and 4 and the BBC.
  The real worry is that a multiplex operator's commercial interests could differ greatly from the needs of both Channel 5 and S4C. Let me illustrate that by reference to Channel 5. It will be vital for Channel 5 to achieve digital status as early as possible. Under analogue arrangements, it will have an extremely restricted capacity to access viewers. I shall paint a grimmer picture of that when I present my next amendments, which dwell on the transmission problems that will arise in Wales.
  There is no doubt that Channel 5 will want to develop digital services as rapidly as possible, because only then will it be able to reach out to a much wider audience than will be available to it under analogue. It will be in Channel 5's interests to do that, but will it be in the interests of a commercial multiplex operator? Will it not be in a commercial multiplex operator's interest to extend digital services merely to the large conurbations already covered by Channel 5 analogue? There is undoubtedly a potential conflict of interests between the needs of a commercial multiplex operator and those of a public service broadcaster such as Channel 5, from next January. The same applies to S4C. It, too, is worried that a multiplex operator's commercial priorities may differ from its own, in reaching out to small audiences in sparsely populated areas. It would be all right if those two were not public service broadcasters. But they are, and they have a remit and duty to reach out as best they can to the widest possible audience. They should therefore riot be placed in a different position from that of channels 3 and 4 or the BBC.
  The amendments were designed to allow the Secretary of State to make that change. Channel 5, which must be up and running by January, hopes that the digital service will allow it to reach a much larger audience than it will be able to reach through analogue. It is worried that months could elapse before the ITC chose a multiplex operator and that that would be valuable time lost in delivering its service. S4C shares that concern.
  In Welsh terms, the whole of multiplex 3 is already dedicated to the two public service broadcasters. I appreciate that the matter is slightly more complex for the rest of the United Kingdom, because Channel 5 will take up only half the multiplex. I do not suggest that Channel 5

  801
  should control the other half of the multiplex or have a right to it, but it should at least have the right to a meaningful say and control over who the multiplex operator should be, so that the operator complements and is on the same wavelength as S4C and Channel 5 in trying to deliver their service.
  I shall not press my first amendment because, while I have been sitting here, I have reached the conclusion that it is redundant. I thought that I needed to lift the ceiling on the "one or two" mentioned in the Bill, but I now understand that, as the BBC is excluded, that would not be necessary. However, I am keen on the second of my two amendments because, in straightforward language by amendment standards, it is in line with the wish expressed to the Department by S4C and Channel 5. They should have a meaningful say on, if not control and ownership of, the multiplex operator, to help them to provide the best possible digital service and the fastest means of delivering it, not only in Wales but in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has made so many valuable contributions to our debates in Committee that I should like to have helped him, but I cannot give him too much comfort on this matter. I shall give him a little, however.
  S4C has been allocated half the third multiplex in Wales. That multiplex will also carry Channel 5. Half the multiplex in the rest of the United Kingdom, apart from Wales, is therefore free and open to new broadcasters. That is therefore quite a different position from that of channels 3 and 4, which between them will control all the capacity on the second multiplex, or the BBC, which will have control of the first multiplex. That is why it would not be fair to give to Channel 5 and S4C—given S4C's demi position on this—the same rights as channels 3 and 4, which will use the whole of the multiplex. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. That is why it would not be right to say that they must be the multiplex operators.
  However, Channel 5 and S4C are perfectly free to bid for the multiplex licence together, separately or together with others who might wish to come on to the third multiplex, or even people who do not wish to come on to the third multiplex. If their bid succeeds, they will control the multiplex licence; if it does not, they can be certain that their position on the multiplex will be safeguarded by the ITC through the licensing of the multiplex operator.
  Although Channel 5 and S4C have that guarantee and safeguard, I cannot give them the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks, although I imagine that, with a guaranteed place on the multiplex in Wales, S4C will have a great influence on the multiplex operator.
  With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Minister mentioned the powers of the ITC and said that it can offer that type of assurance. As the Bill stands, will it be possible for Channel 5 and S4C to say to the ITC, "The multiplex operator that you are thinking about or suggesting, or that has made a bid, really would not be interested in doing what we need to do"? In other words, if they do not have the right to
  802
  control or operate the multiplex, will they have a de facto veto over a potentially unfriendly multiplex operator that bids for multiplex 3?
  That is extremely important because, although I partly appreciate the Minister's argument about the complicated position in the United Kingdom, where Channel 5 is only one half of the multiplex, the whole of multiplex 3 in Wales will be dedicated to two public service broadcasters, and those broadcasters have remits, duties and responsibilities. It is very important that no multiplex operator is chosen that will impede the fulfilment of the needs and wishes of a broadcasting service of the type that is represented by S4C and the new Channel 5.
  7 pm
  If the Minister can give me an assurance that, if nothing else, S4C and Channel 5 will have a de facto veto over the would-be multiplex operator, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Sproat: Although S4C would not have a veto, it will be absolutely incumbent on the multiplex operator to provide S4C with what S4C needs to fulfil its statutory requirements. To make certain of that, I shall get my Department to make an order to that effect, so that S4C will not have a multiplex operator that does not take its needs fully and properly into account. We intend that S4C should have that, and we shall ensure that it does have that.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: On timing, it is well known that the BBC and ITV, giving analogue services, will be first in the field, so they will have an advantage over competitors. Will S4C and Channel 5 have a similar advantage? Will the timing of the operation of their multiplex roughly coincide with the timing of the multiplexes that apply to ITV and the BBC?
  Mr. Sproat: The Government believe that the sooner they can get it off the ground, the better. It is up to them. There will certainly be nothing that says that multiplex 1 with the BBC or multiplex 2 with channels 3 and 4 should have priority. If the third multiplex can get its act together, there is no reason why it should be behind the others.
  Mr. Rowlands: Timing will be vital, as I shall show when we discuss my next amendment. However, I realise that amendment No. 250 is redundant, so I do not wish to press it.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 192, in page 25, line 44, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
  '(a) provide, in relation to any frequency to which this section applies—

  (i) that any or all of the provisions of sections 7 to 16 and sections 18 and 19 are not to apply, or are to apply with specified modifications, and

  (ii) that provisions of the order are to have effect in place of any or all of those provisions,'.

  No. 14, in page 26, line 6, leave out 'qualifying service' and insert
  'service specified in section 2(3) corresponding to the qualifying service ("the corresponding analogue service")'.
  No. 15, in line 7, leave out
  'that service in digital form'
  and insert 'the qualifying service'.
  No. 16, in line 10, leave out 'qualifying' and insert 'corresponding analogue'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 28

  ADVERTISEMENTS INCLUDED IN QUALIFYING SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 63, in page 27, line 6, after 'Authority' insert
  'or the public teletext provider'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 29

  REVIEW OF DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING
  Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in line 12, at beginning insert
  'Subject to subsection (1A) below',
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 225, in page 27, line 29, at end insert—
  '(1A) The Secretary of State shall keep under separate review in relation to television services in Wales the matters specified in subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) to (iii) above; and for this purpose the Secretary of State may require the Commission, the Welsh Authority and the BBC to furnish him under paragraph (1)(b) above with separate reports on those matters as they relate to Wales.'.
  Mr. Rowlands: These amendments seek to institute a separate review for Wales on the issue of switching off analogue and switching on digital. It is especially necessary that the Welsh aspects of the development of digital services should be the subject of a separate review. Much excitement has been expressed throughout the Bill's passage about the potential of digital terrestrial broadcasting, but how many viewers in Wales will digital services reach, and—crucially—when? Those are the facts of television life in Welsh terms, which worry any of us who are interested in broadcasting or the overwhelming majority of people who view television.
  In Welsh terms, digital coverage will be physically difficult and expensive. Our services are currently delivered from six main transmitters and 187 relay stations. As I said in Committee, in Wales we have 20 per cent. of the relay stations in the United Kingdom, with 5 per cent. of the population. Going digital will therefore be expensive, and might be delayed. Such delays would cause considerable concern.
  I do not know whether the Minister has read the annexes to the ITC's consultation document on the delivery of digital services. Annexe 2 lists the transmitters and relay stations that make up the ITC's minimum requirement for anyone bidding for the service. Obviously, the ITC will require the six main transmitters, but I am astonished—I hope that the Minister will share my astonishment—that the minimum requirement that any operator seeking to develop digital services must fulfil relates to only three of the 187 relay stations. Those are Aberdare, Pontypool and Kilvey, Swansea. That means that more than 30 per cent. of the digital audience coverage will not be required by the ITC.
  804
  Such a scenario raises more serious issues relating to the switching off of analogue and the switching on of digital services in Wales. It appears that, if only the ITC's minimum requirements are met, nearly 1 million people in the Glamorgan and Gwent valleys will not have access to digital through relays.
  There is an additional complication. I speak of my own valley. I live almost next to a relay station, at Thomastown in Merthyr. The valleys receive analogue through relays from the Wenvoe transmitter. How can one switch Wenvoe off analogue and on to digital unless all the relay stations that feed off Wenvoe are tooled up to receive digital? It is an extremely difficult, complicated and worrying position; a potential nightmare.
  When viewers start to realise the problems, difficulties and delays that will be involved in delivering digital services to the four corners of our nation, there will be increasing anger and frustration. There will be considerable concern in every household if we experience such problems.
  There will be extra frustration and difficulty, because we have offered digital television as a solution to the tension that has begun to grow, especially in Gwent, as a result of the feelings of deprivation of those who do not receive Channel 4. That sentiment is expressed widely in the overwhelmingly English-speaking communities. We have said to them, "Hang on folks, you will have Channel 4 as a separate service when digital comes. The difficulties and the problems are capable of being resolved in the not too distant future. Come digital, we shall have the opportunity to have a completely separate Channel 4 service."
  The Minister has said that he has read the address by Geraint Talfan Davies, who made the point that approximately 35 per cent. of Welsh households have the opportunity to opt out of Welsh services and to connect, through the transmitter in the north-west, out of Welsh services altogether. In fact, that has already happened along many parts of the south coast and in the Newport area because people want Channel 4. It has not been good for the Welsh broadcasting scene—it has threatened its identity. Digital was supposed to be the answer. However, we are concerned that we shall not get digital services in Wales in the time scale that we had hoped if a determined effort—it will be a costly effort—is not made.
  In addition to that deprivation, there will be another in January: when the new Channel 5 starts to run, large portions of Wales will not be able to receive it. The map that I have in my hand shows which areas will not be able to receive Channel 5. People will have considerable problems receiving it, even with digital. Channel 5 has asked the Minister—he has not won his battle with the Department of Trade and Industry, if I can describe it in those terms—whether it can have channel 35 to extend its scope. Channel 5 is searching for frequencies that might deliver its service to a wider audience.
  Potentially, we shall find ourselves incapable of switching from analogue to digital in the time scale that many other parts of the country will be able to meet. Complications and costs affect our transmission system. In addition, increasing tensions will build up over the Channel 4 issue, and they will be compounded by the inability of large parts of Wales to receive the new Channel 5 in analogue, let alone in digital.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the topography of Wales does not

  805
  readily lend itself to complete television coverage. In addition, he will be aware of the fact that many parts of Wales are still in receipt of the VHF service, when the rest of Wales happily enjoys the UHF service.
  Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge in that regard—he followed those matters closely when he was a Minister in the Welsh Office. However, he will agree that there is virtually total television coverage in Wales, and that that has been provided through the relay stations. The digital services will not be provided in the time scale that we had hoped because of the cost and the considerable technical difficulties.
  On 19 June, the Committee debated new clause 36, and the Minister sent me a reply to the debate—I do not know whether he sent a letter to the other members of the Committee. He stated:
  "viewers in several parts of the country would not be able to receive Channel 5."
  He continued:
  "it remains open to Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited to supplement coverage of their licence via cable and satellite and it is only by those means that all of Wales could receive Channel 5."
  That is a serious statement, because it looks as if the vast majority of Welsh television viewers should choose either cable or satellite to get the new range of programmes and services.
  Mr. Dafis: For a considerable period, large parts of Wales will be inaccessible to cable.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Rowlands: That is true, so satellite will be the solution. Viewers will have to decide whether to spend money on a satellite or on set-top boxes and the rest of it. That could have a profound effect on the broadcasters, who are expected to deliver digital terrestrial services throughout Wales. There will be increasing arguments as to whether we should try to deliver them by satellite or by digital terrestrial. The Minister has admitted, with regard to Channel 5, that viewers will have to turn to satellite. There will be a lot of ambivalence and ambiguity about the way in which terrestrial services are provided in Wales.
  Even bigger questions will be raised. For example, if people become totally dependent on satellite, what will happen when security issues arise? I do not want to forecast a war, but during such a crisis, the quality of the terrestrial services is not usually affected. However, viewers who receive their television services by satellite will face serious issues in relation to national security and defence in times of crisis.
  I do not want to end my speech on that gloomy and doomsday note. I plead with the Minister to carry out the review. Every conceivable pressure should be put on multiplex operators to go out and deliver—no matter how difficult and expensive it might be—the digital terrestrial services to Wales, which the rest of the United Kingdom will have in the not too distant future. If that does not happen, people's sense of being deprived of television—which has always been under the surface in many of our broadcasting debates in Wales—will grow with intensity.
  Mr. Dafis: I congratulate the Labour party Front Bench and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on tabling the amendments. I am not normally in a congratulatory mood in relation to the Labour party in Wales these days, but the amendments are important. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, the designation of half a multiplex to S4C has been welcomed as a major achievement. It will provide an important resource for broadcasting in Wales, and it will benefit not only the viewers of S4C but the whole broadcasting scene in Wales.
  As we have delved into this situation, we have begun to understand the concerns in relation to the extent of coverage of Wales by digital terrestrial. We are back to what Geraint Talfan Davies identified as one of the big issues in Welsh broadcasting: transmitters. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the ITC document of 22 May which refers to potential multiplex providers. It has been suggested to me that the document is too optimistic. There are also questions about the level of competence of the document. The document includes maps that show the extent of the coverage for the first three multiplexes—A, B and C—and, as one looks at them, one sees progressively less coverage of Wales. The third is pretty disastrous so far as the coverage of Wales is concerned. A broad band of territory—it extends from north-west Wales, including most of Anglesey, through the centre of the country, to the south-east—will not get digital, unless something is done about the transmission system. That includes Cardiff—it looks as though it will not be able to access digital through the multiplex—and much of Glamorgan.
  I discussed the technical reasons for that in Committee. It seems that the existing transmitters—and the boosters to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred—do not have the capacity for digital. Their capacity is taken up entirely by the existing analogue service. That has major implications for the viability of S4C and Channel 5 in Wales and their ability to develop.
  If multiplex C—and therefore S4C—is available in the south-east only if people tune into the Mendip transmitter, that will have tremendous implications for the audiences of HTV and BBC Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has mentioned that issue. That matter must be addressed and I ask the Minister to announce tonight what solution the Government will offer. Has he considered the matter that I raised in Committee about using microwave technology? It seems to offer a solution—it would take time and it would involve co-operation between various agencies, but it is an important area.
  I referred previously to the DTI working groups that are currently studying the new high frequencies on the 40 gigahertz microwave band. That involves using transmitters that are located every five miles—the same kind that are used for cellular phones. A complete network of such transmitters would facilitate the eventual removal of the 50 huge main transmitters throughout the United Kingdom. Those transmitters are an eyesore and they emit a great deal of electromagnetic energy.
  Another advantage of microwave technology is that the adjacent band—43 gigahertz—has been provisionally set aside for wireless interactive services, the Internet, multimedia and so on. If the Department of National Heritage cannot think of a better way of providing

  807
  coverage in Wales—if it can, we should hear about it tonight; it is important that we are confident that the Government know what they are doing in that regard—it should pursue energetically the microwave technology option. It could facilitate that through co-operation with the DTI and with the Welsh and Scottish Offices.
  I turn to another matter of concern involving the transmission of analogue services and its funding implications. I have already discussed that issue with the Minister, but I shall go over that ground again briefly. When S4C was made responsible for paying for transmission under the Broadcasting Act 1990, a miscalculation occurred—that has been clearly established—and, as a result, there was underfunding in relation to transmission costs. That was compensated for by an error in the drafting of the 1990 legislation that provided funding for S4C from 1 January. That funding more than compensated for the loss arising from the miscalculation that I have mentioned.
  This legislation will affect the 1 January funding, which will no longer apply. I understand that it cannot apply and I do not seek to change that decision. However, I am seeking a commitment from the Government that the proper level of funding—no more than that—for the transmission of analogue will be restored. It is not a matter of greed or of making unreasonable demands; it is simply a matter of normalising the funding on the basis of what was agreed in 1990.
  The Minister has sent me a letter about the matter—I am grateful to him for allowing me to quote from it. His response is important and quite promising. He says:
  "it is open to S4C—at any time—to make a case to the Secretary of State for support with their analogue transmission costs".
  That is fine—I accept the Minister's assurance and I am satisfied with it. However, he goes on to refer to S4C's opportunities for meeting the cost of the digital service. He says:
  "While we will study carefully any case S4C make to the Secretary of State for further financial assistance for transmission costs, it is only fair that I reiterate my view that the digital capacity and commercial freedoms offered by the Bill will enable the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority to raise significant sums for the benefit of their public service remit".
  That is okay, but I emphasise that those sums should be viewed as a means of enabling S4C to meet the additional demands of digitalisation. That is what they are for. I am concerned about the costs of analogue and of analogue transmission. It is clear that that will remain the primary means of providing S4C in Wales for many years. I ask the Minister to elucidate the next sentence of his letter. He says:
  "we envisage that the provisions which enable the Secretary of State to increase S4C's funding to assist transmission costs would only be used if the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority had made its case to the Department's satisfaction that it had exhausted all other sources of revenue for meeting these costs".
  The Minister seems to be saying that, if the Welsh channel could show that it had exhausted all other means, it could look for a positive response from the DNH in relation to extra funding.
  The Government have made it clear in debate both in the other place and in Committee that, by changing the basis of S4C funding to the retail prices index, they intend to provide stability of funding—they do not intend to cause any reduction. "Stability" implies a process whereby S4C could go to the DNH on the basis of a clear
  808
  understanding of its financial position and prospects in the confident expectation that its requests would meet with a positive response. That is what "stability" implies to me.
  If the Minister does not mean that and if S4C would fail to receive funding in those circumstances, it is important to understand that S4C would face a significant funding cut. That is the reality and we might as well face it—S4C would have a reduced capacity to meet its programming obligations under the analogue system. In order to facilitate planning and stable provision, I seek confirmation from the Minister that, if and when that situation arises, S4C will receive a positive response.
  Mr. Sproat: The amendments would introduce special arrangements for Wales in the review of prospects for analogue switch-off, but that is unnecessary. The review that we propose—as set out clearly in clause 29—encompasses the whole of the United Kingdom. The key factor in determining a timetable for analogue switch-off will be the availability, in digital form, of the public service channel to all viewers, wherever they may live. The availability of the services to people in Wales will be as important as their availability elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is no need to make extra, special provisions for any part of the United Kingdom because the whole of the United Kingdom will be considered in the review. That is the short and straightforward answer, but I understand why the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who educated me in Committee on certain aspects of the Bill, have—quite properly—used the debate to raise one or two wider questions.
  On the question of coverage, ITC frequency planning is not yet complete. The ITC will ask the applicants to operate channel 35 to make clear their plans for the time when more relay will be available.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Rowlands: I am worried because the ITC is making such a minimum initial demand. Why does not it make a much greater demand and let the operators prove that they cannot reach that demand? The ITC will do the reverse and tell operators the minimum they have to do, but ask them to let it know if they can do more. That is the wrong way round.
  Mr. Sproat: The ITC does not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he is at liberty to suggest that it is not asking enough. I shall draw his comments to its attention, but it has considered the point and believes that its way will be best.
  Mr. Dafis: The problem is that if the ITC asked for the use of all the main transmitters and all the relays, it would have difficulty in providing transmission because there is not enough space or frequencies on those transmitters and boosters to provide digital alongside analogue. As soon as analogue is switched off everything will be fine, but some people will not have a digital set and they will not receive any television broadcasts. That is an important gap.
  Mr. Sproat: Analogue will not be switched off until an equivalent bulk of the population is capable of receiving digital. I enunciated that principle many times in Committee and it will be the basis for any switch-off.

  809
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about channel 35 and its effect on Channel 5. Of course, I am aware that the ITC has proposed that channel 35 should be available to Channel 5. We are considering that point urgently with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is in his place and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said in Committee that he was in favour of channel 35 being used to spread Channel 5 to a much wider area in the south of England and almost every part of the United Kingdom has an interest in the issue, not just Wales. I can assure hon. Members that the issue of the use of channel 35 is one that both Departments are considering closely. We are aware of the attractions of usage by Channel 5 and the other uses to which channel 35 could be put.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned microwave bands and he properly raised that important subject in Committee. We take the subject seriously and the key determinant of analogue switch-off is the availability of the public service channels to all who wish to view them. The means by which they are received is secondary to that. If cable, satellite or other forms of transmission, such as microwave delivery, are practical, I hope that the broadcasters will explore them.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North asked what assurance I could give about assistance for future S4C transmission costs. He will know that clause 75 will roll over into the Bill the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 that allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide additional funding over and above the statutory formula funding if she is satisfied that that is necessary with regard to the costs of transmission. Indeed, it will extend the 1990 Act provision by specifying that the additional funding can cover the cost of digital as well as analogue transmission. Clearly, the exercise of any such provision will require detailed discussion with S4C about costs and alternative sources of funding, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned when he quoted from my letter. I cannot give him many guarantees about funding, if any. If S4C believes that there is a case to be made, it should make that case, with the help of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, to my Department.
  I hope that, given those assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the worst of our worries and our gloomiest predictions will not come true. If they do, we will be back not only with a new Bill, but with new arguments and new frustrations. In the light of need to proceed with the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 64, in page 27, line 19, after `Digital' insert 'the qualifying teletext service'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 35

  INTERPRETATION OF PART I
  Amendments made: No. 193, in page 29 line 39, at end insert—
  ' "ancillary service" has the meaning given by section 22(2);'.
  No. 17, in page 29, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
  ' "a Channel 3 licence" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act and "a Channel 3 service" means a regional or national Channel 3 service (within the meaning of that Part);'.
  No. 65, in page 30, line 9, at end insert—
  "'public teletext provider" has the meaning given by section 2(4B);'.
  No. 66, in page 30, line 10, at end insert—
  "qualifying teletext service" means the public teletext service provided by the public teletext provider for broadcasting in digital form as a qualifying service;'.
  No. 194, in page 30, line 14, at end insert—
  ' "technical service" has the meaning given by section 22(3).'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 36

  RADIO MULTIPLEX SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 195, in page 30, line 45, after 'sound' insert
  `(together with any ancillary services, as defined by section 59(2))'.
  No. 196, in page 31, line 1, after 'include' insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 197, in page 31, line 2, at end insert
  'or
  (b) a service where the sounds are to be received through the use of coded reference to pre-defined phonetic elements of sounds.'.
  No. 198, in page 31, line 2, at end insert—
  '(5A) The Secretary of State may, if having regard to developments in broadcasting technology he considers it appropriate to do so, by order amend the definition of "digital sound programme service" in subsection (5).
  (5B) No order under subsection (5A) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'
  No. 199, in page 31, line 4, leave out `by satellite' and insert—

  '(a) by satellite, or

  (b) in the provision of a local delivery service (as defined by section 72(1) of the 1990 Act)'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 37

  MEANING OF "INDEPENDENT NATIONAL BROADCASTER" AND "SIMULCAST RADIO SERVICE"
  Amendment made: No. 200, in page 31, line 29, at end insert—
  '(4A) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult such persons appearing to him to represent listeners as he thinks fit.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 41

  ASSIGNMENT OF FREQUENCIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  Amendment made: No. 201, in page 36, line 2, at end insert—
  '(4A) References in subsection (4) to digital sound programme services of a particular character include references to digital sound programme services catering for the tastes and interests of persons living within a specified area or locality.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 44

  RESERVATION OF CAPACITY FOR INDEPENDENT NATIONAL BROADCASTERS
  Amendments made: No. 202, in page 39, line 9, leave out from 'which' to end of line 12 and insert
  `the Authority consider appropriate in all the circumstances for the broadcasting of that service'.
  No. 18, in page 39, line 13, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.—[Mr. Sproat.]|

Clause 45

  DUTY OF AUTHORITY TO RESERVE DIGITAL CAPACITY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES OF BBC
  Amendment made: No. 203, in page 40, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
  '(2) The circumstances to which the Authority may have regard in performing their duty under subsection (1) include the likely demand for digital capacity by persons providing or proposing to provide local digital sound programme services.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 49

  FAILURE TO BEGIN PROVIDING LICENSED SERVICE AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES ON REVOCATION OF LICENCE
  Amendments made: No. 204, in page 44, line 2, at end insert
  `a specified financial penalty not exceeding'.
  No. 205, in page 44, line 3, leave out
  `a financial penalty of.
  No. 206, in page 44, line 5, leave out 'a financial penalty of'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 50

  CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO NATIONAL OR LOCAL RADIO MULTIPLEX LICENCE
  Amendments made: No. 207, in page 44, line 28, after `timetable' insert 'and other proposals'.
  No. 208, in page 45, line 18, leave out `or simulcast radio services' and insert
  ', simulcast radio services, programme-related services or relevant technical services.
  (1A) In paragraph (1)(h)—

  (a) "programme-related service" means any digital additional service consisting in the provision of services (apart from advertising) which—

  (i) are ancillary to the programmes included in one or more digital sound programme services, simulcast radio services or local or national services (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) and are directly related to the contents of those programmes, or

  (ii) relate to the promotion or listing of such programmes, and

  812

  (b) "relevant technical service" means any technical service which relates to one or more digital sound programme services.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 59

  DIGITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 209, in page 56, leave out line 21 and insert—
  ', an ancillary service or a technical service'.
  No. 210, in page 56, leave out lines 22 to 28 and insert—
  '(2) In this Part "ancillary service" means any service which is provided by the holder of a digital sound programme licence or by an independent national broadcaster and consists in the provision of any service (other than advertising) which—

  (a) is ancillary to programmes included in a digital sound programme service or simulcast radio service provided by him and is directly related to their contents, or

  (b) relates to the promotion or listing of such programmes.'

  No. 211, in page 56, line 28, at end insert—
  '(3) In this Part "technical service" means a service which—

  (a) is provided for technical purposes connected with the encryption or decryption of one or more digital sound programme services or digital additional services, and

  (b) is of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

  (4) An order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Clause 65
  POWER TO VARY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 60, line 17, at end insert 'and (4)'.—[Mr. Sproat.]
Clause 68

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Amendments made: No. 212, in page 61, line 22, at end insert—
  ' "ancillary service" has the meaning given by section 59(2)'.
  No. 213, in page 61, line 46, at end insert—
  ' "technical service" has the meaning given by section 59(3).'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Schedule 2

  AMENDMENTS OF BROADCASTING ACT 1990 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF LICENCES
  Amendment proposed: No. 232, in page 113, line 28, at end insert—
  `(ee) in the definition of "participant", after "means" there is inserted "(subject to sub-paragraph (5A))".'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the followmg amendments: No. 230, in page 114, line 1, leave out `secure' and insert 'achieve the result'.
  No. 231, in page 114, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert—
  `(c) he is a party to an arrangement (including any undertaking, expectation or understanding), whether or not legally binding, whereby parties to the arrangement, whether or not including himself, who hold or are beneficially entitled to 50 per cent. or more of the equity share capital of the body in aggregate or 50 per cent. or more of the voting power in it in aggregate make provision as to the manner or circumstances in which any voting power in the body possessed by any of them is to be exercised or not exercised either generally or in relation to any specified matters.'.
  No. 233, in page 114, line 19, at end insert—
  '(5A) After sub-paragraph (5) there is inserted
  "(5A) For the purposes of this Schedule a person shall not be regarded as a participant in relation to a body corporate by reason only that his interest in shares in that body is—

  (a) that of a bare trustee;

  (b) that of a simple trustee (where such shares are held on trust according to the law of Scotland); or

  (c) an exempt custodian interest within the meaning of section 209(4) of the Companies Act 1985." '.

  Mr. Sproat: Given the marvellous brevity of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I shall begin with some good news for the Opposition, which is good news for us on the Bill. Our legal advisers are of the opinion that there is little to choose between the current formulation, using the word "secure", and one that uses the words able to "achieve", as proposed by amendment No. 230. In legal and policy terms they produce the same result. In the light of the legal opinion that we have received, and given the continuing concern expressed by the regulators, the Government will not oppose amendment No. 230.
  Amendment No. 231 would bolster the provisions inserted in the Bill in Committee that deal with "joint control" and "deadlocking". As it stands, the Bill will, without doubt, catch cases where two companies each have a 50 per cent. stake in the deadlocked company. However, concern has been expressed about a case where, for example, company A and company B each hold a 49 per cent. interest, while 1 per cent. is held by another company that can be relied on to follow the wishes of company A and 1 per cent. by a company that can be relied on to follow the wishes of company B. Such a case could be caught by the substituted paragraph 1(3)(c) on page 114 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, if the 1 per cent. shareholders could each be regarded as nominees within the meaning of part I to schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. Such a situation could also be caught by paragraph 1(3)(b) if it was thought likely—in the sense of "reasonable expectation"—that A and B would be acting in accordance with each other's wishes. This is because if A and B were acting together, it would be reasonable to expect that they would be able to secure that the company's affairs would be conducted in accordance with their joint wishes. The 2 per cent. part shareholding would be completely irrelevant in company law terms unless allied with A or B.
  As it stands, amendment No. 231 would treat each of the parties to the arrangement as controlling the company. That could produce some unwelcome, and possibly even absurd, results. It would clearly be wrong to catch the many legitimate and commonplace arrangements that may be entered into among shareholders in private or family companies to secure their position within the company.
  814
  For example, if a 5 per cent. shareholder had entered into an agreement with other shareholders speaking for 51 per cent. of the voting power purely to safeguard his representation on the board of directors—which would be "any specified matter" within the meaning of the ITC's amendment—it would be contrary to principle and common sense to treat him as controlling the company. For those reasons, the Government will not accept amendment No. 231.
  Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 would prevent those who simply hold shares on behalf of others from being caught by the ownership provisions in schedule 2. They would ensure that such shareholders are not caught by the definition of the participant that now appears in the Bill. However, in so far as that is the intention of amendment Nos. 232 and 233, I understand that they are technically defective. They carve out an exemption for the purpose of limiting stakes in licences, but they do not do so in other respects. If the amendments were passed, such nominee or custodian trustees could still be deemed to control licences for other purposes and to be connected persons or "associates" of licence holders. In lay terms, they would be excluded from some of the ownership restrictions, but would still be included in others. To accept the amendments as they are could be to subvert, albeit unintentionally, the scheme of schedule 2. For that reason, and as I have agreed to amendment No. 230, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his other amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in some detail, as I think is appropriate, the Government's reasons for not wishing to accede entirely to the views of the ITC on the matter. I have no doubt that his legal advice will be studied with great care. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 230, in page 114, line 1, leave out 'secure' and insert 'achieve the resulf.—[Mr. Sproat.]
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 114, line 30, at end insert—
  '(8) Any reference in this Schedule to a person who is over a particular age is a reference to a person who has attained that age.'.
  The amendment puts beyond any doubt the fact that any reference in schedule 2 to a person who is over a particular age means that a person has attained that age. If that formulation still mystifies hon. Members, perhaps they will give me another 10 seconds to say that the intention of that form of words is to remove an ambiguity in the current wording of paragraph 9 of part III to schedule 2, dealing with the calculation of radio points for the purposes of the 15 per cent. limit applying to the ownership of radio licences. The current wording could be interpreted as relating to persons who are not yet 16 years old, rather than to those who have reached their 15th birthday.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 116, line 13, leave out from "Act)" to end of line 15 and insert—

  '(i) a licence to provide digital programme services, or

  (j) a licence to provide national or local digital sound programme services.'

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 9 and 7.
  Mr. Sproat: Amendment No. 8 honours the commitment given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) in Committee to disapply the nationality restrictions in part II of schedule 2 to the 1990 Act in respect of the ownership of digital programme service licences.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 116, line 24, after 'BBC company' insert
  ', a Channel 4 company'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 93 to 101.
  Mr. Sproat: The amendments fulfil our commitment to allow Channel 4 to create or participate in companies involved in broadcasting activities. This will allow Channel 4, like S4C and the BBC, to take full advantage of the opportunities of digital broadcasting.
  We are allowing Channel 4 to establish or participate in companies anywhere in the world, provided that they are involved in activities that would be licensable by the ITC or the Radio Authority if they were taking place in the United Kingdom. We are also allowing it to be involved in holding companies. These extra powers have been added to those already granted to S4C.
  Amendment No. 94 makes it clear that Channel 4 is able to broadcast its digital simulcast service throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. On analogue, the Welsh fourth channel is, of course, the responsibility of S4C.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 9, in page 116, line 29, at end insert—
  `() A BBC company is also a disqualified person in relation to any licence granted by the Authority to provide a national, local or restricted service within the meaning of Part III of this Act.'—[Mr. Sprout.]
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 116, line 41, leave out 'paragraphs 9 and 17' and insert `paragraph 9'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 35, 38, 41 and 42.
  Mr. Sproat: The amendments arise as a result of the new regime for limiting participation, short of control, in broadcasting licences. As a result of these changes, paragraphs 16 to 21 of part III to schedule 2 are largely redundant, and are therefore deleted by amendment No. 42.
  The holder of a licence to provide a national channel 3 or Channel 5 service is currently limited to a maximum interest of 20 per cent. in a national radio service and vice
  816
  versa. The holder of a licence to provide local digital sound programme services or a local radio service is currently limited to a maximum interest of 20 per cent. in a regional channel 3 licence holder where each of the services covers an area that is to a significant extent the same, and vice versa.
  Amendment No. 35 replaces these restrictions with restrictions on common control, but does not impose restrictions on the extent of participation below the level of control. It therefore harmonises these restrictions with the restrictions on participation that were agreed in Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 23, 38 and 41 make consequential adjustments to part III of schedule 2.
  Amendment agreed to.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 116, line 42, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'seventeen'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 25, 26, 36, 37 and 158.
  Mr. Sproat: Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 enable the Secretary of State, by order, to include the new category of restricted service television licences within the categories of licence that are subject to the 15 per cent. total television audience share limit.
  Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 allow the Secretary of State to limit, by order, the number of such licences that may be held by any one person.
  Amendment No. 158 allows the Secretary of State to make an order imposing restrictions on cross-ownership of restricted service television licences and newspaper companies, and to apply the public interest test to them, should this prove appropriate in the future.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 116, line 45, at end insert—
  '(aa) restricted services (within the meaning of Part I of this Act);'.—[Mr. S'proat.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 220, in page 117, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 26, and insert
  `No person shall at any one time—'.—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 237, in page 117, line 25, leave out '15' and insert '10'.
  No. 234, in page 117, line 26, after 'not', insert 'subject to sub-paragraph (3B)'.
  No. 131, in page 117, leave out lines 44 to 49.
  No. 249, in page 117, line 46, leave out '15' and insert `10'.
  No. 221, in page 117, leave out from beginning of line 50 to end of line 14 on page 118.
  No. 235, in page 117, line 50, after 'Or, insert 'and subject to sub--paragraph (3A)'.
  No. 132, in page 118, leave out lines 1 to 4.
  No. 133, in page 118, line 7, leave out '1(2)(b)' and insert '1(2)(a), (b)'.
  No. 134, in page 118, line 9, leave out
  'more than a 20 per cent.'
  and insert 'a qualifying'.
  No. 135, in page 118, leave out lines 11 and 12.
  No. 236, in page 118, at end insert—
  `(3A) For the purposes of calculating a person's audience time in respect of any period in accordance with sub-paragraph (3):

  (a) there shall be included the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in that sub-paragraph in respect of which, on the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he holds the licence, is a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence, or which he provides (as the case may be), irrespective of whether he held the licence, or was a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence or provided the service at any time during the period; and

  (b) there shall (for the avoidance of doubt) be excluded the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in sub-paragraph (3) in respect of which, prior to the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he has ceased to hold the licence, or to be a participant in the holder of the licence, or to provide the service (as the case may be).

  (3B) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not prevent a person from continuing to hold any licence, or to be a participant in a body corporate which holds any licence, or from continuing to provide any service (as the case may be) if and to the extent that arrangements made by him after the end of period in respect of which his audience time exceeds 15 per cent of total audience time would cause his audience time calculated so as to take into account the effect of those arrangements, not to exceed 15 per cent of total audience time.'.
  No. 222, in page 118, leave out from beginning of line 23 to end of line 13 on page 119.
  No. 136, in page 118, line 27, at end insert—
  `(6) In this paragraph "qualifying interest" means an interest of more than 20 per cent.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (6)—

  (a) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there, and

  (b) so as to specify different percentages in relation to licences to provide different services.'.

  Government amendment No. 27.
  No. 223, in page 119, line 13, at end insert—
  '3A. Provided that any proposal by a person who holds a licence to provide a service falling within any category specified in paragraph 1 (2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g) to acquire a further licence to provide one of the services so specified shall not take effect unless the Commission have examined the proposal and satisfied themselves that its terms are conducive to the public interest.'.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have been asked to table amendments Nos. 132 to 135 by Carlton Television. They are technical amendments that change the so-called audience attribution system introduced in Committee by the Government.
  The purpose of the Government's system is to take some account of holdings in television stations that are significant but fall short of overall control. If a company holds more than 20 per cent. of a television station but not enough to have control, it has to add one half of that
  818
  station's audience share to. its overall total. The amendments' purpose is to ensure that all such minority stakes in television stations are treated the same.
  Under the Bill as drafted, stakes over 20 per cent. in television stations trigger the audience attribution system, except in the case of channel 3, where the trigger is set at 15 per cent. I do not see a case for treating channel 3 stakes differently. It could lead to some serious anomalies.
  If, for example, the consortium running Channel 5 is made up of five companies holding 20 per cent. each, none of them would incur any extra audience share. Yet a 20 per cent. holding in a channel 3 licence, such as the one Carlton, Scottish and Granada hold in GMTV, would incur extra percentage points.
  The amendments make the system a little more balanced and give the Secretary of State the power to alter the trigger threshold should the need arise in future.
  Mr. Sproat: Amendments Nos. 220 to 223 and 249 seek to remove the scheme whereby holdings in television are regulated against a 15 per cent. audience share limit. We chose audience share as a way of regulating television ownership because it relates directly to plurality. Limits based on the number of licences are no longer appropriate because licences are not a balanced unit of measure and do not reflect the ability of a media owner to influence opinion.
  Amendment No. 237 is an alternative that would reduce the general limit on the holding of television licences from 15 per cent. of the total television audience to 10 per cent. But a 10 per cent. threshold would discourage companies from moving into digital broadcasting, particularly some of the larger players that would be well placed to make such investments. We therefore oppose those amendments.
  Government amendment No. 27 introduces an order-making power, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, whereby sub-paragraphs (1), (3) and (6) of paragraph 2 of part HI of schedule 2 can be amended to reflect any significant change in audience measurement practices of the television industry.
  We have reflected further on the calculation of audience share and we are prepared to accept amendments Nos. 234, 235 and 236, and I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will enjoy my saying that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for his cogent explanation.
  Mr. Maclennan: I rise briefly to thank the Minister for accepting amendments Nos. 234, 235 and 236: no doubt that will give satisfaction to the ITC, which submitted the amendments.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 234, in page 117, line 26, after `not', insert 'subject to sub-paragraph (3B)'.—[Dr. Moonie.]
  Amendment made: No. 131, in page 117, leave out lines 44 to 49.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Amendment made: No. 235, in page 117, line 50, after `(1)', insert 'and subject to sub-paragraph (3A)'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Amendments made: No. 132, in page 118, leave out lines 1 to 4.
  No. 133, in page 118, line 7, leave out `1(2)(b)' and insert `1(2)(a), (b)'.
  No. 134, in page 118, line 9, leave out 'more than a 20 per cent.' and insert 'a qualifying'.
  No. 135, in page 118, leave out lines 11 and 12.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Amendment made: No. 236, in page 118, at end insert—
  `(3A) For the purposes of calculating a person's audience time in respect of any period in accordance with sub-paragraph (3):

  (a) there shall be included the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in that sub-paragraph in respect of which, on the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he holds the licence, is a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence, or which he provides (as the case may be), irrespective of whether he held the licence, or was a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence or provided the service at any time during the period; and

  (b) there shall (for the avoidance of doubt) be excluded the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in sub-paragraph (3) in respect of which, prior to the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he has ceased to hold the licence, or to be a participant in the holder of the licence, or to provide the service (as the case may be).

  (3B) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not prevent a person from continuing to hold any licence, or to be a participant in a body corporate which holds any licence, or from continuing to provide any service (as the case may be) if and to the extent that arrangements made by him after the end of period in respect of which his audience time exceeds 15 per cent of total audience time would cause his audience time calculated so as to take into account the effect of those arrangements, not to exceed 15 per cent of total audience time.'.—[Dr. Moonie.]
  Amendment made: No. 26, in page 118, line 27, at end insert—
  '() The Secretary of State may by order amend subparagraphs (1)(a), (3)(a) and (c) by adding a reference to relevant services falling within the category specified in paragraph 1(2)(aa).'—[Mr. Sproat.]
  Amendment made: No. 136, in page 118, line 27, at end insert—
  '(6) In this paragraph "qualifying interest" means an interest of more than 20 per cent.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (6)—

  (a) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there, and

  (b) so as to specify different percentages in relation to licences to provide different services.'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 119, line 13, at end insert—
  `(7) If it appears to the Secretary of State that there has been a significant change in the audience measurement practices prevailing in the television industry, the Secretary of State may, after consulting the Commission, make such amendments of sub-paragraphs (1), (3) and (6) as he considers appropriate for the purpose of taking account of that change.'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 119, line 41, leave out 'for any numerical limit' and insert
  820
  `or percentage for any numerical limit or percentage'.
  Amendment No. 28 enables the Secretary of State to vary the percentage interest short of control that a person may have in licences to provide television multiplex services.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 120, line 24, leave out from first 'services' to second `services' and insert
  `by means of two or more television multiplex services if the number of points attributable to those digital programme'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 30, 31, 147 and 32.
  Mr. Sproat: In the start-up phase of digital terrestrial television, a broadcaster may wish to provide several services on one multiplex. We do not want to prevent that, but the ownership points system would have done so. The amendment would allow the points system to operate only where a broadcaster is providing services on more than one multiplex. Amendment No. 29 gives digital terrestrial television a better chance of a successful launch and ensures that we can safeguard plurality of voice in its initial stages, before the overall 15 per cent. audience limit can bite.
  Amendment No. 32 allows the Secretary of State to vary elements in the digital points system set out in paragraph 7 of schedule 2.
  We do not yet know precisely how digital television will develop. Therefore, the ownership regime must be able to cope with unforeseen developments.
  The radio points system, which is set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 of schedule 2, already provides for the variation of elements within that system. Amendment No. 32 extends a similar flexibility to the digital points system.
  Amendment No. 147 is a minor technical amendment that clarifies the drafting of paragraph 7(8).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 30, in page 120, line 32, leave out 'broadcast' and insert 'provided'.
  No. 31, in page 120, line 33, leave out 'broadcast' and insert 'provided'.
  No. 147, in page 121, line 26, leave out from 'licence' to 'to' in line 29 and insert
  `but who does not control that body, shall be taken'.
  No. 32, in page 121, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—
  `(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend this paragraph—

  (a) by altering the number of points for the time being attributable to digital programme services falling within sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4),

  (b) by substituting a different number of hours for the number for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (3), (4) or (5),

  (c) by substituting different numbers for any numbers for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (7), and

  821

  (d) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in subparagraph (8).'—[Mr. Knapman.]

  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 121, line 43, at end insert 'or have been awarded'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 149.
  Mr. Sproat: Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 make it clear that, for the purposes of the 15 per cent. total radio ownership points limit, points will be allocated to the company concerned when a licence is awarded. In other words, the Radio Authority will not wait until the company is broadcasting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 149, in page 121, line 51, after `force' insert 'or have been awarded'.
  No. 150, in page 124, line 45, at end insert—
  `(5A) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 12A.'
  No. 151, in page 125, line 3, at end insert—

  'Power by order to impose different restrictions in place of paragraph 12
  12A. The Secretary of State may by order provide that, where a digital sound programme service is provided in any area, the holding by any one person of two or more licences to provide in that area local radio services which for the purposes of paragraph 12 share a potential audience with each other or with each of the others shall, instead of being subject to the restrictions specified in paragraph 12, be subject to other restrictions specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 125, line 7, leave out 'such' and insert 'non-simulcast'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 34.
  Mr. Sproat: The amendments take account of the fact that local radio broadcasters are likely to want to simulcast their existing AM or FM services on local radio multiplexes and may also wish, and will be well placed to do so, to provide new services. Therefore, we have changed the restrictions on the provision of services on local radio multiplexes so that a broadcaster can provide any number of simulcast channels and one non-simulcast service on a local multiplex. It does not guarantee local broadcasters capacity on the local multiplex, but it recognises their distinctive position and the fact that digital local multiplexes are likely to cover wider areas than analogue licences.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 34, in page 125 leave out lines 8 to 28 and insert—

  '(2) Where—

  (a) the coverage area of the local radio multiplex service is to a significant extent the same as that of another local radio multiplex service, and

  (b) the person concerned is not providing any non-simulcast service by means of that other local radio multiplex service,
  822
  sub-paragraph (1) shall have effect as if the reference to one non-simulcast service were a reference to two such services.

  (3) In this paragraph "non-simulcast service" means any local digital sound programme service other than one which—

  (a) is provided by a person who holds a licence to provide a local radio service, and

  (b) corresponds to that local radio service.

  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) a local digital sound programme service corresponds to a local radio service if, and only if, in every calendar month—

  (a) at least 80 per cent. of so much of the local radio service as consists of programmes. consists of programmes which are also included in the local digital sound programme service in that month, and

  (b) at least 50 per cent. of so much of the local radio service as consists of such programmes is broadcast at the same time on both services.

  (5) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) amend sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) by substituting a different numerical limit for any numerical limit for the time being specified there, and

  (b) amend sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there.

  (6) In subsection (4) "programme" does not include an advertisement.'

  No. 35, in page 125, line 28, at end insert—

  'Further restrictions on holding of licences of different descriptions
  13A.—(1) No one person may at any time hold—

  (a) a licence to provide a national Channel 3 service or Channel 5, and

  (b) a licence to provide a national radio service.

  (2) No one person may at any time hold—

  (a) a licence to provide a local radio service or local digital sound programme services, and

  (b) a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service whose coverage area is to a significant extent the same as that of the local radio service or of any local digital sound programme service provided by him.'

  No. 36, in page 125, line 32, leave out `1(2)(b)' and insert '1(2)(aa), (b)'.
  No. 37, in page 125, line 40, after '1(2)(a)' insert 'or (aa)'.
  No. 38, in page 125, line 43, leave out '13' and insert '13A'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 126, leave out lines 8 to 12.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 40.
  Mr. Sproat: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are minor drafting amendments that are consequential on the removal of local radio services from the scope of the order-making power in paragraph 14(1) of schedule 2. As local radio is no longer subject to an order made under paragraph 14(1), paragraph 14(4) is redundant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 40, in page 126, line 23, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)' and insert 'subparagraph (5)'.
  No. 152, in page 126, line 37, at beginning insert 'Subject to sub-paragraph (1A)'.
  No. 41, in page 126, line 38, leave out '13' and insert '13A'.
  No. 153, in page 126, line 39, after 'paragraph' insert '12A or'.
  No. 154, in page 126, line 42, at end insert—
  `(1A) For the purposes of paragraph 12 and any order under paragraph 12A, a person shall not be treated as holding a licence to provide a local radio service merely because he is a director of a body corporate which holds the licence.'
  No. 42, in page 126, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 128.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 129, leave out lines 32 to 37.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 260, in page 129, line 32, leave out from 'newspaper' to 'may' in line 34.
  No. 261, in page 129, line 34, leave out '20' and insert '10'.
  Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
  No. 262, in page 129, line 37, at end insertp—
  '(d) a domestic or a non-domestic satellite service.'.
  No. 162, in page 129, line 41, at end insert—
  '(2A) If as a result of a takeover a person who owns or controls newspapers with a circulation market share above the percentage specified in paragraphs 4(1) and (2) becomes the holder of a licence to provide a Channel 3 service, the Independent Television Commission shall not for that reason alone revoke that licence unless a period of 12 months from the takeover has elapsed and the newspaper proprietor has failed to reduce the market share of those newspapers he controls to below the specified percentage.'.
  No. 263, in page 130, line 7, at end insert—
  '(6A) Any person who immediately prior to the date of coming into force of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1996 was both the proprietor of a national newspaper and the holder of a licence to provide any of the services mentioned in sub-paragraphs 1(a) to (d) of paragraph 4 above shall, within three months of that date, take such steps as are necessary to comply with the provisions of that paragraph.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
  Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 102 addresses one— of the most controversial aspects of the legislation—the regulations on cross-media ownership. The amendment seeks to delete that part of the Bill which contains the limit on cross-media ownership by national newspapers.
  At present, any newspaper group with more than 20 per cent. of the national market share is not allowed under the Bill to hold a licence to provide a regional national channel 3 service. In practice, that provision affects only two companies—Mirror Group Newspapers and News International.
  In seeking to abolish the limit, Labour has been portrayed as advocating no controls on media ownership. That is certainly not the case. The Bill contains two other important provisions that we fully support: first, the rule whereby no single television supplier may accumulate more than 15 per cent. of the total television audience and, secondly, the important public interest tests that may
  824
  be applied by the Independent Television Commission and which are contained in paragraphs 7 to 12 of schedule 2.
  In advocating lifting one restriction on cross-media ownership, it is important to spell out why we believe that this is such an important issue. In Britain, we have a large number of newspaper groups which, whether we like them or not, have managed to flourish over a period of years. More recently, there has been major growth in the television market as well as concentration of ownership. The future of the media, which is important to us all, is likely to continue broadly in the same way. Some people believe that newspapers are in long-term decline and that the future lies much more in broadcasting and the development of multimedia companies.
  I do not believe that we should commit ourselves to opposing the development of cross-media ownership or the growth and success of large companies. The idea of a Britain where large numbers of small companies make high-quality television programmes for the local area in which they broadcast while the Berlusconis and Bertelsmanns compete across Europe and the world is not a realistic proposition. One of the implications of the Bill as it stands is that Mirror Group Newspapers is denied ownership of a channel 3 licence, while the Berlusconi and Bertelsmann empires are not. Other European multi-media groups could purchase such licences, but Mirror Group Newspapers and News International could not.
  The Government have got themselves into a terrible mess. There are seven major newspaper groups, five of which are to be allowed to enter the television market. Another, News Corp, is already a major player in television. BSkyB is currently about third in the viewing figures when the public service broadcasters are discounted, and all credit should be given to it for the initiative, investment and innovation that it has brought to television broadcasting in this country. It is obvious that satellite broadcasting will be increasingly important and influential as the technology develops.
  8 pm
  The practical implication of the proposals is that a single newspaper group—a successful British newspaper group that wants to expand into broadcasting—is being prevented from doing so. It is a coincidence that it happens to own a newspaper that supports the Labour party; the arguments would be the same regardless. We have been accused of being politically partial in this matter, but, if there is any real argument for political partiality, it is exactly the other way round: the Government's friends are being looked after in the legislation, and the single newspaper that supports Labour is being excluded.
  The Government's explanation has been, first, that the 20 per cent. limit was arrived at intuitively: it seemed about right to everyone. Some would say that it is completely arbitrary, while others would argue that it is not arbitrary at all—that it was set deliberately to have the effect that I have described—but there is no rational argument for it. Some will argue that the 15 per cent. rule in television is equally arbitrary, but I do not agree with that. At present, apart from the public service broadcasters—the BBC, Channel 4 and S4C—no broadcaster has more than 6 per cent. of the market. The

  825
  15 per cent. rule is there to prevent further market concentration by a single company. The 20 per cent. rule, however, cuts a swathe through an existing newspaper market, placing newspapers on opposite sides of an artificially erected barrier. That is why we have suggested that the limit on cross-media holdings should be lifted, and that other regulatory mechanisms should be used to protect the public interest. That is what the ITC was constructed to do, and that is what the powers in the Bill allow it to do.
  If the amendment is not accepted, we shall support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). As is well known, he and I do not always agree on these matters in the context of the Bill, but we both see a considerable case for amendment No. 162, which is intended to allow a newspaper with more than 20 per cent. of the national market to become a television licence holder, and then to be allowed up to 12 months' grace in which to divest itself of some of its newspaper holdings.
  On 21 May, in Committee, the Minister said:
  "the hon. Gentleman will none the less see in paragraph 10 of part IV of schedule 2 on page 108 of the Bill that if the Daily Mirror wanted to acquire a channel 3 interest, it could have 12 months in which to divest itself of, for example,The People, or of whatever title it decided upon, in order to bring itself under the 20 per cent. ceiling. It could therefore make the takeover and then divest itself '.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 May 1996; c. 423–24.]
  There is indeed a measure of dispute about whether the Bill actually provides for such circumstances, but, in subsequent correspondence with members of the Committee, the Minister wrote that
  "while the Mirror Group, or any other group holding over 20 per cent., could make a bid for a Channel 3 licence and indeed have the bid accepted, before they had made the necessary divestment, that Group could not take over and own the Channel 3 station until after the divestment."
  That statement directly contradicts what the Minister said in Committee. The Government have apparently gone back on the commitment that everyone—including people outside the House—thought that the Minister had given, and I expect an explanation from him. Amendment No. 162 puts that commitment firmly in the Bill, and, given what the Minister said in Committee, the Government should be duty bound to accept it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has taken an interest in these matters, has tabled amendments which—although I cannot encourage the House to support them—would at least be fairer than the current position. They would exclude all the major newspaper groups from owning channel 3 licences. That might not be sensible in other respects, in that it could block the development of multimedia ownership, but at least it could be seen as fair among large newspaper groups. Because we support the development of multimedia ownership, however, we shall not support those amendments.
  Unless this change is made, one newspaper group, Mirror Group Newspapers, will be denied the opportunity given to all other media companies in the group's area of operation—in its sector—and its development will be severely curtailed. There will also be a further imbalance in the power, influence and profitability of the British press. That is the long-term implication of the Bill's proposals.
  826
  It is argued that the amendments would benefit the Murdoch empire as well, but I do not consider that the circumstances are the same. First, if News Corp wanted a channel 3 licence, it would have to divest itself of not 3 per cent. but a massive 18 per cent. of its newspaper holdings to bring itself within the 20 per cent. threshold. Most people know that that is highly unlikely. Secondly, why should a company with a major interest in BSkyB bother to acquire a channel 3 licence when it is already making significant strides in the market, and has already publicly announced massive investment in digital satellite broadcasting?
  It appears—I shall say this as gently as I can—not only that the Minister has gone back on the commitment that he gave in Committee, but that behind the scenes, in discussions that we all know to have taken place between officials of the Department of National Heritage and Mirror Group Newspapers and its representatives, commitments have been made and broken, and proposals that have apparently been accepted have subsequently been rejected. The Government have handled the whole issue very badly, but it is not too late for them to correct the position, and I urge them to do so.
  Mr. Gale: I wish to speak to amendment No. 162, tabled in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me make it abundantly clear that I do not support amendment No. 260. I am astonished that the Opposition should table any amendment that is remotely likely to allow News International a further stranglehold on the British media, and I expect not only my hon. Friends but Opposition Members to oppose it.
  Amendment No. 162 simply seeks to place in the Bill the undertaking that the Minister gave to me in Committee. As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned, in Committee the Minister said:
  "if the Daily Mirror wanted to acquire a channel 3 interest, it could have 12 months in which to divest itself of, for example,The People, or of whatever title it decided upon, in order to bring itself under the 20 per cent. ceiling. It could therefore make the takeover and then divest itself, rather than the other way round,".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 May 1996; c. 423–24.]
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who was the Chairman of the Committee, the Minister said:
  "I would like to make clear that while the Mirror Group, or any group holding over 20 per cent., could make a bid for a Channel 3 licence and indeed have the bid accepted, before they had made the necessary divestment, that Group could not take over and own the Channel 3 station until after the divestment."
  I have discussed this matter privately with the Minister and I am sure that he will not quarrel with what he said to me at the weekend, that it was his understanding that Mirror Group Newspapers—or, indeed, any other newspaper group, but we are talking about the Mirror group—could acquire a channel 3 company. That is the important part on which we seek clarification. If the Minister can give me the answer that I want, I shall not pursue the matter further.
  I appreciate that the Mirror group would like more freedom, but I would settle for clarification as, I believe, would the Mirror group. I am told that it can acquire a channel 3 licence, but that it cannot control it until it has divested itself of The People or another newspaper. The confusion between us appears to be precisely what is

  827
  meant by "acquire" and "control". My understanding from our conversation was that the Mirror group could acquire a channel 3 licence, could buy all the shares, and leave the existing management in place while it divested itself within 12 months of newspaper holdings to bring itself within the 20 per cent. If it did that, there would be no problem and when it had divested itself of the requisite amount the ITC would approve the licence and the group would take over control as well as ownership.
  It now seems that the group can acquire in the sense that it can sign on the dotted line and agree the price but that it cannot transfer the shares. That might seem merely semantic, but for the fact that David Montgomery, the chief executive of Mirror Group Newspapers, has told me that the City would not wear that; that it would not be possible to finance that kind of deal.
  My interest in this matter is not to support the Mirror group: it does not support my party, it has certainly done me no favours, nor do I expect it to. As the Minister knows, my interest in the matter is purely one of equity. I do not care what political party the group supports and I am satisfied with the 20 per cent. figure, as was the Labour party in another place. It is only since the Bill came here that there has been confusion and concern among Opposition Members about the 20 per cent. As I say, I am happy with the 20 per cent. and I think that the Daily Mirror management has accepted it—provided that it is free to acquire the shares and then to divest, which is what the Minister said in Committee and what we all understood would be the case.
  I do not suggest, and I slightly resent the fact that the right hon. Member for Copeland seemed to suggest—unless I misunderstood him, which I often do—that the Minister had in some way deliberately misled the Committee or the House.
  Dr. John Cunningham indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I withdraw my suggestion and thank him for his clarification. I certainly do not suggest that the Minister has in any way deliberately misled the House. However, it is important for all concerned to clarify this matter now at the 11 th hour and to make abundantly clear precisely what the Minister seeks to allow anybody with a holding over 20 per cent. to do. If, as he has said, one can acquire the shares but not control, everybody would be reasonably satisfied. However, if all that one can make is some sort of half a deal and then divest, it is unlikely to be workable. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the assurances that I seek in the name of fair dealing. It is as simple as that.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I have a rather peculiar declaration of interest. For nine years I was a member of the staff of the Daily Mirror when it was one of this country's great newspapers and was directed by Hugh Cudlipp. I do not write frequently for newspapers in the Mirror group, although I write for a number of other newspapers. I therefore have a peculiar disinterest in the interests of the Daily Mirror and in the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has moved.
  I hold no particular brief for Mirror Group Newspapers, and if the amendment sought only to favour that group I would not have risen to speak. Although my right hon.
  828
  Friend the Member for Copeland, from his position on the Front Bench, has some sort of party political interest to pursue, from the Back Benches I rise loftily above such considerations. I am trying to deal with extremely important issues relating to communications policy which are involved in the amendment, in the schedule and in the part of the Bill with which we are dealing.
  Much of the Bill is extraordinarily old-fashioned and backward looking. If I am called to speak on Third Reading I shall say more about that. It is an extraordinary Bill from a Conservative Government who claim to believe in the free market. The restrictions that it imposes on cross-media ownership are extraordinary not only because they come from a Conservative Government, but because they appear at a time when the whole nature of communications is changing.
  Day after day, one reads in the specialist press about a coming together of newspapers, television, radio, computers and telephones. That development cannot be stopped and I strongly welcome it. The Bill, and particularly the part that we are debating, stands futilely in the way of that. Those developments will take place but the Bill will interfere with them in a partial and illogical way. This is not the moment to go into the utter idiocy of the calculation of rules about audiences and the nonsense of believing that one can estimate the proportion of 15-year-olds who watch or listen to television or radio programmes. Among adults that is absurd, but as the idea comes from the Department of National Heritage, it is neither silly nor absurd but absolutely characteristic.
  While we debate this dull, drab Bill—little in its scope, if large in its number of pages and clauses—in other countries massive changes are under way. Microsoft and the National Broadcasting Corporation have got together to provide a 168-hour-a-week news service, which moves between the television screen and the computer, so that a viewer can amplify the news coverage as she or he wishes. All sorts of other developments are taking place. Later this year, it will be possible to have a device by which one can receive the Internet on the television set rather than on computer. Interactive computer games will be available on cable television. The whole communications landscape has changed while the Bill has been going through the House of Commons and since I spoke on Second Reading—even then, in a critical manner.
  Because there is no logical consistency in the Government's policies on these matters, ITV companies are able to gobble each other up almost at will—one hardly knows any more which owns which—but unless the Bill is changed as a result of the amendment, it will mean not an organic and sensible growth of media ownership in this country, but a Procrustean interference in media growth, which will do no one any good and will do the country less good than anyone else.
  As has been pointed out, in general, to abide by the restrictions in the Bill, newspapers could be faced with the absurdity of having to cut their circulation to meet the market share provisions. No newspaper can easily do that. What a newspaper group can do—and we are dealing with newspaper groups—is precisely what is being talked about and has been written about in the press in the past few days. For example,The Times reported that, in order not to be restricted by the provision—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is trying to relax—Mirror Group Newspapers is thinking of selling The

  829
  People. What good would it do to take a newspaper from the ownership of a group that is able to cross-subsidise it, if it needs to, if the newspaper is in trouble? Mirror Group Newspapers can do that and allow such a newspaper to float freely.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may not have much of an opinion of The People, but that is not the point. The whole point about a democracy is that, in a democracy, newspapers of which one does not have a high opinion must have as much right to publish and as much chance of survival as newspapers of which one does, subjectively, have a high opinion.
  Mr. David Winnick: I understand the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in moving the amendment and I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but is he saying—perhaps if this is not the position, he will soon put me right—that he does not want any restriction on ownership, and that in a democracy all such restriction is an impediment to technological development in the media, because I do not go along with him on that?
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has a right not to go along with me. Restrictions of this rigidity, stringency and artificiality can only damage this country's communications.
  Mr. Winnick: So no restrictions?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am not saying that we should get rid of all restrictions—although there is an argument for saying that in a world in which this country's communications groups, with the exception of some of the largest groups, are tiny compared with those outside—so I do not give my hon. Friend quite the answer that he would like to have.
  Let us forget about The People, although in a democracy it has as much right to publish and to seek an audience as anyone else, and consider the two other newspapers that are under the aegis of Mirror Group Newspapers:The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. Under its new editor, The Independent is becoming a remarkably interesting and vibrant newspaper which deserves much support. I say that again with a declaration of non-interest in that I rarely write for it and it is in competition with newspapers for which I do write.
  Mr. Winnick: It must be one of the few.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am open to offers. Could anyone say that it would be a good idea for these rules, restrictive as they are on Mirror Group Newspapers, to compel Mirror Group Newspapers to consider divesting itself of The Independent, which it rescued and which is becoming a remarkably interesting and individual newspaper? That will do no good. It will not even benefit newspapers with which The Independent competes, because a newspaper such as The Guardian must improve—and, by God, it has scope to improve—to compete with a lively newspaper such as The Independent.
  Newspapers are not only publications that one purchases over the counter. It is not simply in the United States that Bill Gates is financing an Internet newspaper
  830
  edited by the former editor of the New Republic. On the front page of The Daily Telegraph, in the bottom left-hand corner, one will find that we can get The Daily Telegraph on the Internet—an excellent idea. I hope that more and more newspapers will do that.
  Other newspapers are expanding in different ways. Associated Newspapers owns Teletext, about which the Government have performed gyrations and acrobatics during the passage of the Bill. It also owns a cable channel. Mirror Group Newspapers owns a cable channel. I am all in favour of such diversification and diversity. I favour much more cross-media ownership, because that is good for the media and for creating more newspapers and publications, both in print and on the Internet.
  If the Government persist in such a restrictive attitude, even for the short period of office remaining to them, they will be helping Britain to remain a tiddler in the international communications pool. That is not good for Britain. In relation to this part of the Bill, it happens not to be good for Mirror Group Newspapers, but the interests that I am talking about go far wider than that. I hope that the Government will listen seriously to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and accept his amendment because, apart from anything else, it will spare him from having to introduce a new Bill in the middle of next year.
  Mr. Maclennan: It is odd that, in this debate about competition policy, the Opposition have at no time mentioned the interests of the consumer, whose concerns should be at the heart of the matter. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the desirability of commercial expansion—empire building is what it might have been called in the days of old Labour—and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked whether Mirror Group Newspapers was being unfairly treated. What we have not heard from the Labour party's spokesman in this debate is any indication of Labour's understanding of the purpose of competition policy, to protect the diversity and plurality of the channels of communication to the public.
  The futuristic picture of the right hon. Member for Gorton is one that we can all enjoy speculating about, but it is the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is happening."' It may be happening, but the effects will take some time. No doubt other regulatory measures will be taken to ensure that the changes are properly reflected when they constitute a significant threat to plurality and diversity. At present, they do not. The right hon. Gentleman might take a very different view if, after the next election,The Sun was able to say once again, "It was The Sun wot won it", not only in the newspaper but in news broadcasts on terrestrial channels.
  8.30 pm
  The risk of over-concentration is not fanciful. I do not consider that News Corp, for other reasons of regulatory policy, including the nationality exclusions, is likely to be in a position to dominate in that way. However, the static view, that the relationship between companies will remain roughly the same as now, is an improbable picture of what is likely to happen over the next decade. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about legislating not for all time, but for the short term. That is not irresponsible, but is entirely necessary.

  831
  I do not think that anyone has argued that the 20 per cent. threshold can be justified in terms of any particular principle. That is a point I argued in Committee. The percentage threshold approach was argued by the Labour party when the Bill was introduced in the other place. Lord Donoughue argued that 25 per cent. would be an acceptable percentage because it would deal with the Mirror group problem.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: In a moment.
  The notion of a percentage threshold was accepted by the Labour party in another place, and 25 per cent. was held to be the appropriate figure because it would bring the Mirror group under the net.
  I have no doubt that the Government were aware when they proposed 20 per cent. that the Mirror group was being caught on the wrong side. For that reason, I too would have accepted a movement to 25 per cent. When the Bill was in Committee, the Labour party's spokesmen argued that 25 per cent. would have been appropriate. The only reason they did not push that was the order in which the amendments arose. They said that they could not vote on that, and that therefore they would vote on the other approach—the one that they are pushing tonight—in amendment No. 102. That is a risky route, and we should not take it.
  I am not alone in arguing that point. Many media interests, not only newspaper groups, are in favour of retaining what the Government have proposed. Granada and LWT have pointed out the risks of following the advice of the right hon. Member for Gorton. The House is wise to take some heed of those warnings.
  If the Bill has to be changed in seven years, I do not think that that will mean that it has not served a purpose. There is nothing wrong with dealing with things as they are. That is better than having one's head in the clouds, which I suggest has been the case with the right hon. Member for Gorton during a number of debates on broadcasting.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means about my head being in the clouds. For some time now, everything that I have talked about in all the debates on broadcasting—whether on the BBC charter, this Bill or at other opportunities—has been happening at the time or has come to pass. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a description of developments in communications which are changing the nature of our world and our society means that my head is in the clouds, I fear that it is his head that is in the clouds.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman knows, because I have made it clear, that I am not denying that those developments are taking place. What I am asserting, and what I assert again, is that they do not constitute a threat to diversity and plurality. Indeed, they may assist that process. As things stand, the narrow concentration of press ownership in the hands of a relatively small number of groups in this country could constitute a significant threat to diversity in the short term. That is what we have to deal with in the Bill.
  832
  I do not think that the Mirror group has been well served by its political friends, given the way they have twisted and turned around the question of the 25 per cent. market share. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) goes some way towards helping to deal with the injustices, and I have no hesitation in subscribing to it.
  It is reasonable that the Mirror group should be in a position to acquire a channel 3 television station and, within 12 months—the grace period allowed by that amendment—divest itself. That position, as it was understood by Committee members, appeared to be supported by the Minister in Committee. There have been the most extraordinary tergiversations in the Department of National Heritage since that time. Candidly, I cannot understand how the Minister has got himself into this position. He is an extremely straightforward Minister, and I can assume only that the affair has been taken out of his hands.
  It was clear from what the Minister said in Committee—the hon. Member for North Thanet quoted his words—that he intended that the matter should be dealt with in the way proposed by the amendment. His letter of 28 June to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and other members of the Committee is incomprehensible in terms of the sequence of historical events—it does not lie squarely with what he said before—and makes no sense in English. I cannot imagine how it could be interpreted by a court of law.
  I hope that the hon. Member for North Thanet has been drumming up some support for his amendment among his hon. Friends, and I hope that the Minister has had time to take into account the evident injustices to the Mirror group, which the amendment would go some way to addressing.
  Another matter has been raised, probably with many members of the Committee, by the GWR Group. It concerns amendments Nos. 44 and 46. I feel that I should raise this matter, although I recognise that it is not as exciting as some of those we have been discussing so far. It concerns the Government's withdrawal of market share threshold on newspaper ownership of digital audio broadcasting, which GWR points out offers the newspapers the opportunity to enter DAB through the back door.
  GWR says that, if DAB is to be the medium of the future, the amendments allow newspapers to move straight into that broadcast medium. The concerns expressed by the GWR Group include the lack of sufficient DAB spectrum for local multiplexes, and the fear that it will be further exacerbated by the added competition of free access by dominant newspaper groups.
  ILR has already been put into an invidious position regarding access to local DAB multiplexes. The BBC local radio services and independent national radio have guaranteed access to their appropriate multiplexes. However, independent local radio has no such guarantee, and the lack of clarity will be compounded by the relaxation of newspaper ownership laws.
  This group of amendments is probably among the more important matters that we have had to consider in the debate on this Bill. I must confess to having found the Labour party's position very disturbing if it is a reflection of how it may behave if it was ever to form a Government.

  833
  We must take its position seriously. I can assume only that the freedom of opposition allows it to canter down this rather circuitous route. I sincerely hope that it does not put itself in hock to substantial newspaper interests if it is entrusted with government.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall be brief, particularly as the Labour Chief Whip is in the Chamber. I shall speak to the amendments in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—amendments Nos. 260 and 261—and to those that are only in my name, amendments Nos. 262 and 263.
  I listened with great care to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whose views I always take very seriously. I think that he is wrong on this occasion, but I acknowledge that his position is well thought out, and one which he has held for a long time and argued consistently. I think that he has allowed himself to become dazzled by technology. I am much more interested in the quality of what appears on television, and the implications that that has for the future of our democracy.
  Regulation in the British television industry has worked, and the only reason we have something worth defending is that it has worked. If regulation had not worked, or if we had not regulated in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we would have nothing worth defending now. But we have something that is worth defending, which is why we must reflect carefully on where the future lies.
  I should also like to comment on amendment No. 102, which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friends. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, and I accept that there is a certain logic in the Opposition amendment. Whatever percentage one selects—whether it is 20 per cent. or 10 per cent.—by definition it will be arbitrary. Everyone understands that. But to accept his argument, one must have a touching faith in regulators' abilities.
  As I understand it, the Opposition's position is to take off all artificial limits on the size of a newspaper company's market share before it moves into television, and to substitute a public interest test. To enforce that public interest test, one obviously must rely on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which has let us down very badly in the past, or on the Independent Television Commission, which has done better than the MMC. But I do not think that either of those institutions—even if they were beefed up—is necessarily capable of facing up to the mighty and enormous vested interests we face.
  I should be much happier with amendment No. 102 if someone could convince me that those institutions were up to the task, that there would be a totally revamped MMC, and that behind it would lie the political will to stand up to those corporations. I believe that it is a responsibility of politicians to intervene in the broadcasting marketplace.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he wrote to the Director General of Fair Trading—who was then Sir Bryan Carsberg—to ask what
  834
  he thought the limit should be on media ownership. Sir Bryan wrote back to him—I gave a little cheer when I read the letter—saying, in effect, that it was not a responsibility that could be shuffled off on to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; it was a matter for politicians. It was for politicians to decide. He was absolutely right.
  It is a matter for politicians to decide, and that is why I tentatively offer alternatives to the Opposition's position. My amendment Nos. 260 and 261 offer two alternatives. They are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland conceded, more logical than the Government's position, even if they are not his first preference.
  8.45 pm
  My first amendment is that no national newspaper should be allowed to buy into television. As I said, that is my first preference, everything else being equal. I want diverse media, and I think that that is an essential precondition of a democracy.
  My second amendment, amendment No. 261, which is also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, provides that only newspapers with less than 10 per cent. of the market may buy into television. That would have the effect—which I commend to the House—of excluding all our tabloid newspapers. It would not discriminate only against the Daily Mirror; it would discriminate against them all.
  The argument for such discrimination is quite simple. Those who brought us junk journalism will bring us junk television if we let them, and we should not. There is nothing about those corporations' stewardship of our popular newspapers that suggests any reason why we should be nice to them. We had yet another disgraceful display with the recent European football championship of why we do not want the people who control those newspapers also to get their hands on television.
  Amendment No. 262, which is in my name only, adds non-domestic satellite television to the categories listed in schedule 2. That would have the advantage of inviting Mr. Murdoch to choose between his television assets and his newspaper assets. I am neutral as to which he should choose, but, should he choose to stick with his newspapers, owning four national newspapers is too many in a fragile democracy such as ours. In my broadcasting Bill, newspaper corporations would be allowed to own one daily and one Sunday newspaper, and all the others would have to be put on the market. However, we are not discussing my Bill.
  My amendment No. 263 would give any corporation that owns more than the limits allowed in the other amendments three months to divest.
  As I said, I believe that the free flow of information is a precondition of democracy. I believe that diversity of ownership—the more the better—is the best guarantee of that. I do not believe that big is beautiful or necessary. We talk about the need to compete with mighty American corporations and with one or two of the big European ones. I do not think that we will ever be able to compete on that scale.
  Ultimately, a handful of American corporations—probably American, but there may be one or two European corporations, and perhaps one Japanese among them—will eventually dominate most of the earth. I do not want to see us included as an offshore part of a great empire.

  835
  We have already reached a situation in this country in which Mr. Murdoch is so big that even the Conservative party—which helped to create this monster—is afraid of him. As politicians, we recognise that it is not possible to win an election with The Sun against our party. I do not think that Labour has won an election since Mr. Murdoch took control of The Sun. The best that we can hope for—and, by God, we are doing our best—is a surly neutrality at the next election, and we can expect that only once. I do not want somebody who has mishandled the newspapers he owns being given greater access to television.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend over-estimates the influence of the press. In 1970, the Labour party lost the general election even though it was supported by both The Sun and the News of the World.
  Mr. Mullin: As my right hon. Friend knows,The Sun was a quite different animal in 1970. He and I both worked for the Daily Mirror in the days when it was a good newspaper—which it is not now.
  Some 18 months ago, I introduced the Media (Diversity) Bill, which would have implemented one or two of the proposals in these amendments, as well as one or two other things. When I presented the Bill, I referred to those who are currently running our media as unscrupulous megalomaniacs. That resulted in my being invited to lunch, one by one, with all of them. They were charming and eloquent—not in any way the stereotype of a media baron. One by one, they sought to persuade me that big was beautiful, that they would be extremely responsible were the market to be allowed to let rip, and that we should regulate in general terms but not impose any limits on size. I am afraid that I was not persuaded.
  Some of the arguments about the advantages of new technology were advanced at the time that Mr. Murdoch broke the unions at Wapping. I must say that, in some respects, he had a good case for doing so, bearing in mind some of the abuses in the newspaper industry. Those abuses could not be justified, and I would not try to do so.
  It was argued that, as a result of all the new technology, there would be a flourishing of new titles—a thousand flowers would bloom, and a thousand schools of thought would prevail. A number of new titles did emerge, but they are all dead now, except The Independent. Of course,The Independent is not independent any more, primarily because Mr. Murdoch unleashed a price war in a ruthless attempt to sink his rivals. That was his objective. I believe that some of that philosophy will be extended to television ownership if we let the tabloid media barons into television ownership.
  I listened to Viscount Rothermere on "Desert Island Discs" the other day. He is another whose interests would be affected by the amendments. He was idly musing whether he would allow one of his principal newspapers to support the Labour party at the general election. In a democracy, we should not need to persuade any of those people to back one political party or the other. I do not think that their stewardship of their assets has been acceptable in a democracy. I do not want them to extend their interests into television.
  Of course, the Daily Mirror has already done so in a small way. It has ventured into cable television—something that was much remarked upon in Committee.
  836
  The small audience enjoyed by its cable channel gets topless darts and Newsbunny. It is not just the same values that are being imported—it is the same people. Mr. Kelvin McKenzie now gives us junk television where before he gave us junk journalism.
  With great reluctance, I will support the Opposition amendment. It has a certain logic, but it is entirely dependent on the powers that it gives to the MMC and the ITC. When the time comes, I will, with permission, press my amendment No. 261 to a Division.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The choice between amendment No. 102 and amendment No. 261 is a choice between all and nothing. In effect, amendment No. 102 would allow any newspaper to take control of a television station or channel, whereas amendment No. 261 would not allow any tabloid newspaper to take control of channel 3. I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), as I believe that we should exclude the tabloids from channel 3.
  Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the desire of the newspaper proprietors and the big publishing houses to become multimedia giants with a powerhouse of information at their disposal across diverse media, that is really just their science fiction dream about what they have to become for competitive reasons, rather than a wish to make a genuine contribution or to improve themselves.
  What will those people gain by becoming multimedia giants? It is fashion rather than competence. I do not know what they could possibly add to existing terrestrial television stations, which have been producing successful programmes, which have been successfully run and which have done a good job in serving their areas. They should not now be prey to takeover by giant newspaper groups. Would the newsrooms be merged? That would be disastrous for television news. The disciplines are different and the training, instincts and requirements of the journalists for balance and impartiality are different. Will there be synergy? Where can synergy possibly come from in that sort of takeover? Apart from cross-advertising between television and the newspapers, I can see no synergy. Will the quality of the journalism be improved? Will they bring the same balance, impartiality and fairness that characterise the tabloids—the Daily Mail is a classic example—to the newsrooms of television? What can they really contribute? The only experiments by the big newspaper groups in cable television have been disastrous.
  I quite like Live TV, and I watch it when I get home late at night. It has a sort of low sexual stimulation—but it certainly is not Kelvin McKenzie's finest contribution to journalism. I think that Newsbunny is a great innovation. Indeed, the Conservative Front Bench has a Newsbunny—he is called a parliamentary private secretary. He sits behind the Minister saying, "Eee, get that," as a reaction to the Minister's approach. Newsbunny is a great idea, but it is not an astounding innovation that will revolutionise television, any more than topless darts will.
  Where the media barons have experimented in television, they have made no real contribution. Channel One surely refers to the number of viewers rather than the title of the station. It is certainly not a great innovative

  837
  station. I do not believe that they can add anything to television. If they want to be international players in an international market—they tell us that they want to be big so that they can compete internationally—the only way to achieve that is to make programmes.
  The strength of this country is in production. The quality of British programming is the strength. If those people want to compete internationally, they could easily buy a production house and put money into it. Most production houses are short of money. Investment in production would make the newspaper groups international players. They do not have to own a television station and a television newsroom to make a contribution. They want to buy a slice of a monopoly to cushion themselves from the inevitable decline of print and the rise of television.
  Too often, the desire to take over television stations is a formula for failure. The formula for successful businesses is to stick to what they are good at. I do not know why newspapers do not do that. The only justification for a newspaper group getting into television is that offered by Rupert Murdoch, who has been very successful—all praise to him—because he took a risk. He saw the opportunity to put the Sky channels on the Astra satellite.
  We cannot—it would be unrealistic—penalise Rupert Murdoch for being successful, which is why I do not support amendment No. 262. He is the one person who has made a contribution to television. That powerful contribution has made all our lives and the diversity of viewing better. If other newspaper groups wanted to contribute, why did not they seize the opportunity that Murdoch seized right at the start, and get themselves on Astra?
  I live in the real world. I am new Labour. I recognise that the righteous—a group which includes me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South—do not necessarily prevail in the real world. I do not think that our amendments will be acclaimed. The backs of the heads of my Front-Bench colleagues have been especially inscrutable while I have been speaking. They have not been nodding the sort of ready assent that I would have expected for our amendment.
  I therefore assume that we shall have to support amendment No. 102, which I hope will be successful. So we move from nothing at all to all. That is a rational position, because there is no logic in the distinction that the Government have drawn. If some newspaper groups are to be allowed in, all must be allowed in—especially the one that has made a contribution to television. The distinction is based on prejudice—prejudice against the Daily Mirror because it is Labour, and against Murdoch because he is successful. I cannot stand such prejudice on the Government's part. I shall enthusiastically support amendment No. 102, while, in my heart of hearts, wanting amendment No. 261.
  9 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for using a phrase that characterises some of the interventions on amendment No. 102—he mentioned being "dazzled by technology". That is what is happening.
  838
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right to talk about the current reality. I occasionally look at newspapers on the net but, for the foreseeable future, like everyone else, I shall get my news from actual newspapers, television and radio. That will be the case for most people for some time. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairytale world. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not know his way around the Internet. That is probably true of a great many hon. Members.
  There is a certain irony in the fact that we should be debating this matter now. Clearly, six months is a long time in terms of new Labour policy, as the people of Scotland have recently discovered to their cost. Labour's backsliding referendum proposal shows how much can change. It did not take it six months to make that turnaround. The policies that were proudly proclaimed in the winter have been shed at the first sight of the sun.
  The leader of the Labour party said as recently as last year that the then shadow National Heritage Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith),
  "has already laid out the principles which should govern this area—diversity of content, plurality of ownership, regional strength, quality of programme-making and the avoidance of excessive dominance by any one company."
  I do not understand how the Labour amendment achieves any of those.
  Cross-media ownership greatly concerns many hon. Members who recognise the threat to democracy and competition inherent in large cross-media corporations. Those are grave anxieties. I suspect that we should therefore consider Labour's motives in tabling the amendment with some cynicism. I presume that Tony Blair's jaunt to the News International conference in Australia last year is now getting its pay-back.
  That Labour's amendment will favour the Murdoch press, among others, at the expense of the effective control of media ownership is a price that it seems willing to pay for the prospect of a gentler run in the forthcoming general election, as if adopting Tory policies on social and economic affairs is not going to be enough. The real lesson is: new Labour, no principles. Whether on the Scottish constitution or on this issue of media ownership, we are effectively seeing a two-faced Labour party. I am confirmed in my view that neither Tory Blair nor new Labour can be trusted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should know that she must not refer to hon. Members by their surname.
  Ms Cunningham: I was referring to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  It is hard to see how the Labour amendment can be supported by anyone. I was therefore pleased to see the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—clearly without the support of Labour Front-Bench Members. I must admit that their sentiments are preferable to the Government's proposal, which seems designed to exclude just one or two newspaper groups, but would allow others into the market.
  Amendment No. 261 would effectively prevent all UK tabloid newspapers from buying into television. The misuse of the word "national" has been frequent tonight:

  839
  many other hon. Members will agree that the United Kingdom is not a nation. The amendment would prevent cross-ownership between those UK tabloid owners and the new television services. Ultimately, that is a far better protection for democracy, which, thankfully, is still an important principle for some of us.
  Mr. Winnick: I know that the Whips are keen to proceed to a vote, so I shall not delay matters for much longer.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy indicated assent.
  Mr. Winnick: I see that the Labour Whip on duty is nodding her head in full agreement.
  This debate, however, is one of the most important on the Bill, so there is some justification for expressing a view, however briefly. I well understand the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Knowing the Government, I am sure that, if the Mirror group supported the Conservative party, the difficulties that my right hon. Friend seeks to resolve would not exist. The Government's political bias will come as no surprise to anyone.
  I remain extremely concerned about the vast concentration of media ownership. Many of my hon. Friends agree that far too much of the national press is already owned by a handful of powerful companies. That position has existed for some time. I therefore see no justification for further strengthening those immense powers by allowing what would be, to all intents and purposes, a free-for-all over cross-media ownership. I therefore see much merit in the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
  In a democracy, it is always dangerous to allow a handful of people to have immense power.
  Mr. Kaufman: The Whips.
  Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend mentions the Whips, but their powers are indeed slight compared with the vast powers of those who dominate the media. It is undesirable and unhelpful when, in a parliamentary democracy, some people have the vast powers described by some hon. Members tonight. It is perfectly understandable that political parties are keen to have the support of one or two individuals who own vast numbers of newspapers and television channels. The fact that that is part of the present political process illustrates the point that I am making: it is unhealthy and undesirable. It is not possible entirely to avoid a concentration of media ownership in relatively few hands, but there are very few hands—far fewer than existed 50 years ago.
  I accept that the television regulations at least allow minimum standards to be established. Last week, I read in The Times a letter from a former chief executive of a television company, who is anxious about poor standards of popular television shows in Britain. Having been to the United States and watched some of the popular shows there, he had reached the conclusion that we were not so bad; but surely that means only that certain regulations have come into force over the years, setting minimum standards.
  This is a very important part of the Bill. The debate about whether far too few people have far too much power in this country will continue, because those of us who
  840
  share my views believe that that power should be diminished, not strengthened. That is why it is important that there should be effective powers and regulations on cross-media ownership. It is undesirable for Mr. Rupert Murdoch or others to have excessive power.
  The Government have not gone about things in the right way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made one or two valid points, but I believe that the excessive power of a few private individuals should be diminished as soon as possible, and I am not alone in that.
  Mr. Dafis: I shall be the briefest speaker of all in this important debate. It is important that I stand up and be counted, as I did in Committee.
  The situation is astonishing—or at least it would have been regarded as astonishing some time ago. An amendment that was presented in Committee by Tory free-market Back Benchers is now being brought back by Labour Front Benchers. The effect of the amendments would be identical.
  We can speculate about the motives. The rational case was presented by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He spoke about the fact that the boundaries between the various media are dissolving before our eyes. The pleasant reality is that those boundaries are there, and that crossing them is a significant act.
  What of the other possible motives? The motive that I ascribed to Labour Front Benchers in Committee was to embarrass the Government by inflicting a defeat, by aligning with certain right-wing Tory Back Benchers. It did not work because on this matter I was prepared to support the Government, as was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  Labour may be trying to out-Tory the Tories—it is doing that quite a lot these days—or it may be trying to please certain powerful vested interests, for goodness knows what reasons.
  Whatever the motive for tabling the amendment, its effect would be to deregulate—a word that we often hear from Conservative Members—in a way that, I understand, the ITC does not approve of. The effect is to deregulate and, through market forces, to facilitate the process of aggregating power and influence in fewer, already very powerful, hands, in the key area of the mass media, so hugely influential on political developments, civil rights and so on.
  I and my party want no part of that. We shall associate ourselves with the purpose and spirit of amendments Nos. 260 and 261, and we shall vote against amendment No. 102.
  Mr. Sproat: The issue of the 20 per cent. national newspaper market threshold—covered by amendment No. 102—has been debated at considerable length at each stage of the Bill's passage. Our policy objective is to prevent national newspaper groups that enjoy a dominant position in the market from becoming dominant broadcasters, and vice versa.
  I have heard nothing this evening that shakes the Government's belief that it is right, in the interests of plurality and diversity, to pursue that objective. The Government also remain convinced that it is right for Parliament to give a clear idea of the cut-off point at which a newspaper group is judged to be simply too large

  841
  to be permitted to control our major broadcasters. We believe that that cut-off point should be at 20 per cent. of the national newspaper market.
  Mr. Hoon: Will the Minister explain how the Government decided that 20 per cent. was the definition of a dominant position?
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Sproat: The Government started off by saying that there should be a cut-off point—and, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) will know, his noble Friends in the other place also reached that conclusion—whether it be 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. The Labour party now suggests that there should not be a percentage, but that there should be some other test. We looked at what other countries do—the French have a 20 per cent. cut-off and the Italians have a 16 per cent. cut-off.
  We thought that 20 per cent. was a good place to start, so we fixed on that figure. We had to choose a figure because—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) rightly said—we do not want a dominant newspaper group to become a dominant terrestrial television group. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that the cut-off should be 10 per cent.
  As I said, the Italians have set the cut-off point at 16 per cent., the French have set it at 20 per cent. and Labour Members' noble Friends in the other place started off by saying that it should be set at 20 per cent. and then changed it to 25 per cent. I do not mind that; I am merely making the strong point that a cut-off point had to be fixed, and 20 per cent. seemed to be a decent level—there was a precedent for it.
  Mr. Kaufman: The Minister responded to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) by proclaiming the virtues of 20 per cent. Why does he have the power in the Bill to change that figure? If the Government are so sure that the figure is right, why do they want the power to change it to something that they say is wrong?
  Mr. Sproat: I have no such power in the Bill. Clearly, when the convergence develops—or converges more, if I can use that tautology—it may be sensible to look at those matters again. At every stage of the Bill, we have said that what we are debating now is what seems to be best in 1996. Nothing is more certain than the fact that technology will advance, and no one proclaims that more frequently and rightly than the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In five years' time or less, we may return to the matter and decide that 20 per cent. is not the best level at which to fix the threshold. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me why we chose 20 per cent. and I gave him the precedents and the options—some countries set a lower level and other countries set a higher level.
  We do not consider that it is appropriate to rely on public interest test considerations alone to regulate cross-ownership between newspapers and broadcasters, as has been suggested by some Labour Members. The general danger in doing so is that it would subject the regulators to the pressure that influence and circumstance
  842
  can bring to bear. Moreover, great uncertainty would be caused in the media market, as no one could be clear in advance what rules would be applied. Above all, any decision by the House now to remove the 20 per cent. threshold would send a clear signal to the regulators and to the courts that even a newspaper market share above that could well be perfectly compatible with owning channel 3 licences.
  I come to Government amendments Nos. 43 to 46. In Committee, the Government agreed that they would allow individuals and bodies corporate from outside the European economic area to control digital programme services and licences for television and radio. Having conceded the case for foreign ownership of digital sound programme services, I believe that it would be inequitable for us to retain the restriction preventing United Kingdom newspaper groups with a market share of 20 per cent. or more from being allowed to apply for such licences. The amendments achieve that objective.
  I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). I do so willingly as he has had something of a triumph with this legislation, in that he persuaded us to amend various provisions during its passage in Committee. In this case, my hon. Friend's amendment would allow a national newspaper group that was above the 20 per cent. threshold to acquire a channel 3 licence and then have a 12-month grace period from the date of the acquisition to reduce its newspaper market share. My hon. Friend asked fairly whether I would spell out the Government's position in that area. I shall do so gladly—it is a complicated matter.
  If Mirror Group Newspapers or any other group that has more than 20 per cent. of the market wants to bid for a channel 3 licence, it can certainly do so. I shall take the Daily Mirror as an example, but the same thing applies to other parties. It would go to the ITC and say, "We have 23 per cent. of the national newspaper market and we want to bid for the Loamshire Television channel 3 licence. We are prepared to divest ourselves of 3 per cent. and we shall do that by selling the following assets." The group could then divest itself of the assets immediately, or it could make the bid. It is perfectly straightforward—many companies must divest themselves of their assets under competition law because they need the cash to buy something else. There is nothing extraordinary about that.
  The group could sell its assets before it made the bid, or it could tell the ITC that it wanted to pass the conditional public interest test. It could then bid and reach an agreement with Loamshire Television. As soon as the group complied with the condition of selling its assets, it could acquire Loamshire Television. It is a perfectly straightforward process that has many precedents in other areas of commercial life. That is how it would be done—if the Mirror group or anyone else wishes to do it, they should read Hansard and see.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister address directly the comments of the chairman of the Mirror group to the Secretary of State? I shall quote from the letter that he wrote to her. He said:
  "You said that you fully understood that to do so"—
  that is, to notify the ITC in the way that the Minister suggests—
  "would signal to the world that we were likely to attempt such an acquisition. You acknowledged that, should the acquisition fail, we would be left with the worst of both worlds having sold an asset and missed our target".

  843
  For that reason, the Secretary of State accepted the submission that is embodied in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
  Mr. Sproat: If the chairman of the Mirror group were to say that to me, I would simply reply that it is normal in commercial life that, when one wishes to buy an asset, one may have to take a decision about selling another asset in order to do so. It is a perfectly straightforward commercial decision—it may not be an easy one, but it is not unusual. Companies do it all the time. If the Mirror group wants to do that, it can; if it does not, it need not.
  If the Opposition press the amendments to a vote, we shall oppose them.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister has described a process which, in other circumstances, would involve providing market-sensitive information to the public. He is suggesting that Mirror Group Newspapers give a clear signal to the television sector that it is about to bid for a channel 3 licence. That is an absurd proposition, and he knows it.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) quoted from correspondence that is widely available. The Secretary of State told the Mirror group personally that she understood that the proposition would not work. It is not only that the Minister has changed his ground from the position that he took in Committee, but the Secretary of State has changed her position from the one that she took in conversations with people from the Mirror group. However the Government wriggle and twist and turn on the issue, they know that they are in a mess. The rules are not fair or rational.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who spoke for the Welsh nationalists, did not learn much or listen to much in Committee. He accused us of tabling an amendment that was tabled in Committee by two Government Back Benchers. If he had read the amendment paper properly, he would have seen that the equivalent of amendment No. 102 was tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that.
  What actually happened in Committee was that Government Back Benchers recognised the force of the arguments of Labour Front Benchers. The hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) admitted that again today on television. He said that the Government's position was illogical.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan indicated dissent.
  Dr. Cunningham: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because we all heard the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon say it.
  The reality is, as the Minister would recognise in any other circumstances, that the Government have, unwittingly or otherwise, rigged the legislation. The Bill might even be subject to legal challenge in the European Court of Justice. The Minister mentioned maintaining diversity and avoiding dominant positions, but the legislation conveniently omits to take into account the regional newspaper ownership of United Newspapers and, especially, Associated Newspapers. If their regional newspaper ownership were taken into account, they too would fall foul of the proposals.
  844
  The Minister's response to the debate was inadequate. The explanation that he gave in response to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) was also inadequate. For those reasons, we shall press amendment No. 102 to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 302.

  Division No. 166]

  [9.26 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John(St Helens N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ainger, Nick

  Faulds, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joseph

  Forsythe, Clifford(S Antrim)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Galloway, George

  Beggs, Roy

  Gapes, Mike

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Berry, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

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

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell—Savours, D N

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Henderson, Doug

  Cann, Jamie

  Heppell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Church, Judith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

  Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

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

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley North)

  Cook, Robin(Livingston)

  Howells, Dr Kim(Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy(Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  lllsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)

  Jackson, Glenda(H'stead)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian(SE Staff)

  Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)

  Dixon, Don

  Jowell, Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  845

  Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Radios, Giles

  Litherland, Robert

  Randall, Stuart

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

  Robertson, George(Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Co'try NW)

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Alice

  Simpson, Alan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David(Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester, S)

  Smith, Chris(Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  Martin, Michael J(Springburn)

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strgfd)

  Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Touhig, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Estelle(B'ham Yardley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon John(Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Walley, Joan

  Mudie, George

  Wardell, Gareth(Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, William(Normanton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Sw'n W)

  Olner, Bill

  Wlliams, Alan W(Carmarthen)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Wise, Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Worthington, Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Young, David(Bolton SE)

  Powell, Sir Ray(Ogmore)

  Prentice, Bridget(Lew'm E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Ms Janet Anderson and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Allason, Rupert(Torbay)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alton, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter(Eltham)

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mouth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Matthew(Southport)

  Brown, M(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian(South Dorset)

  846

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hague, Rt Hon Wlliam

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carlile, Alexander(Montgomery)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John(Luton North)

  Harvey, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Ru'clif)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, Sir James(Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas(G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre For'st)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G(Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David(Skpton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Querrtin(Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

  Douglas—Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, leuan Wyn(Ynys MÔn)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B(W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett—Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg(Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George(Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox—Boyd, Sir Mark

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Lester, Sir James(Broxtowe)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus(Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter(Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Luff, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garel—Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Garnier, Edward

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maclennan, Robert

  Goodson—Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair—Wlson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maddock, Diana

  Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Madel, Sir David

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  847

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Sir Dudley(Warwick)

  Mans, Keith

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir James(W Dorset)

  Marshall, John(Hendon S)

  Spicer, Sir Michael(S Worcs)

  Marshall, Sir Michael(Arundel)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Michie, Mrs Ray(Argyll & Bute)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Stewart, Allan

  Mitchell, Sir David(NW Hants)

  Streeter, Gary

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sykes, John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy(Southend, E)

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Page, Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Paice, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D(Bexl'yh'th)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tredinnick, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, Barry(Wirral S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, David(Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Powell, William(Corby)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rendel, David

  Walden, George

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill(N Tayside)

  Richards, Rod

  Wallace, James

  Riddick, Graham

  Waller, Gary

  Robathan, Andrew

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Raymond(Ab'd'n S)

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Shaw, David(Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Sir Colin(Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 261, in page 129, line 34, leave out '20' and insert '10'.—[Mr. Mullin.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 303.

  Division No. 167]

  [9.40 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Barnes, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  848

  Clapham, Michael

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  MacShane, Denis

  Cohen, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mahon, Alice

  Corston, Jean

  Marek, Dr John

  Cousins, Jim

  Marshall, David(Shettleston)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Maxton, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  O'Brien, William(Normanton)

  Flynn, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Purchase, Ken

  Galloway, George

  Radice, Giles

  Gapes, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Salmond, Alex

  Godsiff, Roger

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Gordon, Mildred

  Simpson, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Jones, leuan Wyn(Ynys MÔn)

  Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne(B'ham S 0)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Keen, Alan

  Williams, Alan W(Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Litherland, Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wray, Jimmy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loyden, Eddie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  McKelvey, Wlliam

  Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert(Torbay)

  Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)

  Alton, David

  Carlile, Alexander(Montgomery)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John(Luton North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mouth E)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)

  Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Ru'clif)

  Banks, Matthew(Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Conway, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre For'st)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter(Eltham)

  Curry, David(Skipton & Ripon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Davies, Quentin(Stamford)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dunn, Bob

  Bruce, Ian(South Dorset)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Burns, Simon

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  849

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg(Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George(Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsythe, Clifford(S Antrim)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Sir James(Broxtowe)

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus(Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter(Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel—Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodson—Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maddock, Diana

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marshall, John(Hendon S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, Sir Michael(Arundel)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Merchant, Piers

  Hannam, Sir John

  Michie, Mrs Ray

  Harvey, Nick

  Mills, Iain

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mitchell, Sir David(NW Hants)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Heald, Oliver

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hendry, Charles

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, Sir James(Southampton Test)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas(G'tham)

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Horam, John

  Norris, Steve

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G(Harrow W)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, Barry(Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David(Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William(Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Robert B(W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett—Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond(Ab'd'n S)

  850

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy(Southend, E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thumham, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Shaw, David(Dover)

  Townsend, Cyril D(Bexl'yh'th)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Sir Colin(Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

  Trend, Michael

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Sir Dudley(Warwick)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir James(W Dorset)

  Walker, Bill(N Tayside)

  Spicer, Sir Michael(S Worcs)

  Wallace, James

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Willetts, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strgfd)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 129, line 35, at end insert 'or'.
  No. 44, in page 129, line 36, leave out from 'service' to end of line 37.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister has been extremely generous in his concessions throughout the Bill and I am sorry that he has felt unable to meet me on this issue, but I have to respect his views. I have also had the benefit of the arithmetic of the last Division, so it would be unreasonable to force the House to another Division at this time of night. I do not, therefore, intend to press my amendment.
  Amendment proposed: No. 162, in page 129, line 41, at end insert—
  '(2A) If as a result of a takeover a person who owns or controls newspapers with a circulation market share above the percentage specified in paragraphs 4(1) and (2) becomes the holder of a licence to provide a Channel 3 service, the Independent Television Commission shall not for that reason alone revoke that licence unless a period of 12 months from the takeover has elapsed and the newspaper proprietor has failed to reduce the market share of those newspapers he controls to below the specified percentage.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 273.

  851

  Division No. 168]

  [9.52 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Gordon, Mildred

  Anger, Nick

  Graham, Thomas

  Answorth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Allen, Graham

  Gunnell, John

  Alton, David

  Hain, Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hanson, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Hardy, Peter

  Austin-Walker, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barnes, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Battle, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Beggs, Roy

  Hoey, Kate

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

  Benton, Joe

  Home Robertson, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hood, Jimmy

  Boateng, Paul

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Bradley, Keith

  Howarth, Alan(Strafrd-on-A)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim(Pontypridd)

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

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Cabom, Richard

  Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Hutton, John

  Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)

  lllsley, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Jackson, Glenda(H'stead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)

  Carlile, Alexander(Montgomery)

  Jamieson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, leuan Wyn(Ynys MÔn)

  Church, Judith

  Jones, Lynne(B'ham S O)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)

  Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clelland, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Keen, Aan

  Coffey, Ann

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

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

  Connarty, Michael

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin(Livingston)

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Corbett, Robin

  McAllion, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Corston, Jean

  McKelvey, William

  Cousins, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cummings, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  MacShane, Denis

  Dafis, Cynog

  Madden, Max

  Davidson, Ian

  Maddock, Diana

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David(Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Maxton, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Meale, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John(St Helens N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray(Argyll & Bute)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Faulds, Andrew

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Forsythe, Clifford(S Antrim)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  O'Brien, William(Normanton)

  Foulkes, George

  Olner, Bill

  Fraser, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pike, Peter L

  Gale, Roger

  Prentice, Bridget(Lew'm E)

  Galloway, George

  Radice, Giles

  Gapes, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Garrett, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  George, Bruce

  Rooney, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Salmond, Alex

  852

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wardell, Gareth(Gower)

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Aan W(Carmarthen)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Winnick, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wise, Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Young, David(Bolton SE)

  Timms, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Arehy Kirkwood and

  Tyler, Paul

  Ms Liz Lynne.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David(Skipton & Ripon)

  Aison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

  Davies, Quentin(Stamford)

  Allason, Rupert(Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Aan

  Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Matthew(Southport)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter(Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Held, Barry(Isle of Wight)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam(Woodspring)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus(Shipley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brown, M(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  French, Douglas

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fry, Sir Peter

  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

  Carlisle, John(Luton North)

  Goodson—Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

  Grytls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Ru'clif)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Congdon, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyie For'st)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Aan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Couchman, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

  853

  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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry(Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G(Harrow W)

  Porter, David(Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William(Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddck, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robatnan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B(W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond(Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg(Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David(Dover)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin(Hereford)

  Kynoch, George(Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley(Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Sir James(Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James(W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, lain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter(Fareham)

  Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair—Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy(Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

  Marshall, John(Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael(Arundel)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

  Townsend, Cyril D(Bexl'yh'th)

  Mills, lain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David(NW Hants)

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill(N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Ward, John

  854

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

  Watts, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after 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. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Amendments made: No. 155, in page 129, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 130.
  No. 45, in page 130, line 26, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 46, in page 130, line 27, leave out from 'services' to end of line 28.
  No. 156, in page 130, line 39, at end insert—
  'Holding of local radio licence by person running local newspapers with at least 50 per cent local market share
  5A.—(1) A licence to provide a local radio service may not be held by a person who runs a local newspaper which has, or local newspapers which for the time being together have, a local market share of 50 per cent. or more in the coverage area of the service unless—

  (a) the service in question shares a potential audience with another local radio service, but

  (b) he does not hold any other licence to provide a local radio service whose coverage area is to any extent the same as the coverage area of the service in question.

  (2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to sharing a potential audience shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 12(5) in Part III of this Schedule.
  (3) For the purposes of this paragraph a person shall be treated as holding a licence if the licence is held by a person connected with him.'
  No. 157, in page 131, line 10, at end insert—
  '(5) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 6A.

  Power by order to impose different restrictions in place of paragraph 6
  6A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, where a digital sound programme service is provided in any area, the holding, by a person who runs a local newspaper or local newspapers as mentioned in paragraph 6(1), of two or more licences to provide in that area local radio services which for the purposes of paragraph 6 share a potential audience with each other or with each of the others shall, instead of being subject to the restrictions specified in paragraph 6, be subject to other restrictions specified in the order.
  (2) For the purposes of any order under sub-paragraph (1), a person shall be treated as holding a licence if the licence is held by a person connected with him.'
  No. 67, in page 131, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'that' in line 23 and insert 'permitted period'.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I shall now call amendment No. 68—
  Dr. Moonie: I am on my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to speak on amendment No. 67.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is too late. Voices have to be heard—physical movement is not enough.
  Amendments made: No. 68, in page 131, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—
  `(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), in this paragraph "the permitted period" means a period beginning with the day on which the licence holder becomes, or becomes connected with, the proprietor of the national or local newspaper ("the relevant day") and ending—

  (a) in a case where the licence holder has, before the relevant day, notified the relevant authority that he will become, or become connected with the proprietor of that national or local newspaper on that day, at the end of the period of three months beginning with the relevant day, or

  (b) in any other case, at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the licence holder notifies the relevant authority that he has become, or has become connected with, the proprietor of that national or local newspaper.

  (6) The relevant authority may in a particular case, after consultation with the licence holder, notify him before the time when the permitted period would (apart from this sub-paragraph) have ended that the permitted period in that case is to be calculated as if the references in sub-paragraph (5) to three months were references to such longer period specified in the notification as the relevant authority reasonably consider necessary in the circumstances.'
  No. 69, in page 131, line 40, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in any of the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as affecting the operation of this paragraph or paragraph 8 or 9.'
  No. 70, in page 131, line 51, leave out from beginning to 'that' in line 52 and insert 'permitted period'.
  No. 71, in page 132, line 17, leave out from first 'the' to 'that' in line 18 and insert 'permitted period'.
  No. 72, in page 132, leave out lines 36 to 41. No. 73, in page 132, line 44, at end insert—
  '(8) In this paragraph "the permitted period" has the meaning given by paragraph 7(5) and (6).'
  No. 74, in page 132, line 48, leave out 'relevant authority' and insert 'Commission'.
  No. 75, in page 132, line 48, leave out from 'determine' to first 'that' in line 51 and insert
  `before the end of the period specified in sub-paragraph (1A)'.
  No. 76, in page 132, line 52, at end insert—
  `(1A) The period referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Commission are notified pursuant to section 19(3) of the 1996 Act of an agreement to provide the digital programme service, or such longer period beginning with that day as the Commission may in a particular case, after consultation with the licence holder, notify him during those three months as being the period which they reasonably consider necessary in the circumstances.'
  No. 77, in page 133, line 4, leave out `relevant authority' and insert 'Commission'.
  No. 78, in page 133, line 4, leave out from first 'the' to 'that' in line 6 and insert 'permitted period'.
  No. 79, in page 133, line 22, leave out 'relevant authority' and insert 'Commission'.
  No. 80, in page 133, line 22, leave out from first 'the' to 'that' in line 24 and insert 'permitted period'.
  No. 81, in page 133, line 41, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—
  `(6) In this paragraph—

  (a) references to a relevant local newspaper shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 8(7), and

  856

  (b) "the permitted period" has the meaning given by paragraph 7(5) and (6).'.

  No. 82, in page 133, line 52, leave out `9(2)' and insert `9(1), (2)'.
  No. 83, in page 134, line 21, leave out '9(2)' and insert `9(1), (2)'.
  No. 84, in page 134, line 24, leave out '9(2)' and insert `9(1), (2)'.
  No. 85, in page 135, line 3, leave out '9(2)' and insert `9(1), (2)'.
  No. 158, in page 135, line 5, at end insert—

  'Restricted television services
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) prescribe restrictions on the holding of one or more licences to provide restricted television services by a person who runs a national or local newspaper, and

  (b) apply any of the provisions of paragraphs 7 to 11, with such modifications as may be specified in the order., in relation to the holding of a licence to provide a restricted television service.

  (2) Any order under sub-paragraph (1) may provide that, for the purposes of any provision of the order, a person is to be treated as holding a licence if the licence is held by a person connected with him.

  (3) In this paragraph "restricted television service" means a restricted service within the meaning of Part I of this Act:—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 73

  VARIATION OF REGIONAL CHANNEL 3 LICENCE FOLLOWING CHANGE OF CONTROL
  Amendments made: No. 159, in page 64, line 39, leave out
  `imposed under subsection (1) or section 5(2)(d)'
  and insert
  `in a regional Channel 3 licence'.
  No. 160, in page 64, line 45, leave out 'without that change having' and insert
  `(whether or not that change has'.
  No. 161, in page 66, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
  '(8) Where, in a case falling within subsection (2)(a), a notice under subsection (3) or (4) varying a licence is served before the change to which it relates takes place, the variation shall not take effect until the change takes place.'—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 79

  EXTENSION OF POWERS OF CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION AND SIANEL PEDWAR CYMRU
  Amendments made: No. 93, in page 70, line 26, after `power' insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 94, in page 70, line 28, after 'form' insert
  `in any part of the United Kingdom'.
  No. 95, in page 70, line 29, at end insert
  `and
  (b) to establish qualifying companies, to purchase or otherwise acquire shares, stocks or other securities of qualifying companies and to assist any qualifying company.

  857
  (6) In subsection (5)(b) "qualifying company" means any company (whether incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or of any other country) which is or will be wholly or mainly engaged in one or more of the following activities

  (a) the provision of one or more services which are licensed by the Commission or by the Radio Authority or which, if provided in the United Kingdom, would be required to be so licensed,

  (b) activities incidental to such provision, and

  (c) the holding of shares in any other company which is wholly or mainly engaged in such provision or in activities incidental to such provision."

  (1A) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1990 Act (status and capacity of Channel Four Television Corporation) after subparagraph (3) there is inserted—
  "(4) Section 24(5)(b) of this Act shall not be taken to limit the Corporation's power by virtue of subp-paragraph (3) to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions under section 24(1) or (5)(a)." '
  No. 96, in page 70, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert—
  `(b) to establish qualifying companies, to purchase or otherwise acquire shares, stocks or other securities of qualifying companies and to assist any qualifying company.
  (1B) In subsection (1A)(b) "qualifying company" means any company (whether incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom or of any other country) which is or will be wholly or mainly engaged in one or more of the following activities—

  (a) the provision of one or more services which are licensed by the Commission or by the Radio Authority or which, if provided in the United Kingdom, would be required to be so licensed,

  (b) activities incidental to such provision, and

  (c) the holding of shares in any other company which is wholly or mainly engaged in such provision or in activities incidental to such provision." ' —[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 83

  ENFORCEMENT OF LICENCES TO PROVIDE NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES
  Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 73, line 20, after 'determined', insert
  `, subject to subsection (6B) below'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 217, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
  '(6B) Where the payments received or to be received by the licence holder in connection with the licensed service derive wholly or mainly from the sale of goods or the supply of services not falling within subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) of section 19, the qualifying revenue of the licence holder shall be determined in accordance with the principles set out in the statement referred to in Part I of Schedule 7".'.
  No. 218, in clause 85, page 74, line 44, after `determined', insert
  `, subject to subsection (9B) below'.
  No. 219, in page 75, line 7, at end insert—
  '(9B) Where the payments received or to be received by the licence holder in connection with the licensed service derive wholly or mainly from the sale of goods or the supply of services not falling within subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b) of section 19, the qualifying
  858
  revenue of the licence holder shall be determined in accordance with the principles set out in the statement referred to in Part I of Schedule 7".'.
  Mr. Rowlands: My amendment involves a point that I raised in Committee. The Minister said that he would consider it, but he has not responded. The ITC wishes to pursue the question of whether the qualifying revenues in clauses 83 and 85 cover revenues from home shopping channels. I would be grateful if he could answer that point.[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish me to elaborate further?
  Mr. Sproat: In the general uproar, I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Perhaps he could swiftly repeat his point.
  Mr. Rowlands: In Committee, I asked whether, under clauses 83 and 85, home shopping channel revenues counted as qualifying revenues in respect of the £50,000 fines. The Minister promised that he would find out whether the ITC had a point. The fines involve a sum of up to £50,000 or up to a specified percentage of the qualifying revenue as defined in section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. That includes advertising sponsorship and subscription income. The ITC is concerned about whether the large and growing home shopping channel revenues will be covered by the fines.
  Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in repeating his question. The answer is no.
  Mr. Rowlands: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

  THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 86, in page 138, leave out lines I and 2.
  No. 87, in page 139, line 4, leave out from 'State' to end of line.—[Mr. Wood.]

Schedule 5

  TRANSFER SCHEMES RELATING TO BBC TRANSMISSION NETWORK: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 143, line 45, at end insert—
  '(aa) rights and liabilities of the BBC under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities, '.
  No. 141, in page 149, line 17, at end insert—

  'Consideration for transfer etc.
  10.—(1) A transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme may be made for consideration or for no consideration and, if it is made for consideration, the consideration may, in particular, take the form of the issue of shares or securities.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1), "transfer" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions).'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 127

  AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
  Amendment made: No. 139, in page 105, line 33, at end insert
  ', or the issue of shares or securities,'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 133

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 253, in page 109, line 24, after `sections' insert
  `(Standards for transmission systems) and'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Schedule 7

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 151, line 31, after 'paragraph (b)' insert—
  '(i)".
  No. 12, in page 151, line 32, at end insert—
  '(ii) after "television programme services" there is inserted "and multiplex services (as defined by section 1(1) of that Act), and
  (iii) for "such services" there is substituted "television programme services.'.
  No. 214, in page 151, line 47, at end insert—
  '. In section 72 of the 1990 Act (local delivery services), in subsection (2)—
  (a) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
  "(cc) any digital programme service (as defined by section 1(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1996);", and
  (b) at the end there is inserted "and
  (f) any digital sound programme service (as defined by section 36(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1996)." '
  No. 13, in page 152, line 20, at end insert 'digital sound programme'.
  No. 88, in page 152, line 26, at end insert—
  `. In section 112 of the 1990 Act (licensable sound programme services), in subsection (2)(a), after "sound broadcasting service" there is inserted "or a radio multiplex service (as defined by section 36(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996)".'
  No. 89, in page 152, line 29, at end insert—
  `. In section 176 of the 1990 Act (duty to provide advance information about programmes), in subsection (7), in the first column of the table—

  (a) after "Welsh Authority" there is inserted "and the service referred to in section 57(1A)(a)", and

  (b) after "Radio Authority" there is inserted ", any simulcast radio service (within the meaning of Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996), and any national digital sound programme service (within the meaning of that Part of that Act) subject to regulation by the Radio Authority" '.

  No. 97, in page 153, line 5, after 'company' insert
  ', a Channel 4 company'.
  No. 98, in page 153, line 13, after 'the BBC' insert—
  '() in relation to a Channel 4 company, the Channel Four Television Corporation,'
  No. 90, in page 153, line 16, after 'inserted ",' insert
  `a multiplex service (as defined by section 1(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996),'.
  No. 99, in page 153, line 30, after 'BBC company' insert
  ', a Channel 4 company'.
  No. 100, in page 153, line 36, after 'the BBC' insert—
  '() in relation to a Channel 4 company, the Channel Four Television Corporation,'
  No. 101, in page 153, line 42, at end insert—
  '() after the definition of "broadcast" there is inserted—
  "a Channel 4 company" means—

  (a) any body corporate which is controlled by the Channel Four Television Corporation, or

  (b) any body corporate in which the Corporation or any body corporate falling within paragraph (a) above is (to any extent) a participant (as defined in paragraph 1(1) of Part I of Schedule 2);" '. —[Mr. Wood.]

Schedule 8

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 47, in page 156, line 45, column 3, after 'it,' insert
  `in subsection (10) the words from "and for this purpose" onwards,'.
  No. 215, in page 156, line 49, column 3, at end insert
  `In section 72(2)(d), the word "and".'.
  No. 48, in page 157, line 24, at end insert—
  `S.I. 1991/1246 The Cable (Excepted The whole order.' Programmes) Order 1991.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 135

  COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 109, line 31, at end insert—
  `() paragraphs 6 to 8 of Schedule 2 so far as relating to BBC companies (as defined by section 202(1) of the 1990 Act), and section 69 so far as relating to those paragraphs in their application to such companies,'.
  No. 91, in page 109, line 35, at end insert—
  `() section(Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in its application to agreements relating to Channel 3 news provision),'.
  No. 140, in page 109, line 36, after '5' insert
  `, (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions)'.
  No. 164, in page 109, line 36, after '5' insert
  `, (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies)'.—[Mr. Wood.]

Clause 136

  SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT>
  Amendment made: No. 252, in page 110, line 8, after `Act' insert
  `except paragraph 24 of Schedule 7'.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Title
  Amendment made: No. 172, in title, line 6, after `interest' insert
  `to amend in other respects the law relating to the provision of television and sound programme services'.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
  10.16 pm
  Dr. Moonie: An old dog can be taught new tricks. May I sum up the proceedings as briefly as possible?
  First, I wish to raise an important point in the hope that, when the Secretary of State replies, she can give some indication to the ITC on it. Some amendments concerned the need for the ITC to apply its test to a cross-holding, irrespective of its size. I have a letter from the ITC, which says:
  "The purpose of these amendments is to address a defect in paragraph 7(3) of Part IV of Schedule 2. At present if the ITC is notified of a cross-holding, no matter how small a share of the market the acquisition or start up represents, it has to apply the test. If subsequently the same broadcaster acquires a further large cross-holding, the ITC is then debarred from conducting a further test unless a different broadcasting interest is also involved."
  It would seem logical that, in certain circumstances, say, if a company buys 1 or 2 per cent. of a licence, it is not worth while wasting time applying the test, yet the ITC is forced to do so. If the same company then moves and buys 50 per cent. of a licence, the ITC is no longer allowed to apply the test. The ITC should be given some discretion to decide when it is appropriate to apply the test and when it is not. If some direction can be given to it without it appearing in the Bill, it would benefit all concerned.
  We have had an interesting few months since Second Reading. We had a long Committee stage and what appeared at times to be an even longer Report stage, although it accelerated towards the end. Despite our initial misgivings, some of which persist, our view has remained unchanged: in principle, we support the Bill and therefore have no intention of asking the House to divide on this issue. However, it is worth going over some of the changes that have been achieved in the Bill. I do not propose to try to claim all those as fantastic victories for the Opposition, as that is not the case. Although one or two are, I shall simply refer to them in a fairly neutral fashion because the Bill has been improved beyond all recognition during its passage through the Committee and on Report. That is the function of detailed scrutiny of legislation.
  Statutory instruments have now been laid before the House in draft form on conditional access. I confess that I have not examined them in great detail, but they appear to be very good and meet most, if not all, of the concerns that we raised in Committee. I am glad of that. We shall see whether that remains so or whether the ingenuity of those who are supposed to be regulated by them finds some way round a measure that obviously will have widespread support in the House.
  We welcome the reserve powers on technical standards that have been given to the ITC. We accept the arguments that a common set-top box, although ideal, may be a fantasy—something that we cannot realise in practice. At least giving the ITC reserve powers to determine technical standards has ensured that, if problems are seen to arise and if industry is unable to arrive at a consensus as to how the technological developments should take place, it has the powers to step in and try to do something about it. Everyone will welcome that.
  We welcome the link to the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 on quality, to which the Secretary of State has given at least ringing verbal support.
  862
  [Interruption.] Rather less ringing, it appears. Perhaps I had better go back and read exactly what the Minister said, but it sounded fairly ringing to us the last time that she gave it.
  We are glad that the mechanism for review of switch-off dates has been clarified. That is a very important point, which will raise public concern as time goes by. I could refer to items such as the single nominated news provider for channel 3, which is a welcome clarification of the position, and the protection of news access to sporting events and of channel 3 regions in the event of their being taken over, which was very welcome to many of my hon. Friends and I am sure to Conservative Members.
  Some detailed improvements have been made to the position of S4C on digital. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will wish to refer to that if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will have to be here, of course, but I am sure that he will have returned to the Chamber by that time.
  The Channel 4 funding formula arrangements have been clarified, if not necessarily yet resolved. There is the question of future privatisation of that organisation. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, the Government will be prepared to enlighten us as to their intentions. I am convinced that Mr. Grade would be very grateful for that, to enable him to plan for the future. We welcome the must carry provisions that have been introduced on cable. I speak personally when I say that the extra space that has been allocated for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland will find great favour in vast areas of the country, and I hope that it will be improved in future.
  Last but not least was the Minister of State's commitment today to review the perceived anomalies in television licensing. Such a review is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing more about it very soon.
  Deficiencies remain in the Bill, which are inevitable, given its size and complexity. We are very disappointed that the Government saw fit to water down the commitment to people with sensory disabilities. I accept to some extent the logic of their argument that such things may be hard to do, but I believe that technological change is occurring at such a rate that this will seem to have been a bit mean-spirited in the not too distant future.
  We are very disappointed that BBC employees were not given the. assurances that they sought on pension rights. Such assurances have been given in every other recent privatisation. It would not have taken much effort to set those people's minds at rest.
  Although we welcome our victory in another place on sporting events, which the Government accepted, we feel that our failure to carry the day on Report on the other changes that we want to the coverage of sporting events will ensure an inexorable decline in the general public's ability to watch popular sporting events on free to air television. That is to be deplored.
  Despite the arguments advanced by other parties, we still believe that the cross-media ownership regulations are arbitrary and discriminatory. I hope that, when they are tested, as I hope that they will be, in the European Court, the Government get another bloody nose from that organisation and are forced to change their mind yet again.

  863
  The single biggest remaining problem with digital terrestrial television is whether it will ever get off the ground. The Labour party supports the principle—as do the Government—but we are dubious as to whether it will fly. Last week, David Elstein, the head of programming at BSkyB, said in The House Magazine:
  "Digital terrestrial television is an industrial dead end … no broadcaster has any serious expectation that digital terrestrial will happen."
  At least with this Bill, if nothing else, we are giving it a chance to happen—and that is all we can do at present. We can only give it a chance and hope that it will confound the pessimists and take off. Although I am not a natural pessimist—as hon. Members can tell by looking at me—I am somewhat pessimistic about the chances of digital terrestrial television.
  We have consulted many people in this regard—as I am sure the Government have—and they share our concerns as to whether digital terrestrial television will fly. We believe that digital satellite and digital cable may well be a reality long before digital terrestrial television. That is why we need to have a legislative and regulatory regime that is able to cope with a rapidly changing environment. Broadcasting will continue to change quickly, particularly as near super-highway services are developing.
  During the course of the Bill, the Government have said that there will need to be another such Bill in the future—the success or failure of digital terrestrial television will determine just how soon that new legislation will have to be introduced.
  I thank my hon. Friends for their sterling support in Committee and on Report. We may not have seen eye to eye on every issue, but we generally managed to arrive at a consensus. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart for their support.
  10.26 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I compliment the Government on safeguarding the Welsh language—provision has been made for it through S4C and the BBC's contribution to that service. I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and to her colleague the Minister of State.
  Some problems still have to be ironed out—such as the operation of the multiplex and the transmission coverage—but the general framework, with regard to the share of the multiplex and financing, is satisfactory so far as we can tell at this stage. We are standing on the threshold of the digital era. That era will be highly competitive, and I am not sure that our analogue broadcasters have fully grasped just how intensely competitive it may be. However, they have an in-built advantage in that they are already in the field and have an assured place in the digital spectrum. They have been given priority, but I have no doubt that others will challenge them.
  A fundamental rule in a competitive situation is that people should look to the quality of their product—if they are good enough, they will win through and they will hold on to their audience. We must give viewers not necessarily what we think they should have or what they want, but, if possible, what they have not dreamed of—that was Shakespeare's recipe for success, and it still holds good. There will always be jockeying for advantage among competitive broadcasters.
  864
  As far as Wales is concerned, I have a great deal of sympathy with HTV, which has a heavy licence cost and faces the prospect of losing some £6 million in revenue from Channel 4. It must ensure that its changed circumstances are taken fully into account in the re-negotiation of its licence fee. That is the solution to its problem, and I am sure that it is aware of it.
  I refer to the BBC in Wales. It is plaintive because it cannot get on the network as frequently as it would wish. That is the position now—it has nothing to do with digital, radio or television. I regret its lack of success as much as anyone in networking because it has some performers of outstanding quality. Essentially, it is an internal problem for the BBC to sort out. I would like to see more English programmes about Wales. That would please Welsh viewers in the first instance and then, I hope, secure recognition elsewhere. I cannot believe that
  "All the air things wear
  That built this world of Wales"—
  as Gerard Manley Hopkins put it—does not contain infinite possibilities for good programming for those with creative minds.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State was wise to say nothing in introducing the Third Reading of the Bill as there is little to be said for it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), in his kindly way, was overgenerous in his comments about it. The Bill has been washed up rather than passed: it is part of television's past. Although it has sections relating to digital television, they hold the fort rather than look to the future.
  Since the Bill began its passage through Parliament, there have been huge changes in the communications scene—including in television and broadcasting—in this country. However, those changes appear to have had little or no impact on the Bill, despite the many amendments that the Government have made to it. We are seeing a change in the television climate that makes the Bill largely irrelevant.
  When Independent Television was introduced 40 years ago, it was a revolution. It doubled the number of television channels and changed the nature of, and the approach to, broadcasting. We shall soon have Channel 5, but a new television channel is no longer a revolution—it is a possibly interesting increment. During the Bill's passage, the scope of non-terrestrial television has expanded. The number of viewers who are linked up either by satellite or by cable has increased during that time and will continue to increase after the Bill becomes law. There will be 12 more satellite channels this autumn—a number introduced by Granada and one by Warner Bros.
  Recent developments—which are highly relevant to discussions about the sporting events that have taken place—reveal the direction in which we are moving and the increasing irrelevance of the Bill even before it becomes law. This country has witnessed its first pay television sporting event—the Bruno-Tyson fight—and, although BSkyB did not make money on it, 600,000 people paid —9.95 to watch it. That is the way of the future.
  The Premier league has sold its television rights for the next four years to BSkyB—with highlights rights to the BBC—for a much greater price than it paid for them when

  865
  it entered into the present five-year contract. It is only a four-year contract this time. With the arrival of digital television, the Premier league clubs do not want to be excluded from broadcasting their own matches on pay per view—as they may be doing in the new century.
  Rugby league has changed from a winter to a summer game simply because it proved more lucrative when selling television rights. The Rugby Union game has been turned upside down by the perfectly legitimate purchase of its television rights by BSkyB. While that is going on and while we are arguing about who shall own ITV channels, ITV is shrinking. The ITV audience has shrunk substantially and it will shrink even more. The BBC audience is shrinking too, and it will shrink even more. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy was accurate when he said that the prospects for digital terrestrial television are not great. The prospects for satellite digital television are far greater, especially with the possibility of the launch of a new satellite, which Mr. Murdoch will use.
  Meanwhile, the BBC, which has made grandiloquent statements about the future of digital terrestrial television, does not have any money to launch digital terrestrial television. It has talked nonsense about obtaining the huge sums of money required from the private finance initiative and by economies on candle ends within the organisation. That shows how unrealistic and impractical the present BBC regime is and how increasingly unfit it is to run the BBC, which has also been shown by the serious attack on the World Service that the BBC has now undertaken.
  The National Heritage Select Committee will shortly decide whether to conduct a new inquiry into the BBC and, like the inquiry that we conducted three years ago, it will inevitably be an inquiry into the whole subject of communications. When we conducted our last inquiry, we set the pattern for much of the activity that has taken place since and I hope that we shall be able to do that again. Indeed, some of the Government's setbacks on the Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy referred, would not have happened if the Government had had the good sense to pay greater attention to the Select Committee reports.
  The problem with the Bill is not that it is a bad Bill, but that even as it completes its House of Commons stages it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to what will happen to the media, television and communications industry. The Government who will be elected next year will have to bring in the next broadcasting Bill and I hope that that Government will understand the need for vision in dealing with the subject, because vision has been sadly missing from the Bill.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Gale: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been so uncharacteristically churlish, because many people have put a lot of hard work into the Bill. His remarks were wholly out of keeping with the courteous and constructive approach of the Opposition Front-Bench team, certainly in Committee. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Ministers for the courtesy and consideration that they have shown, throughout the passage of the Bill, to the suggestions made by—it is fair to say—hon. Members from both sides of the House, on the Floor of the House and in discussions.
  866
  Few of us feel that the Bill has not been improved during its passage. It was never going to be a perfect piece of legislation because, as the right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said, the technology has changed as we have been speaking and will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong because the future is not in satellite, which is merely a delivery system. The long-term future will be in fully interactive cable services, but that remains to be seen.
  The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will create a framework for the development of digital television for the digital future of communications. Those who have the courage to invest in that digital future will justly and rightly reap the rewards. If we have achieved that, we will have achieved a great deal.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I want briefly to refer to radio licensing and, in particular, a local radio station. Last year, the Radio Authority reconsidered the franchise covering my constituency, the Doncaster area. It advertised for a local radio station for the Doncaster area. At that time it was served by a Sheffield station called Radio Hallam.
  There were two bidders for a local radio station in Doncaster. Doncaster has a population of around 300,000, and the metropolitan borough is, geographically, the largest in Britain. If that is put together with neighbouring areas, the population would be about 500,000. The Radio Authority, after advertising for a local station, saw fit to give the licence back to the regional radio station, Radio Hallam. Therefore, Doncaster still does not have a local radio station. Instead, it has three regional stations—Radio Hallam, Great Yorkshire Gold and Kiss FM. I understand that the Radio Authority's decision was challenged and one of the bidders sought a judicial review. Unfortunately, the Radio Authority's decision was upheld. Recently, the Radio Authority has said that there may be an opportunity to reconsider the Doncaster situation.
  When I met the Radio Authority's chief executive he tried to fob me off with a small garden-shed medium-wave-type station which most hon. Members know would probably not get off the ground. We need an FM station with decent coverage; a decent commercial radio which could do the business, make money and provide a service for the Doncaster area.
  I raise this matter because, the Radio Authority having agreed to reconsider the situation, at least one of the bidders is still interested in providing a proper commercial radio station to cover the Doncaster and Bassetlaw area. I do not want the Radio Authority to fob the people of Doncaster off yet again. We are not an outpost of Sheffield. We are fed up with being thought of as one. We have three regional radio stations. The Doncaster evening paper is basically The Star of Sheffield, with an additional two or three sheets.
  I should like the Secretary of State to bang some heads together at the Radio Authority and tell it that if it intends to advertise for a local radio station for Doncaster again, it should award it to a station that will promise to provide a radio station for the Doncaster people, not yet another regional radio station. We already have three of those and we do not want any more.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I intervene briefly to hand out some medals and to flag up an issue. I have medals for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, her Ministers and the staff of the Department of National Heritage for this remarkable Bill which has achieved a great deal. Legislation will never lead the technological way. It will always be the other way round, I suspect. But I have watched the Bill from the sidelines and it has made remarkable progress. I had hoped that it would address a particular problem, but it has not, so we shall have to wait for the next broadcasting Bill.
  I want to flag up the fact that most of the effort seems to go into Britain's highly populated urban areas. However, many people in the United Kingdom live in sparsely populated areas which will never be cabled and where it will probably be impossible to receive satellite programmes, but who cannot receive the news and current affairs programmes which apply to them. I raise this on behalf of my constituents in Wylye, Steeple Langford, Hanging Langford and Amesbury. They cannot receive their local news from the BBC or from commercial television. They have to receive somebody else's local news in which they are completely uninterested. That must have an impact on the advertising revenue of the commercial stations.
  I suspect that the problem will not be addressed by digital terrestrial stations, nor by the technology that is currently available, but it must be addressed somehow. It is not for me to say how, but I am quite sure that someone will find a solution. I shall return to the issue in the next broadcasting Bill on behalf of my constituents and the hundreds of thousands of people who must be in similar circumstances wherever there is a boundary problem.
  I congratulate the Government on an excellent Bill that will benefit many people and technologies. It will add lustre to Britain's tradition of leading the world in broadcasting technology.
  10.45 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I shall be brief. The Broadcasting Bill has raised an interesting mixture of technical and political issues. We have touched on several matters that have not been mentioned so far on Third Reading such as our failed attempt to strengthen the equal opportunities provisions. I hope that we shall redress that, perhaps in the next broadcasting Bill.
  I would offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on persuading the Government to relent on the facilities for people with disabilities, particularly in respect of subtitling, signing and audio description for people with vision disabilities. That was a major triumph for which many people will be grateful for many years to come.
  I am sorry that we did not succeed in amending the Bill to strengthen the notion of quality, as it is a key issue. There has to be a balance between quality and hard commercial decisions, particularly when they involve new technology that is not certain to get off the ground. However, most of us feel that any effort that is put into providing digital terrestrial television would include the facility to produce high-quality programmes.
  Parliament is always better at being reactive rather than pro-active and I regret that we have not been able to take account of the way in which the technology is developing.
  868
  Several hon. Members referred to converging technologies—telephony, computers and television—but few of us are in a position to make projections as to the implications of those converging technologies.
  We shall need another broadcasting Bill within a short time as the way in which the Government have framed the clauses on cross-media ownership will prove unworkable and will become totally irrelevant within two years.
  Reference has been made to set-top boxes and open standards. I expect that manufacturers are convinced that open standards are a good idea. If they were not convinced before, they will have been persuaded by the fact that IBM licensed its operating system to other manufacturers and made a great deal of money, whereas Apple Mac chose to remain technically isolated and lost its market share. There are two lessons to be learnt from that. First, open standards work and can be advantageous in the market and secondly, technical superiority does not necessarily prevail. It is rather curious that the market does not always win. Most people who are familiar with computing technology would agree that Apple Mac is far superior to IBM, yet IBM has triumphed because of its marketing rather than its technical quality.
  I shall not delve into today's lobby on the BBC World Service—if I did so, you would no doubt rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Bill does not specifically mention the World Service—but I am sure that we shall all want to debate the subject in the coming months. Certainly, people who have been here today have made strong representations about the need to preserve the quality of the World Service.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I did not expect us to have an opportunity to debate the Bill on Third Reading. I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990. As an adviser to Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television, however, I felt unable to serve on the Committee that considered this Bill: the future of Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television's ownership is clearly affected by some its provisions.
  The real question, which has been lost in many debates on the Bill, is why we should have such a Bill at all. Essentially its purpose is to provide a framework for digital television, and in that respect the Government must be congratulated: we seem to be ahead of the game compared with other western European countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, it is impossible through legislation to drive what will happen in either technology or the market, but at least when the Bill is passed, Britain will have a framework. As our debates on the 1990 legislation made clear, people talk of prescribing quality, but it is impossible to guarantee where the money will come from to pay for that quality.
  The lesson that we have learnt over the past five or six years, in radio as much as in television, is that those in the industry know far better than us politicians what will work and what the British people, as viewers and listeners, will accept, support and subscribe to. It is somewhat ironic that Classic FM, although never

  869
  prescribed in the 1990 legislation, has had such a success with only a glimmer of a legislative framework establishing what it should do. It has been successful because those who run it know how to run a radio station.
  One of the main arguments during our debates on the Bill has concerned the future of Channel 4. When we debated the 1990 legislation, we were accused of giving Channel 4 an opportunity to secure its own advertising revenue, and of effectively selling it down the river. We put its remit on the statute book, and by and large that has worked. Channel 4 has been extremely successful in selling its own air time, to the point where channel 3 is receiving money back from it instead of the money going the other way. That should tell us that, while we have a close interest in the quality of our broadcast media, we often underestimate the ability of the talented people in broadcasting to know what works best. As a result of that ability we have some of the best broadcasting in the world, and we are all concerned about its future.
  As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, there are clouds on the horizon that we cannot ignore and I shall deal with two. We have not dealt with them in the Bill, but that is not the end of the world: we can still consider them. First, there is a gross inequality in what some channel 3 licence holders pay for the right to hold a licence. We should have provided for an early review of the matter, but that is still possible; we do not have to put it in the Bill.
  Secondly, there is a gross anomaly because channel 3 pays almost £400 million a year to the Treasury while BSkyB, Channel 4 and other commercial broadcasters pay nothing. We must look ahead five or 10 years. As the right hon. Member for Gorton has said, if the ITV audience continues to shrink, as it must when all the other channels come on stream, what will be the ultimate solution? There will have to be a more equitable take of advertising revenue across the television spectrum and more people are beginning to realise that. That is as important for the Chancellor as what we pass in the Bill. The House will need to return to that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) alluded to the fact that in many ways new technology is great for urban areas but does not do much for rural areas. In large areas of my constituency, one planning restriction or another means that a satellite dish cannot be put on the roof. Cable television is 10 to 15 years down the line, but large parts of north Yorkshire will not be able to receive Channel 5 unless my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, whom I am glad to see in his place, and his Department agree to release channel 35 in the spectrum to Channel 5. That channel will be in direct competition with Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television. Perhaps I should conclude on that happy note.
  The Government are to be congratulated on producing the framework for digital television, but it was inevitable that such a Bill would raise many other issues. We have debated some of them and have left others for another day.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: It has been fascinating to take part in the debates on the Bill. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with hon. Members of all parties in the past few months. I congratulate my hon.
  870
  Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). As shadow Ministers, they do not have the resources that are available to the Minister of State, whom I congratulate on grabbing pieces of paper from thin air and quickly absorbing their contents and on moving amendments at a rate of knots.
  I do not mean to be disrespectful to the Minister when I say that the Bill has been legislation on the hoof. The way in which we deal with such matters shows that there is an underlying weakness in our procedures. Fast-moving technology meant that some of the Government's first ideas were overtaken by events and better ideas emerged. A good example of my concern occurred last night when we dealt with sensory impairment. I intervened on the Secretary of State during that debate. There was good will among all parties when we dealt with the clause relating to that, but we were not able to address some of the technical issues on the delivery of resources. We could not even answer some of the basic questions about the cost of the requisite technology. That was unfortunate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly explained how technology has taken a grip on the media. In Committee, I raised that issue in the context of local services in my area. Local newspapers are owned by Trinity Holdings, which has a monopoly on all such newspapers in my area. I do not regard that as a threat because it has exercised proper editorial control over the various parts of its empire and there is a diversity of newspapers in the region. It may seek to take a share in or buy a radio station—there is plenty of swapping and changing in this sector. Again, if it kept that clear editorial control, that would not be a problem. The public interest issue needs to be dealt with in the context of such companies seeking to give viewers, listeners and readers the same thing, with one particular editorial slant. Clearly, that is not in the public interest.
  Our problem with the cross-media ownership debate, some of which became more heated than anything else during an interesting Committee, was that we were starting not with a blank sheet of paper but with a hotch-potch of different mixes of media ownership throughout the country and in different mediums. As a consequence, the debate was about what were, after all, arbitrary figures. That shows that we have not been able to deal adequately with some of the important issues.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred, in an exchange, I think, with the Minister, to the Internet site of The Daily Telegraph. What comprises the circulation of The Daily Telegraph? Is it made up just of the hard copies that it sells to people through its normal outlets? Does it include the 100,000 copies, or whatever the figure is, that it gives away to British Rail customers, or does it include its Internet site? It is difficult to give a definition of circulation.
  The same is true of some of the more sophisticated magazine sites on the Internet. Where does one draw the boundaries between what is conventionally a magazine in hard copy, what is in electronic form and, increasingly, magazines that provide electronic clips? When we have video on demand on the television networks, we will be able to watch a film or a news item at our leisure and when we choose to do so. Broadcasting and magazines will become remarkably close.
  One of the weaknesses of this complicated sector is the procedures that we have used. I commend to hon. Members the report of the Hansard Society Commission

  871
  on the legislative process, which was published in, I think, 1991. In appendix 5, it sets out a case study on the Broadcasting Act 1990 and gives some good reasons why legislation such as this requires a different approach. It makes an extremely powerful argument that we should have hearings from experts during the passage of such legislation in future. I hope that Procedure Committee members will consider the matter carefully in the context of that case study of the Broadcasting Act and of this Bill.
  The Minister does not entirely disagree with my view. In an interesting exchange of letters, I brought to his attention an essay that I was using as a source, unusually because it was written by Boutros Boutros-Ghali. In our exchange of correspondence, the Minister agreed that, in this sector, the methodology that we were adopting was a weakness. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said.
  In Committee, the Minister said:
  "However, I remind members of the Committee that we are dealing with an interim Bill. No one here is in any doubt but that we shall have to return to the issue within the next three, four or five years."
  I intervened and said, "In two years." The Minister said:
  "The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says two years, and he could well be right."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 June 1996; c. 462]
  That is the difficulty. It is interim legislation in an area of rapid change.
  We have debated a number of particularly important issues. Obviously, the role of the media in a democracy and free society is important. We need to exploit the technologies that are available to us in the interest not just of our internal broadcasting media but of Great Britain plc. Massive export opportunities arise from the technologies at our disposal. We have a huge area of talent and expertise from which we can benefit.
  I hope that we have done something positive in providing a basic framework for the beginning of the digital technology that is now potentially available. I do not hold with the view that it will be a failure. There is a huge potential market to be exploited. I wish the Bill well when it becomes an Act because there has been a fair measure of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House on some underlying points, which will prove to be a useful framework for the developing industry to which I have referred.
  In conclusion—[Interruption.] This is wonderful. Having sat here silently all day, I am now being jeered by my colleagues—
  Mr. Hoon: Cheered.
  Mr. Miller: I prefer to hear that.
  I wish the Bill well, but I remind the House of those observations. I think that we will have to return to it much sooner than we would have thought. I urge the House, particularly the Procedure Committee, to think carefully about this and the other broadcasting measure.
  11.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The note on which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) concluded his remarks has, in many ways, characterized
  872
  the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. I should like to add my strong thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology and all the members of the Committee. I should also like to thank the extremely hard-working officials from the Department of National Heritage, who laboured long and hard and who frequently kept their heads when all about them lost theirs. We are extremely indebted to them. I should like to thank the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and his team. The spirit of constructive debate has been extremely impressive.
  Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about how the Committee could have been handled better, it has been my impression that the regulators and the broadcasters have effectively been offering sessions to hon. Members of whatever persuasion to seek to consider options constructively and to provide information and advice to the best of their ability. In short, in many ways, it has been a model of careful scrutiny. Following the detailed debate and discussion in another place, I believe that it leaves our deliberations improved, modified and made more sensitive and appropriate to the evolving needs that have been described by many.
  I dispute the suggestion that the Bill is not appropriate to current circumstances. I believe that the comment made earlier today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that it is easy to become dazzled by technology was fair. We have to regulate and establish a framework for the world as it is, albeit while recognising the very fast pace of change. It was because of the digital future that it was so necessary to introduce the legislation now, enabling us to be on the front foot and to provide the United Kingdom with a platform to take a world lead in digital broadcasting.
  The Bill also gives media companies the freedom to expand into new sectors. It provides greater choice and it protects the interests of viewers and listeners. Hon. Members have already described some of the ways in which they believe that improvements have been made.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy raised a specific point that I should like to address. We think that the regulatory gap that the Independent Television Commission perceives is, in practice, not a major concern. If a broadcaster acquired a small newspaper, it would become a newspaper proprietor and subject to the newspaper merger provisions if it then proceeded to make a major newspaper acquisition. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, on reporting the matter to the Secretary of State, would no doubt take into account the fact that the newspaper proprietor held a broadcasting licence when that appeared to be a relevant factor. In other words, we believe that there is adequate regulatory protection.
  I suppose that I am pleased that the voice of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is fairly isolated in being quite so critical of the Bill. The careful process of consultation on cross-media ownership and on digital television was followed by the Bill's launch in December, and that process was widely endorsed and commended by those in the industry and by other commentators for its detailed consideration and debate.
  Of course rapid change is occurring, and we must be prepared for the future, but the legislation represents a very substantial process of deregulation, offering media

  873
  companies a great opportunity to extend and to move into new markets. The divisions that emerged among Opposition Members earlier in the debate over the degree to which they were able to embrace the future were extremely marked and interesting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has played a very active part in the Bill's passage, and I share his view of the positive opportunities for the future. Few would have predicted that satellite would have expanded as it has; I believe that the opportunities with digital television will be similar.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked a very important question about Doncaster. I shall never visit Doncaster again without worrying about being interviewed on radio, particularly if it is to see the developments of the Earth Centre, which is one of the millennium flagship projects there. I shall ensure that he receives a proper answer, and that there is further consideration of the matter that he raised.
  I am delighted about the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) paid to officials at the Department of National Heritage, where he is remembered with great affection. I cannot promise that digital will solve all the reception problems to which he alluded, but I think that it will offer greater opportunities—certainly to develop regional and local services, which is not possible on satellite.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made some important points and spoke a little about equal opportunities. Although it does not relate to the Bill, I shall send her a copy of what I told the Royal Television Society and skill set on that matter and on the need for people in television to act on the basis of enlightened self-interest, which, of course, means wise choices in staff. My remarks also dealt with the importance of investing in training and with the need for talented people. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a member of the 1990 Bill team. As he rightly said, the great success of Classic FM and Channel 4 since then is only a small indication of the opportunities that we now see for the future.
  I thank hon. Members. I believe that we have ensured that the Bill, which we have seen through its Commons stages, will have the overall support of the industry, of
  874
  regulators and of listeners. It safeguards and enhances the prospects for British business, British jobs and the British people. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

  COMMUNITY SERVICE (SCOTLAND):
  That the draft Community Service by Offenders (Hours of Work) (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on I I th June, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 21) (House of Commons Paper No. 431), which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 6141/96, relating to a third multi-annual programme for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), and 6929/96, relating to loan guarantees for investments by SMEs creating employment; recognises the important economic role that SMEs play throughout the European Union and supports the Government's intention to support the proposals for the multi-annual programme, subject to satisfactory agreement with the Commission and other Member States about the detailed contents of the programme and the level of the programme budget, and to examine further the proposals relating to loan guarantees for investment by SMEs creating employment.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  Legal Aid
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  11.15 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I make no apology for raising in this Chamber, yet again, the question of legal aid—although I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the hour at which I am doing so. However, he has the bonus that it gives him the opportunity to comment on the Government's White Paper "Striking the Balance" on the very day of its publication.
  As my hon. Friend knows, I have raised the subject of legal aid many times, both in Adjournment debates and in parliamentary questions. I have found that the concerns that I have raised have been echoed by many colleagues within the House, and by many people outside it. I obtained from the Library today a list of the questions asked on the subject of legal aid over the past 14 months. They number 250, which shows the concern of a large number of hon. Members about the position.
  I pay tribute to the interest of the press in the matter. Both the Daily Mail and The Sunday Times have shown great interest. Whenever I have spoken on the subject and been quoted in the press, there is always an influx of letters from people all over the country who are concerned about the way the system is administered.
  Paradoxically, while there has been a dramatic rise in the size of the legal aid bill—it was under £100 million in 1979, about £200 million in 1983–84, had grown to £1.2 billion 10 years later and is now about £1.4 billion—eligibility has been restricted. As my hon. Friend said only yesterday, the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid has fallen from 70 per cent. to 49 per cent.
  Ironically, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said, at a time of record expenditure on legal aid, the esteem and reputation of the Legal Aid Board are probably at an all-time low. There has been widespread concern that the taxpayer is not getting value for money, and that some of the cases supported by the legal aid fund are a disgrace.
  A case referred to in parliamentary questions involved a prisoner who had absconded from prison, but was still being supported by the legal aid fund. The board might at least have said, "If you come back to prison, we will carry on funding you."
  Only yesterday, we read about the disgraceful case of an individual suing the national health service because he has not died on time. It is a new concept of medical negligence—"You told me I would live for six months, but I have lived for three years. I am going to sue you, and it will be funded by the legal aid fund." The thought of taxpayers' money being used to sue the national health service for keeping someone alive beggars belief. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has called in the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to discuss the matter.
  Our constituents feel that the Legal Aid Board has not been a good judge of the quality of cases. The basic principle of legal aid—that no one should be denied access to justice—has been subverted in civil legal aid cases, because the legally aided litigant can blackmail his opponent. Such litigants know that, win or lose, they will not be out of pocket, but their opponents know that, win or lose, they will.
  876
  In the north-west, people have sued chief constables for wrongful prosecutions. The insurers told the defendants that it was cheaper to settle than to continue the cases. Defendants have to calculate how much to offer, because the legal aid certificate might be withdrawn at that stage. They have to try to work out an absurd equation: will it be cheaper to fight or settle a case which logically they know that they can win but in respect of which they could lose financially?
  In my constituency, there was the case of a partnership that had broken down. One partner sued the other. The party that was being sued was told by his lawyer that he had a wonderful case and would win. He fought it and won, but he was substantially out of pocket because of the legal costs. While the Legal Aid Board is sometimes asked to contribute toward the cost of a successful defendant, the number of cases in which that happens is negligible. A written answer on 16 October 1995 stated that, in 1994–95, help had been given in 158 cases; in 1993–94, the figure was 186.
  There is a feeling that the wrong people have sometimes obtained legal aid. It is a scandal that some very well-heeled individuals have managed to get it. One thinks of Mr. Ernest Saunders, the man who made the miraculous recovery from Alzheimer's disease—"Guinness is good for you, it cures Alzheimer's". He was reconciled with his wife and her assets once he no longer needed legal aid.
  There was Mr. Gordon Foxley, who short-changed the taxpayer when he was employed at the Ministry of Defence, and did so again when he applied for legal aid, despite owning houses and cars and seeming to have substantial assets. Those people's legal bills, which were often substantial, were paid by taxpayers who live in much less salubrious homes. Why should the not-so-well-off be asked to pay the legal bills of people with luxurious life styles?
  The generosity of the legal aid scheme knows precious few limits. The most absurd case was that of the German inventor, who lived in Germany but sued Sony in the British courts. He will never pay one deutschmark of tax to Britain, but he received £500,000 in legal aid. That is a disgrace. I was sorry to read in the White Paper that the Government are going to consult on whether overseas residents who bring legal actions in the British courts should get legal aid. The Minister can consult me at any time of the day or night, and my answer will be no. Those who are not British taxpayers, owe no allegiance to the Crown or have no residence in this country should not qualify for legal aid.
  It is also felt that there has been some fraud that the Legal Aid Board has not been good at detecting. On 2 February, a written answer in column 260 of the Official Report gave the number of representations about fraudulent applications for civil legal aid. In 1991–92, there were only 2,775; by 1995–96, it was estimated that there would be 15,000. There have been many representations but very few prosecutions.
  In a written answer of 18 July 1995, at column 1013, the then Parliamentary Secretary said that the number of applicants investigated for false declaration of means in 1987–88 was nil; in 1988–89, nil; in 1989–90, nil; and in 1990–91, six. The figure reached 15 in 1993–94, and 25 in 1994–95. The reply then said that the number of assisted persons prosecuted under section 39 of the Legal

  877
  Aid Act 1988 over the same period was nil until 1991–92, when we had a dynamic year and two were prosecuted. The figure returned to nil the next year, and, in 1993–94 and 1994–95, the Crown Prosecution Service went into overdrive and managed to prosecute two people in each year.
  More recently, on 22 May this year, a parliamentary answer on fraud said that, in 1995–96, 29 cases were referred to the police in respect of civil legal aid, and, in respect of criminal legal aid, five assisted persons had been referred to the police. The number of applications for criminal legal aid runs into hundreds of thousands, and we are asked to believe that those chaps who are accused of crimes suddenly become terribly honest when they fill out the legal aid form. I just do not believe it.
  Let us look at the cost of some of those cases. We were told on 26 February that, to date, the Maxwell case had cost the taxpayer £8.3 million. We can console ourselves with the thought that that includes an element of VAT, but it is still a large sum, which causes concern to taxpayers.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who asked on 1 May how much money had been paid to certain firms. In 1993–94. Robinsons topped the list of legal aid millionaires, because it received £3.2 million. It did not do quite as well the following year, when the figure was topped by Leigh Day and Company, which received £8.3 million from the legal aid fund. Those figures cause concern to taxpayers.
  Another worry about the legal aid fund is part of a wider concern: that the costs and delays involved in legal action mean that the very rich can afford legal action; the very poor can afford it through legal aid; but middle England, middle Scotland and middle Wales find it very much more difficult. That is why I welcome the imminent report by Lord Woolf, which will speed up justice and thereby make it cheaper. That will help everyone—the legal aid fund and the rest of us who may from time to time have to litigate.
  Today's publication of the White Paper is a fortuitous coincidence, and it enables me to comment briefly on it. I welcome the fact that the Government withdrew legal aid from the apparently wealthy, because nothing did more to bring the legal aid fund into contempt than the sight of very wealthy individuals living in large, luxurious homes, with a nice life style, being funded by people on much more modest means. There is no doubt that the legal aid fund gives the impression of being a juggernaut out of control, and the Legal Aid Board gives the impression of having a strange order of priorities. That is why I welcome some of the comments in the White Paper.
  I welcome the fact that the White Paper is the first document for a long time that has emphasised the need to get value for money and financial control in the legal aid system. I also welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will lay down priorities within civil and family legal aid, and that, as one would expect from him, his main priorities will be the protection of children and the detention of mental patients.
  I welcome the fact that there will be criteria for deciding whether cases should be supported. One criterion is the chance of winning the case. My God, that should have been a criterion from the start. The importance of the case, and the likely cost compared to the likely benefit—those should have been criteria from the start.
  878
  I welcome the statement in paragraph 2.21:
  "Once a case is in progress, the provider will be able to withdraw legal aid if the circumstances … such as the chance of winning change so that it is no longer worth pursuing."
  I am sure that that will be welcomed throughout the country.
  I welcome the fact that, in civil legal aid, everyone will be expected to make a minimum contribution toward the cost of the case. That may deter some, but I still think that there is an unequal balance between the legally aided litigant and the person who must fight a case against him. It is true that, in the White Paper, the Government propose that, if the successful party suffers financial hardship, he will get some help, which he has not received until now, but I suspect that he will still suffer for winning, and that is not right.
  I welcome the fact that other agencies besides barristers and solicitors are to benefit from the proposals, because one of the big growth areas of civil legal aid has been matrimonial legal aid, which grew from £87.5 million in 1989–90 to £266 million in 1993–94.
  I especially welcome the publication of the White Paper, and the determination that the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown in carrying out this desire to get value for money, to bring common sense back into the operation of the legal aid system.
  As the White Paper says,
  "We need to restore confidence that the scheme is fair and excludes weak or trivial cases."
  If my right hon. and hon. Friends can do that, they will be doing a service to justice throughout this country.
  11.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate, and on the timing of the debate, which coincides, as he said, with the launch of our White Paper today on legal aid reform. I am grateful to him for his customary robustness and forthright views on the administration of legal aid; I sympathise with much of what he has said.
  I am as outraged as my hon. Friend when I see apparently fruitless cases being pursued with the benefit of legal aid. I am certainly not here tonight to defend the indefensible. The current state of the legal aid scheme and its administration leave much to be desired. That is why we have today published a White Paper containing a programme of radical action designed to transform the legal aid scheme into one that can command public confidence. The Government are determined to stop abuses of legal aid such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  I warmly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his perseverance over the years in raising these abuses in the House. This has played a major part in bringing the Government to the stage of reforming the legal aid system. I am grateful to him for his warm welcome of the White Paper.
  Before explaining the proposals that the Lord Chancellor has made in his White Paper, it is important to spend a moment reflecting that there is another side to the legal aid story. Reasonable access to the law is

  879
  fundamental to the health of our country. Legal aid is intended to, and does in thousands of cases, provide those in genuine need with the help they need with their legal problems. No one should be denied access to justice because he has nothing in the bank.
  In 1995–96, the Legal Aid Board paid for 3.33 million acts of assistance. In only 5.2 per cent. of civil cases was judgment awarded against the assisted person. Since 1989, when the board assumed responsibility for the administration of most legal aid, the percentage of refusals of civil applications on legal grounds has increased from 11.3 per cent. to 22.7 per cent., demonstrating an improved commitment to the rigorous examination of applications. I nevertheless fully accept that there is much more to be done.
  We will not rest until we are satisfied that the Legal Aid Board is capable of weeding out all undeserving applications for legal aid. My hon. Friend's list makes it clear that we have some way to go.
  To illustrate what I have in mind, I shall outline some of my thoughts on what a legal aid scheme should and should not be about. The first principle that should be applied in every case in which an application for civil legal aid is made must be that public funds should not be used where a private client would not pursue the case with his own money. The legal aid system does not exist to support any and every piece of litigation that might crop up; nor is it designed to give financial backing to the whims of political correctness. We must have in place mechanisms to ensure that help is properly targeted.
  It cannot be right that those granted civil legal aid are put in a position to blackmail their opponents by virtue of their superior financial support. I have spoken recently about opponents facing "state-funded rottweilers" when they are involved in proceedings against legally aided opponents. Legal aid was designed to stop the rich riding roughshod over the rights of the poor. However, all too often, legal aid is now used as a weapon of blackmail—my hon. Friend gave examples of that.
  People with only modest resources find themselves unable to afford to defend their legitimate rights against those supported by the bottomless purse of the legal aid fund. The balance is wrong, which is why "Striking the Balance" is the title of the White Paper. All litigants, whether they be legally aided or not, should have a financial stake in the proceedings—an assisted person must have a real interest in his case. The Government cannot allow themselves to be a party to any form of blackmail caused by the legal aid system.
  Legal aid must go only to those whose means are such that they are deserving of help. We have established strict financial eligibility limits to ensure that help is targeted properly. Despite this, it would appear that there are still those who seek to get around these rules in an attempt to get legal aid where they should not. On this front, we have already taken positive action.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the changes that the Lord Chancellor has announced to deal with apparently wealthy legal aid applicants. On 28 February 1996, he announced new regulations to strengthen the arrangements for means-testing apparently wealthy applicants for legal aid. The first will allow the assets of friends and relatives of the applicant to be included in the financial assessment. The second will introduce into legal aid assessment a limit of £100,000 on the equity allowable
  880
  in the applicant's home, the amount of repayable mortgage that can be allowed, and the amount of mortgage that can be offset against equity.
  The Lord Chancellor also announced that he had asked the Legal Aid Board to set up a special investigations unit as soon as possible. The unit will build on a prototype already in existence in the Legal Aid Assessment Office, and it will investigate the means of applicants whose financial circumstances are particularly complex. That will strike at the heart of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Initially, the unit will deal only with applications for civil legal aid, but it will be extended as soon as possible to cover both civil and criminal legal aid. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that.
  We have already made these changes, and the White Paper that was launched today goes further. I believe that three main public perceptions must be addressed: first, the public see legal aid as wasteful in supporting too many weak and undeserving cases; secondly, the public see legal aid as over-priced, with taxpayers paying for what appear to be huge lawyers' fees; and, finally, the public see legal aid as unfair to the opponents of legally aided people, who too often feel that they have to give in on cases that they would have a good chance of winning.
  We need a legal aid scheme that gets more of the right services to the right people. At present, we have a scheme which—despite efforts to control lawyers' pay and the tightening of the eligibility rules—is delivering less and less to fewer and fewer. Expenditure has doubled in the last few years, yet the percentage of households that qualify for help has fallen from about 70 per cent. in the early 1980s to about 50 per cent. now. In that light, reform is inescapable.
  We have four fundamental proposals to tackle the problems that we have now identified in civil legal a:id. First, in future we will buy a wider range of services under bulk contracts at fixed prices. In that way, we will be able to decide what services should be available and be able to meet local needs within nationally set priorities: we will he able to get the right services to the right people.
  The second proposal is to open up legal aid to new services, such as advice agencies, and to promote competition in the contracting process. I welcome my hon. Friend's kind remarks about that suggestion. Contracts will have in-built incentives to promote efficiency and quality, and in that way we will be able to get more and better services for our money.
  Thirdly, we will introduce a new test of whether a case deserves to share in the money available. That test will be stronger than the current merits test, which is concerned primarily with the legal merits. We will open the test out to include criteria that ensure that only those who are most in need receive help. An individual's nationality and place of residence may be relevant.
  I want to make sure that any test that is operated under the new scheme has no difficulty in weeding out applications from people whose cases are being heard in this country only in order to take advantage of the generosity of our legal aid scheme. My hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that. In addition, by requiring assisted persons to pay more often towards the cost of a case, we can expect them and their legal advisers to be careful not to bring ill-founded cases.
  Finally, we will redress the balance between assisted persons and their opponents by ensuring that, when legal aid is used to back losing claims, unaided opponents will

  881
  have better rights to get some or all of their costs back from the assisted person or the Legal Aid Board. As a result, the state will be even-handed in its treatment of both parties. We see no reason why the taxpayer should be expected to fund litigants who are not willing to make a sacrifice themselves. It is in no one's interest to encourage people to bring weak and undeserving cases before the courts, especially when the taxpayer must foot the bill.
  That is only part of the picture. We look forward in the near future to the publication of the Woolf proposals, which I hope will usher in a new regime of cheaper and
  882
  simpler access to justice. That would be a significant step in the right direction. I trust that I can rely on my hon. Friend's support in implementing those legal aid reforms. He has played a vital role in bringing them about.
  I truly believe that the reforms can achieve a fairer, more efficient and better controlled legal aid scheme. I fully expect that the horror stories that we have heard tonight will become things of the past. The changes outlined in the White Paper are indeed radical but, as my hon. Friend has helped us to understand tonight, nothing less will do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

HEALTH

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 349, if his Department will release figures on highly suspect cases of the new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease on a monthly basis; and what are those figures for 1995 and 1996 to date. [34511]

  Mr. Horam
  The information has, until now, formed part of the annual report of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit. They will now be published quarterly in the chief medical officer's update.

  In 1995 there were three deaths from the new variant of CJD while in 1996, to the end of May, there had been six deaths.

  NHS Cardiac Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of NHS cardiac units in hospitals within the Greater London area on 30 March. [34595]

  Mr. Malone
  All major acute hospitals in Greater London have a coronary care unit. In addition, there were eight national health service specialist cardiac units in Greater London as of 30 March 1996.

  Patient Care (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on patient care of the cuts proposed by Doncaster health authority in the budget of the Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust; [35017]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on patient care of the cuts proposed by Doncaster health authority in the budget of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu NHS trust. [35016]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Doncaster health authority and the trusts concerned. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Keith Jones, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have indicated that they may intend to seek approval for capital investment under the private finance initiative. [34885]

  Mr. Horam
  All national health service capital schemes are tested to see if private finance offers the best value for money. At present, 118 national health service 368
  trusts are testing schemes worth over £1 million each for which approval of the outline business case has been given.

  Information is not available on schemes worth under £1 million each that are currently being tested, or on schemes for which the outline business case has not yet been prepared.

  National Vocational Qualifications (Carers)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the adequacy of the NVQ qualifications for carers; what priority his Department accords to the training of carers; and if he will make a statement. [34945]

  Mr. Bowis
  A number of representations have been received on this subject.

  The Government place a high priority on the training of carers. The personal social services training strategy for England seeks to improve the training of the existing PSS work force at professional and vocational levels. This Department is supporting the updated set of lifetime learning targets to achieve specified national vocational qualification—NVQ—targets by 2000 by targeting part of the training support programme on the achievement of NVQs in care. In addition, the document "Building Partnerships for Success", published in September last year, identifies staff training and development as part of the essential foundation for the development of community care. For the future we propose to increase the proportion of staff with appropriate qualifications by extending opportunities to acquire NVQs.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relationship between the rate of incidence of multiple sclerosis in health authority areas and the likelihood of sufferers being prescribed beta-interferon. [34996]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Data on the incidence of multiple sclerosis by health authority region are not available centrally. Decisions about prescribing beta-interferon in individual cases are for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

  NHS Trusts (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions officials from his Department have had with the management of Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu NHS trust and Doncaster health authority in relation to the budget for the trust; [35020]

  (2) what discussions officials from his Department have had with the management of Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust and Doncaster health authority in relation to the budget for the trust. [35019]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service executive officials have regular contact and discussion with Doncaster health authority and with trusts in Doncaster about a variety of matters including funding.
  369
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to ensure that no job losses or reductions in service occur in 1996–97 at(a) the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu NHS trust and (b) the Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust. [34995]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for the trusts themselves. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the trusts, Mr. Redmond Tonkinson and Mr. David Bertram, for details.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which districts in England and Wales are not currently represented by a community health council; and if he will make a statement. [34985]

  Mr. Horam
  All districts in England and Wales have a community health council.

  Dispute Procedures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures exist within the national health service for resolving disputes between a national health service trust and a health authority on a national health service trust's budget. [35005]

  Mr. Horam
  A copy of the latest guidance is available in the Library. This guidance, EL(91)11, will be updated shortly.

  North Western Regional Health Authority (Compensation)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful claims for compensation have been made against the North Western regional health authority during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [35062]

  Mr. Horam
  There were no traceable claims for compensation in this period.

  Blood Disorders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a screening programme covering all races in respect of(a) sickle cell anaemia and (b) thalassaemia; and if he will make a statement. [35104]

  Mr. Horam
  Individual health authorities are responsible for assessing the needs of their resident populations and for purchasing services, including haemoglobinopathy screening, to provide for those needs. In doing so, we would expect them to have regard to the recommendations in the report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee working party on sickle cell, thalassaemia and other haemoglobinopathies, published in February 1994.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority region for the last 12 months, the number of white caucasians who have been diagnosed as carrying(a) the sickle cell anaemia gene and (b) the thalassaemia gene; and if he will make a statement. [35103]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.
  370

  Health Care Purchases
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 429, on purchasing health care from non-NHS bodies, if he will provide a breakdown of the services bought and the sources of provision. [35367]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Rabies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of human rabies have been recorded in the United Kingdom between 1971 and 1995. [35082]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been seven reported cases of rabies in the United Kingdom since 1976: two in 1977 and one in each of the years 1978, 1981, 1986, 1987 and 1988. All these were in people who were infected abroad.

  Rabies became a notifiable disease only in 1976 and, therefore, figures for the years 1971 to 1975 are not available.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money, expressed both in cash and in real terms, has been spent on the NHS in each financial year since 1978–79; and if he will make a statement. [35290]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is in the table.

  National Health Service total net expenditure, England

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms (1994–95 prices)

  1978–79

  6,273

  18,284

  1979–80

  7,447

  18,598

  1980–81

  9,700

  20,474

  1981–82

  10,854

  20,889

  1982–83

  11,819

  21,234

  1983–84

  12,494

  21,451

  1984–85

  13,407

  21,932

  1985–86

  14,176

  21,970

  1986–87

  15,173

  22,827

  1987–88

  16,668

  23,808

  1988–89

  18,413

  24,652

  1989–90

  19,855

  24,847

  1990–91

  22,326

  25,865

  1991–92

  25,354

  27,647

  1992–93

  27,971

  29,308

  1993–94

  28,951

  29,483

  1994–95

  30,581

  30,581

  1995–961

  31,985

  31,129

  1 Forecast outturn

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee regarding the timetable of payments to pharmacists; [35151]

  (2) if he will arrange for his Department to make 100 per cent. payments to pharmacists a month and a day after prescriptions are dispensed; and if he will make a statement. [35148]
  371
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) on 8 March at column 397. The payment timetable was also raised by representatives of the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on 6 June.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the results of the evaluation of different types of residential provision for people with learning disabilities which he announced on 19 December 1995; and if he will make a statement. [35576]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have received the report of the first phase of the evaluation and I am considering the recommendations, including those for further work in this area. The report includes information which will be helpful to commissioners of services for people with learning disabilities and copies are therefore being sent to health and local authorities and other interested organisations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Computers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the NHS executive has taken to safeguard its computer systems in respect of the century date change. [35369]

  Mr. Horam
  Preliminary analysis of the Department of Health's own mainframe computer systems, which includes those within the national health service executive, has already been undertaken to assess the likely impact of the change of millennium. A further more detailed analysis is under way to assess fully the impact and likely costs of the change.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many computers are used in the NHS. [35337]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts and health authorities have taken action to safeguard their computer systems from the year 2000 problem. [35341]

  Mr. Horam
  At present it is not known how many trusts and health authorities have taken action to safeguard their computer systems from the year 2000 problem. However, the national health service executive has taken steps to increase awareness of the problem and is marshalling best advice and guidance to assist it in taking appropriate action in good time.

  Child Abuse Inquries
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be assisting Sir William Utting in his review of children's homes and child care arrangements; what steps he is taking to ensure the input of charitable organisations, psychologists and those with experience of police involvement in tackling organised paedophile activity; and if he will make a statement. [35368]
  372
  Mr. Bowis
  Sir William will be provided with a small secretariat and will have access to Departmental facilities. Sir William has agreed that the review should be accessible to a wide range of organisations and individuals who may wish to contribute their views. It will be for Sir William to determine how this is best achieved once the review is under way.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the hospital budget has been spent on mental health services in each year since 1979. [35331]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table. The figures since 1988 reflect the shift from hospital to community mental health services. For example, the latter rose by 32 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1990–91 and by 40 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1994–95 for menial health nursing expenditure.

  Year

  Percentage of hospital budget spent on mental health services

  1979–80

  13.4

  1980–81

  13.6

  1981–82

  13.6

  1982–83

  13.6

  1983–84

  13.5

  1984–85

  13.6

  1985–86

  13.6

  1986–87

  13.6

  1987–88

  14.4

  1988–89

  14.4

  1989–90

  14.1

  1990–91

  13.7

  1991–92

  13.2

  1992–93

  13.0

  1993–94

  12.4

  1994–95

  12.0

  1. The mental health expenditure figures used to calculate the percentages are made up of the following:

  (a) In-patient and out-patient expenditure—the consultant specialties of mental health, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, psychotherapy and old age psychiatry;

  (b) day patient expenditure—in the categories mental heal th (alcoholism, drug abuse, psychogeriatrics and general), child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

  2. The hospital budget figures cover all in-patient, out-patient and day patient services and other services provided by hospitals. Community-based services are not included.

  Non-NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1995,Official Report, columns 934–35, on non-NHS staff, what information his Department collates on the grades of staff concerned and the source of their employment. [35370]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Paediatric Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children admitted to hospital have been cared for in a children's ward under the supervision of a consultant paediatrician in each quarter since April 1994 in each region. [35332]
  373
  Mr. Horam
  These data are not available centrally. All children treated in a children's ward are under the supervision of a consultant paediatrician, but some children are treated in a suitable specialist or adult wards and are then under the supervision of an appropriate consultant.

  Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients diagnosed since April 1995 requiring coronary artery bypass grafts have not received them within one year. [35333]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have not received an out-patient appointment within 13 weeks in each district in each quarter since April 1995; and what proportion this constitutes of the total; [35334]

  (2) how many people have not received an out-patient appointment within 26 weeks in each district in each quarter since April 1995. [35335]

  Mr. Horam
  A pilot collection has been established on a trust basis of the numbers of patients not yet seen within 13 and 26 weeks for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant following written general practitioner referral. Figures will be published once continuity and validity of the data have been established.

  Local Authority Audits
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of Tuesday 25 June,Official Report, column 89, if he will list the authorities which have yet to submit their audited returns for 1994–95; and when he expects the outstanding audited returns to be submitted. [35366]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have now received the audited returns for 1994–95 for all local authorities in England.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people admitted to hospital through an accident and emergency department were not given a bed within three to four hours in each quarter from April 1995; and how many were not given a bed within two hours from April 1996 in each district. [35336]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Description

  Awarding body

  Amount

  Date

  Supplier

  Marketing Agency for health services

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Up to £160,000

  15 September 1995

  Colin Geall

  Business Advice

  NHS Supplies

  Not quoted

  27 September 1995

  Provex Consultancy Stourbridge

  Project management

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  Not quoted

  16 June 1995

  Mouchel Management Ltd.

  374

  District Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have not been seen by a district nurse team member(a) within four hours as an urgent case, (b) within two working days as a non-urgent case and (c) by appointment on the day asked for after giving 48 hours' notice in each quarter since April 1994 in each district. [35338]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the levels of abuse of elderly people in different care environments. [35339]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are undertaking a number of activities to enable an assessment to be made of the nature and extent of elder abuse and to promote practical help for people who are subject to, or at risk of, abuse.

  We helped to establish the organisation Action on Elder Abuse in 1993 and are funding its telephone helpline. We are also financing an independent evaluation of the helpline which will provide evidence of prevalence and types of abuse. Action on Elder Abuse produced a free guidance leaflet in 1995 on abuse in care homes.

  The social services inspectorate has published practice guidelines on safeguarding older people who may be at risk of abuse in domestic settings and has funded the production of a research review, which is currently being distributed.

  We also provide grant aid to Counsel and Care which has independently produced a fact sheet on older people at risk of abuse in care homes. Counsel and Care held a seminar in May 1995 with the intention of pooling ideas on policies, procedures and practice.

  Management Consultancy Advertisements
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of each management consultancy contract that has been advertised by NHS organisations in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Community in each of the last five years. [35340]

  Mr. Horam
  There was no requirement on national health service or other United Kingdom public contracting authorities to advertise service contracts in the Official Journal prior to July 1993.

  The following management consultancy contracts above the threshold value of £149,728 that were awarded by an NHS organisation in the calendar years 1994 and 1995 have been identified from Official Journal records:
  375

  Description

  Awarding body

  Amount

  Date

  Supplier

  Financial and fiscal services

  NHS Supplies

  Not quoted

  21 August 1995

  Beachcroft Stanleys Solicitors, and KPMG

  Business services

  Dental Practice Board for England and Wales

  Not quoted

  21 December 1994

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities have been unable to spend 85 per cent. of their special transitional grant for 1993–94 in the independent sector. [35343]

  Mr. Bowis
  Barnsley, Bolton, Derbyshire, Durham, Ealing, Rochdale, Rotherham, Staffordshire and St. Helens.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  UNESCO
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations she has received from educational institutions about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO; [34822]

  (2) what disadvantages to educational institutions have been represented to her as resulting from Britain staying out of UNESCO. [34832]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will make a statement on the transition to comprehensive status of the nine grammar schools in Norfolk between 1979 and 1982; [34769]

  (2) what action was taken by Norfolk county council's education committee in response to the letter from the Department of Education after the general election in 1979 removing the compulsion on local education to reorganise their secondary schools along comprehensive lines; [34773]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the merger of Paston school and North Walsham girls school to become a sixth form college; [34774]

  (4) whether she will make a statement on the transition from grammar to comprehensive of (a) Diss grammar school in Norfolk, (b) Fakenham grammar school, (c) Wymondham college, (d) Oriel grammar school, (e) Great Yarmouth grammar school and (1) Gorleston grammar school, Gorleston. [34775]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The changes referred to are a matter for the public record. The details of how they were implemented were the responsibility of Norfolk education authority. The decisions taken by that authority about the character of its secondary schools reflected the circumstances and policies of the time.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether she has consulted the education authority of Norfolk county council over the 1996 proposals for the creation of selective schools in Norfolk. [34770]
  376
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The White Paper "Self-Government for Schools" has been sent to all local education authorities with any comments invited by 4 October. The Department discussed the broad issues to be covered in the White Paper in advance with the local authority associations and a range of other organisations, but not with any individual local authority.

  Barred Teachers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 287, which schools cannot arrange checks against list 99 through their local education authority; and in what circumstances local education authorities have access to the Department of Health's consultancy index. [35249]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Schools that are maintained by a local education authority can make checks through their maintaining authority. Other schools are not entitled to this service, but can make checks through the Department.

  The Department of Health's consultancy index is intended to provide checks on the suitability of people seeking appointments in the field of child care. It has not been used by local education authorities which rely on checks of list 99 and criminal background checks to help assess the suitability of candidates.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 99, if she will list the number of (a) adverse reports from employers made to the Department of Health's consultancy index for each year since 1979 and (b) notifications from the police for convictions for each year since 1979; and how many notifications to list 99 there have been for each year since 1979. [35250]

  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The following table shows the number of reports about misconduct, or alleged misconduct, by teachers, and people whose work involves regular contact with children and young persons in education, that the Department has received in each year since 1 April 1979. Information about notifications to the Department of Health consultancy index is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Year

  Reports Received

  1 April 1979–31 March 1980

  435

  1 April 1980–31 March 1981

  422

  1 April 1981–31 March 1982

  340

  1 April 1982–31 March 1983

  360

  1 April 1983–31 March 1984

  338

  1 April 1984–31 March 1985

  325

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  348

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  320

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  350

  377

  Year

  Reports Received

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  333

  1 April 1989–31 march 1990

  334

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  373

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  387

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  382

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  542

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  636

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  561

  School Funding
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is in each local education authority the average amount spent per(a) pupil, (b) primary pupil and (c) secondary pupil. [35448]

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

  £

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Net Institutional Expenditure Per Pupil 1994–95

  Pre-Primary/ Primary and Secondary

  Pre-Primary and Primary

  Secondary

  Corporation of London

  3,635

  3,635

  0

  Camden

  2,376

  2,057

  2,790

  Greenwich

  2,331

  2,028

  2,772

  Hackney

  2,521

  2,249

  3,138

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,759

  2,482

  3,316

  Islington

  2,247

  2,055

  2,657

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,672

  2,397

  3,327

  Lambeth

  2,750

  2,573

  3,782

  Lewisham

  2,304

  2,097

  2,677

  Southwark

  2,091

  1,898

  2,681

  Tower Hamlets

  2,664

  2,393

  3,194

  Wandsworth

  2,366

  2,268

  3,053

  Westminster

  2,613

  2,440

  2,825

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,069

  1,891

  2,353

  Barnet

  1,953

  1,763

  2,415

  Bexley

  1,792

  1,536

  2,232

  Brent

  1,752

  1,718

  2,033

  Bromley

  1,768

  1,634

  2,231

  Croydon

  1,835

  1,725

  2,165

  Ealing

  2,087

  1,969

  2,457

  Enfield

  1,969

  1,761

  2,359

  Haringey

  2,525

  2,300

  2,986

  Harrow

  2,205

  2,043

  2,598

  Havering

  2,019

  1,715

  2,570

  Hillingdon

  1,874

  1,777

  2,625

  Hounslow

  2,195

  1,931

  2,582

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,987

  1,730

  2,518

  Merton

  2,169

  1,931

  2,663

  Newham

  2,033

  1,711

  2,623

  Redbridge

  2,056

  1,678

  2,553

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,090

  1,884

  2,373

  Sutton

  2,045

  1,860

  2,514

  Waltham Forest

  1,989

  1,792

  2,395

  Birmingham

  1,925

  1,721

  2,356

  Coventry

  1,988

  1,705

  2,418

  Dudley

  1,781

  1,575

  2,205

  Sandwell

  1,876

  1,666

  2,244

  Solihull

  1,865

  1,605

  2,225

  Walsall

  1,877

  1,664

  2,314

  Wolverhampton

  1,894

  1,648

  2,341

  Knowsley

  1,783

  1,575

  2,227

  Liverpool

  1,988

  1,634

  2,603

  St. Helens

  1,820

  1,521

  2,247

  Sefton

  1,797

  1,487

  2,227

  Wirral

  1,846

  1,567

  2,294

  Bolton

  1,862

  1,646

  2,261

  Bury

  1,701

  1,492

  2,032

  378

  £

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Net Institutional Expenditure Per Pupil 1994–95

  Pre-Primary/ Primary and Secondary

  Pre-Primary and Primary

  Secondary

  Manchester

  1,841

  1,558

  2,435

  Oldham

  1,894

  1,621

  2,293

  Rochdale

  1,794

  1,552

  2,225

  Salford

  1,714

  1,507

  2,151

  Stockport

  1,792

  1,566

  2,152

  Tameside

  1,646

  1,447

  2,046

  Trafford

  1,743

  1,477

  2,319

  Wigan

  1,740

  1,474

  2,130

  Barnsley

  1,764

  1,550

  2,102

  Doncaster

  1,707

  1,444

  2,025

  Rotherham

  1,938

  1,719

  2,220

  Sheffield

  1,799

  1,612

  2,110

  Bradford

  1,869

  1,681

  2,041

  Calderdale

  1,775

  1,651

  2,104

  Kirklees

  1,864

  1,607

  2,256

  Leeds

  1,873

  1,645

  2,223

  Wakefield

  1,779

  1,590

  2,046

  Gateshead

  1,886

  1,638

  2,257

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,945

  1,660

  2,314

  North Tyneside

  1,877

  1,636

  2,145

  South Tyneside

  1,792

  1,623

  2,062

  Sunderland

  1,802

  1,576

  2,142

  Isles of Scilly

  3,356

  2,471

  4,484

  Avon

  1,898

  1,613

  2,336

  Bedfordshire

  1,930

  1,674

  2,231

  Berkshire

  1,869

  1,630

  2,238

  Buckinghamshire

  1,834

  1,636

  2,256

  Cambridgeshire

  1,734

  1,540

  2,160

  Cheshire

  1,796

  1,529

  2,176

  Cleveland

  1,758

  1,505

  2,172

  Cornwall

  1,865

  1,615

  2,202

  Cumbria

  1,714

  1,541

  2,034

  Derbyshire

  1,832

  1,596

  2,290

  Devon

  1,818

  1,554

  2,203

  Dorset

  1,743

  1,510

  2.061

  Durham

  1,905

  1,757

  2,122

  East Sussex

  1,964

  1,692

  2,359

  Essex

  1,864

  1,734

  2,321

  Gloucestershire

  1,416

  1,274

  1,937

  Hampshire

  1,825

  1,645

  2,177

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,841

  1,643

  2,063

  Hertfordshire

  1,918

  1,717

  2,264

  Humberside

  1,917

  1,652

  2,304

  Isle of Wight

  1,859

  1,.607

  2,030

  Kent

  1,765

  1,555

  2,276

  Lancashire

  1,918

  1,661

  2,345

  Leicestershire

  1,890

  1,612

  2,274

  Lincolnshire

  1,846

  1,588

  2,384

  Norfolk

  1,862

  1,600

  2,342

  North Yorkshire

  1,838

  1,577

  2,180

  Northamptonshire

  1,894

  1,618

  2,265

  Northumberland

  1,773

  1,528

  1,944

  Nottinghamshire

  1,986

  1,692

  2,396

  Oxfordshire

  1,959

  1,680

  2,285

  Shropshire

  1,910

  1,605

  2,413

  Somerset

  1,857

  1,660

  2,113

  Staffordshire

  1,787

  1,565

  2,104

  Suffolk

  1,949

  1,690

  2,182

  Surrey

  1,906

  1,744

  2,234

  Warwickshire

  1,876

  1,665

  2,349

  West Sussex

  1,913

  1,668

  2,240

  Wiltshire

  1,735

  1,548

  2,125

  England

  1,890

  1,661

  2,270

  School Meals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is for each local education authority the percentage of (i) the total number of pupils and (ii) the number of pupils taking school meals who receive a free meal. [35365]
  379
  Mrs. Gillan
  The latest available information is in the following table:

  Day pupils taking free school meals In maintained schools in each Local Education Authority area in England January 1995

  Day pupils taking free meals as a percentage of: all day pupils

  pupils taking a meal

  Corporation of London

  47

  62

  Camden

  28

  50

  Greenwich

  30

  60

  Hackney

  45

  66

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  52

  Islington

  39

  63

  Kensington and Chelsea

  34

  51

  Lambeth

  39

  58

  Lewisham

  31

  54

  Southwark

  39

  61

  Tower Hamlets

  47

  77

  Wandsworth

  30

  48

  Westminster

  37

  58

  Barking and Dagenham

  19

  44

  Barnet

  14

  26

  Bexley

  12

  35

  Brent

  24

  53

  Bromley

  13

  30

  Croydon

  20

  41

  Ealing

  23

  48

  Enfield

  16

  41

  Haringey

  33

  57

  Harrow

  10

  54

  Havering

  11

  25

  Hillingdon

  11

  37

  Hounslow

  19

  39

  Kingston upon Thames

  7

  37

  Merton

  16

  43

  Newham

  29

  65

  Redbridge

  14

  29

  Richmond upon Thames

  11

  30

  Sutton

  10

  23

  Waltham Forest

  27

  50

  Birmingham

  30

  54

  Coventry

  20

  63

  Dudley

  15

  36

  Sandwell

  20

  53

  Solihull

  13

  26

  Walsall

  20

  42

  Wolverhampton

  21

  49

  Knowsley

  36

  70

  Liverpool

  32

  59

  St. Helens

  18

  37

  Sefton

  18

  43

  Wirral

  23

  45

  Bolton

  17

  31

  Bury

  14

  28

  Manchester

  39

  65

  Oldham

  22

  39

  Rochdale

  24

  43

  Salford

  28

  52

  Stockport

  14

  29

  Tameside

  19

  37

  Trafford

  16

  38

  Wigan

  16

  38

  Barnsley

  20

  40

  Doncaster

  21

  35

  Rotheram

  17

  45

  Sheffield

  20

  46

  Bradford

  23

  44

  Calderdale

  17

  33

  Kirklees

  17

  35

  Leeds

  16

  39

  Wakefield

  15

  40

  Gateshead

  20

  46

  380

  Day pupils taking free school meals in maintained schools in each Local Education Authority area in England January 1995

  Day pupils taking free meals as a percentage of: all day pupils

  pupils taking a meal

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  28

  52

  North Tyneside

  18

  35

  South Tyneside

  27

  45

  Sunderland

  21

  48

  Isles of Scilly

  19

  43

  Avon

  15

  39

  Bedfordshire

  16

  31

  Berkshire

  10

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  40

  Cambridge

  12

  32

  Cheshire

  13

  29

  Cleveland

  24

  48

  Cornwall

  15

  34

  Cumbria

  12

  25

  Derbyshire

  14

  25

  Devon

  15

  33

  Dorset

  8

  39

  Durham

  18

  36

  East Sussex

  16

  39

  Essex

  13

  33

  Gloucestershire

  11

  35

  Hampshire

  12

  34

  Hereford and Worcester

  9

  34

  Hertfordshire

  10

  23

  Humberside

  16

  30

  Isle of Wight

  18

  44

  Kent

  14

  36

  Lancashire

  18

  38

  Leicestershire

  13

  31

  Lincolnshire

  7

  32

  Norfolk

  12

  33

  North Yorkshire

  9

  19

  Northamptonshire

  10

  43

  Northumberland

  13

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  42

  Oxfordshire

  9

  29

  Shropshire

  14

  25

  Somerset

  10

  37

  Staffordshire

  14

  30

  Suffolk

  11

  30

  Surrey

  9

  18

  Warwickshire

  10

  25

  West Sussex

  10

  29

  Wiltshire

  11

  30

  England

  17

  38

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the damage to fuel pins at Hunterston B nuclear power station with particular reference to the causes, cost, anticipated period of repair and implications for each nuclear power stations. [35231]

  Mr. Eggar
  Currently available details are contained in the British Energy prospectus that was issued on 26 June and appear under the heading "fuel brace fretting" on page 66.
  381

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility; [34290]

  (2) 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. [34292]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: My Department has no direct responsibility for animal welfare issues. However, this is one of the many factors that are taken into account when Ministers and officials consider aspects of the Department's policies in the normal course of their duties.

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for the export of equipment assessed by his Department as capable of being used for torture are currently under review by his Department. [35209]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 does not cover a category of goods "capable of being used for torture". There is a vast range of otherwise innocuous goods that could be so misused. The most likely categories of controlled goods to include those that might be used for torture are PL5001a and PL5001d of group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the order. No export licence applications in respect of any such goods are currently under review.

  Action Single Market
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 471, if he will list (a) the United Kingdom businesses action single market has helped, (b) the single market trade barriers he has helped them to overcome and (c) the number and location of the wider network of staff who work in British embassies overseas assessing and pursuing complaints. [35033]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Action single market has helped UK businesses overcome a wide range of problems. These include: homologation (type approval) procedures in Spain; Dutch insistence on retesting of electric fencing; Irish regulations on the labelling of canned fruit; delays in securing German type approval for road cones; Spanish regulations on sizes of cider bottles; a Belgian refusal to accept a British fire certificate for carpets; Greek rules on the fruit juice content of soft drinks; Belgian customs officials asking for inappropriate documentation; Italian failure to implement an EU directive concerned with paints; a Danish levy on imported goods; and Greek restrictions on electronic cash registers.

  Company details are passed to action single market on a commercially confidential basis, and cannot be divulged unless specific permission has been given. Some companies that action single market has helped have given permission for their details to appear in recent Government publications. These include H P Bulmer Ltd. Swintex Ltd. Del Monte Foods International Ltd. and Rutland Electric Fencing Co. Ltd.
  382
  Action single market has contacts who assist in assessing and pursuing complaints, in British embassies covering all the other member states of the EU and the rest of the European Economic Area and in some of the consulates-general in those countries.

TREASURY

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals saved inheritance tax as a result of the conditionally exempt works of art list in(a) 1995, (b) 1980 and (c) the list's first year of existence. [34219]

  Mr. Jack
  The number of estates granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax in respect of works of art and chattels that can be viewed by appointment was 31 in 1995 and eight in 1982, the earliest year for which figures were available.

  Private Finance Initiative (Higher Education)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking in response to the conclusions of the joint Treasury and Department for Education and Employment study group examining the scope for the private finance initiative in higher education. [34354]

  Mr. Jack
  The higher education sector has a long and impressive history of entrepreneurial activity, with universities already having raised some £1.5 billion from commercial sources. There remains, however, considerable untapped potential for private finance initiative schemes.

  The group to which my hon. Friend refers is one of two joint working groups with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Committee of Principals. It was set up in February at their request by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Treasury officials attended the groups as observers. Like every year, and like other representations on public expenditure, the groups' reports will be taken into account in the review of the Government's expenditure plans in the 1996 public expenditure survey along with other relevant considerations.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in relation to the powers of the Welsh Development Agency in securing inward investment. [34942]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The powers of the Welsh Development Agency are set out in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.

  Guidelines to the agency in relation to its inward investment activities are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Treasury approves the guidelines and a copy of the current version, issued in March 1995, can be found in the Libraries of the House.
  383

  Dothiepin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many deaths in each of the past five years dothiepin was mentioned as(a) the only drug involved and (b) one of the drugs involved. [34673]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The numbers of deaths registered in 1991 and 1992 in England and Wales in which dothiepin was mentioned as(a) the only drug involved and (b) one of the drugs involved are published in table 10 of "Mortality Statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales", series DH4, Nos. 17 and 18, respectively. Copies of these may be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The table shows how many of the deaths mentioned alcohol.

  The figures for 1993 to 1995, which relate to deaths occurring in 1993 and 1994. and deaths registered in 1995, are shown in the table:

  Deaths by poisoning with a mention of dothiepin, England and Wales, 1993–95

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Deaths by poisoning—accident

  44(15)

  38 (9)

  23 (6)

  —dothiepin only

  31(8)

  31 (8)

  17(5)

  —dothiepin with other drugs

  13(7)

  7(1)

  6(1)

  Deaths by poisoning—suicide

  94(9)

  132(12)

  126(8)

  —dothiepin only

  68(7)

  103(7)

  99(5)

  —dothiepin with other drugs

  26(2)

  29(5)

  27(3)

  Deaths by poisoning—

  undetermined

  64(7)

  84(15)

  88(20)

  —dothiepin only

  54(4)

  64(9)

  70(14)

  —dothiepin with other drugs

  10(3)

  20(6)

  18(6)

  The figures in brackets show the number of deaths involving dothiepin with a mention of alcohol. These figures are already included in the unbracketed totals and should not be added to them.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value in constant 1996 prices of an increase of 1p in income tax from(a) each of the 22 unitary authorities in Wales, (b) Wales and (c) the UK in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [34073]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 27 March 1996,Official Report, column 609.

  Millennium (Date Change)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total cost of the millennium date change to(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector; what provision he has made in the projections for the public finances for this change; and if he will make a statement. [33883]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 June 1996]: The Minister for Science and Technology set out the latest position on 6 June 1996 at columns 816–20. Departments are assessing the extent to which their systems are affected and are preparing plans to effect any necessary action. The Government have not estimated the total cost to the public sector, which will be met within existing
  384
  plans. Ministers with industry sponsorship responsibilities are taking steps to ensure that the sectors in which they have an interest are fully aware of the problem and are taking appropriate measures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crisis Support
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued since March to agencies engaged in crisis support work following homicides and other serious offences with regard to the approach to be adopted. [34602]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 18 June, we published a new victims charter. This tells victims of crime what happens after the offence has been reported and the standards of service they can expect to receive. The charter recognises the special position of families bereaved by homicide and victims of other serious offences by setting out, where appropriate, the additional support they can expect from the relevant criminal justice services.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of violent offences against the person consist of incidents of domestic violence. [35050]

  Mr. Maclean
  Overall, 31 per cent. of incidents of violence in 1993 were classified as domestic violence by the 1994 British crime survey. The proportion for female victims of violence was 52 per cent. and for male victims, 15 per cent. Domestic incidents included those committed by a current or ex-partner, relative or other household member. The BCS definition of violence is broader than the definition of violence against the person which is used in the recorded crime series, in that it includes common assault.

  Violent and Sexual Attacks
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he plans to take to curb crimes of violence and sexual attacks. [35055]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 17 June my right hon. and learned Friend announced proposals, in a consultation paper on the supervision and sentencing of sex offenders, which are designed to improve protection from such offenders and to enhance opportunities for their treatment. In addition, the recently published White Paper, "Protecting the Public", makes new proposals on sentencing which seek to ensure that the public receive proper protection from persistent violent or sex offenders.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has, further, established as one of the key national objectives for the police in 1996–97 a target to maintain, and where possible increase, the number of detections for violent crime.

  Interdepartmental groups of Ministers and of officials are also due to meet shortly to review and develop initiatives aimed at promoting more co-ordinated national and local responses to the problems associated with domestic violence.
  385

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the legal basis for the distinctions made between people who were granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom before and after 26 July 1994 when they apply for travel documents. [34941]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The policy on access to travel documents for asylum seekers granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom was introduced on 1 January 1994 and announced on 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 787.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had applied at some time for asylum were(a) detained in and (b) deported from Doncaster prison in each month since January 1996; what were their nationalities; and to what country they were deported. [34983]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available is in the table. The nationalities involved were Jamaican. Indian and Turkish.

  Number of asylum detainees1 recorded at HMP Doncaster as at 31 January, 29 February, 29 March. 30 April, 31 May

  Date detained

  Number of asylum-seekers detained

  Number of asylum-seekers deported in preceding month

  31 January

  2

  0

  29 February

  2

  0

  29 March

  1

  0

  30 April

  2

  0

  31 May

  3

  0

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in schedules 2 or 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

  Litter
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of the cases brought under the Litter Act 1983, during the most recent year for which statistics are available, the prosecution was successful; [35049]

  (2) what was the average fine imposed under the Litter Act 1983 during the most recent year for which statistics are available. [35048]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which repealed section 1(3) of the Litter Act 1983 there were in 1994—latest available figures—1,164 prosecutions in England and Wales for the offence of depositing litter. Of these, 82 per cent.—952—were found guilty. The average fine for the offence was £90.
  386

  Beat Officers (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed on the beat at any one time, per head of the population(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area. [35053]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not centrally collected. The latest available information shows that, at the end of March 1995, 68,240 officers were deployed to patrol duties in England and Wales including 3,552 officers in the Greater Manchester police area.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are currently waiting to be heard. [35052]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 May was 66,400.

  EU Civil Protection Council
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Civil Protection Council held on 23 May. [35495]

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. David Bostock, the deputy permanent representative to the European Union, represented the United Kingdom at the Council in Brussels. In accordance with the policy outlined in the Prime Minister's statement on 21 May, he was unable to agree to any decisions requiring unanimity in the Council other than those which were purely formal or procedural.

  Three agenda items were blocked and a statement made on the Government's policy of non-co-operation in the European Union. The three matters dealt with at the Council were as follows:

  The Council discussed a compromise proposal for a decision establishing a community action programme in the field of civil protection, designed to support and supplement member states' own work in the area of civil protection. The presidency expressed the hope that this question would be further dealt with in the months ahead with a view to reaching agreement.

  The Council considered a draft resolution on strengthening Community co-operation in the field of civil protection research. The presidency took note of the Commission's intention to consider the need for research in this area.

  The Council also discussed a draft resolution on co-operation with the associated central and eastern European countries and Cyprus and Malta on civil protection, in preparation for their accession.

  The Government do not accept that civil protection is an appropriate field for Community action. The Government take the view that in this particular field member states have, and must continue to have, primary responsibility for taking action. The Government will therefore be arguing at the intergovernmental conference that article 3(t) should be removed from the treaty, at least

  387
  where civil protection is concerned, and any future European Union level co-operation should be pursued on an intergovernmental basis.

  At the Civil Protection Council on 23 May, the Government reiterated that position while explaining why we could not agree to the proposed Council resolutions and Council decision on civil protection.

  It follows that the Government do not consider that it would be useful for the Commission to being forward proposals for research in this field. The Government do accept that, in preparation for the eventual accession of the associated central and eastern European countries, efforts should be made to forge appropriate links in the field of civil protection. However, it sees no reason why the Community should be invited to take the lead.

  Rape
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of rape persons charged by the police have not had their cases proceeded with by the Crown Prosecution Service. [34939]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of specific offences. The information is held on individual case files, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Office records include details of court proceedings in respect of specific offences. This information shows that the total number of persons proceeded against for rape in 1994 was 1,625. Of this total, 297 proceedings were recorded as "terminated early". However, the definition of this outcome is much wider than proceedings discontinued by the CPS, and includes proceedings where a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant remained unexecuted; where the defendant could not be traced by the police; and where proceedings were adjourned indefinitely.

  The present discontinuance rate for all CPS cases is 12 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been(a) spent on and (b) committed to the Trident programme to date. [35002]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As at the end of January this year—the latest date for which aggregated figures are available—a total of £8.3 billion net at outturn prices had been spent on the Trident acquisition programme, from a commitment of £9 billion.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for market testing of(a) the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, (b) the Naval Repair Organisation and (c) the Queen Victoria School; and if he will make a statement. [34981]
  388
  Mr. Soames
  Chief executives of all defence agencies are required as part of their business planning to seek efficiencies and to explore the scope for greater private sector involvement through competition. They are able to draw upon a range of efficiency-related measures, including market testing their activities by enabling commercial bidders to compete with the existing in-house suppliers. There are currently no plans for market testing in the three defence agencies in question, although other efficiency measures involving the private sector have been taken or are under consideration.

  Mr. Gordon Foxley
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 63, when the time required by the statutory demand on Mr. Gordon Foxley will expire. [35064]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The statutory demand was served effectively on Mr. Gordon Foxley on 19 June. He has 18 calendar days in which to seek to have it set aside or to make an arrangement with regard to payment, or 21 calendar days in which to pay in full. These time limits expire at midnight 8 and 10 July respectively.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Foulness
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors led to the removal of the atomic weapons establishment, Foulness from the list of bodies given trading status by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1995. [34862]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The atomic weapons establishment, Foulness is not part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. It forms part of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, whose headquarters are at Aldermaston, Berkshire, and which is managed by Hunting BRAE plc on behalf of my Department. Rationalisation plans, announced in January 1995, are for AWE to withdraw from Foulness and for the site to be transferred to the DERA during 1997.

  The inclusion of Foulness in the list of bodies to which the operation of the Defence Research Agency trading fund was extended by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1995 was premature. Subsequent legal advice was that for as long as the site remains managed by Hunting BRAE plc it is not legally possible for it to be included in the order. It was therefore necessary to lay before the House an amendment order, SI 1447 1996.

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the key performance indicators for the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency for the financial year 1996–97. [35575]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency's key performance indicators for 1996–97 are: to achieve at least 98 per cent. of the specified aerosystems maintenance task to standard and on time; to achieve the "Joint Service Publication 336 Defence Supply Manual" speed of issue and pipeline targets for at least 95 per cent.. of the depot supply task; to keep within the group's allocated budget; to reduce the cost per unit of output by 3 per cent.; to pursue the competing for quality initiative
  389
  by achieving contract award for the designated functions at RAF Sealand by December 1996 and by issuing the invitation to tender at RAF St. Athan by 31 August 1996; to continue the comprehensive rationalisation of functions within the agency by achieving the closure of RAF Carlisle by 31 March 1997 and by achieving the closure of RAF Quedgeley by 31 March 1997; to apply for investors in people status for the agency by September 1996; and to continue the third party certification of units within the agency to the ISO 9000 standard by achieving certification of RAF Cardington by June 1996 and by achieving certification of the ground radio servicing centre, RAF North Luffenham, by December 1996.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of service married quarters, (b) the number vacant, (c) the number sold and (d) the receipts from sales for each year since 1990. [35230]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Figures for(a) the number of families quarters, (b) the number vacant, (c) the number sold and (d) the receipts from sales are as follows. It should be noted that the figures for (a) and (b) are as at 31 March in each financial year.

  Financial year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d) £ million

  1989–90

  77,470

  14,220

  1,380

  46

  1990–91

  75,263

  11,912

  2,121

  44

  1991–92

  74,176

  11,247

  1,306

  51

  1992–93

  73,614

  11,027

  857

  33

  1993–94

  72,631

  11,401

  1,254

  24

  1994–95

  73,719

  13,178

  1,102

  1n/a

  1995–96

  73,539

  14,351

  1,344

  1n/a

  1 Due to a change in accountancy procedures, figures for receipts from sales of surplus quarters are no longer held centrally and cannot be provided for 1994–95 and 1995–96 without disproportionate cost.

  Receipts do not always relate directly to the number of houses sold in a particular year because of stage payments and accountancy procedures.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out the Government's policy for British troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the elections are held under the Dayton accord. [35234]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom will continue to make a substantial contribution to the implementation force until the expiry of its mandate at the end of the year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ombudsman (Child Support)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) establish a second ombudsman and (b) give additional resources to the present department to facilitate dealing with Child Support Agency cases. [35329]
  390
  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to establish a second ombudsman department to deal with Child Support Agency cases. The present office of the parliamentary ombudsman has already received increased funding for additional staff to cope with the widening of his jurisdiction and the growth in the number of cases, many of which are against the CSA.

  Legislative Print Runs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is responsible for determining the print run of new legislation and the reprint runs of extant legislation. [34863]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility rests with HMSO under its chief executive, Mike Lynn.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if all extant legislation is currently available in print from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [34864]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to HMSO under its chief executive, Mike Lynn. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 1 July 1996:
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your Parliamentary Question (no. 109) about availability of legislation.
  Our general aim is to keep printed copies of Acts of Parliament available for at least five years, or longer where there is continuing demand. Several Acts from the early years of this century are still regularly reprinted. When printed copies are no longer available, arrangements can be made with the British Library to supply photocopies at a reasonable charge. We are also developing facilities to print "on demand" facsimile copies of Acts, and hope to have this service operating later this year.
  We can also supply the Statutes in Force edition of extant Acts, which is of course confined to those sections of the Act which are still in force. However, Local and Personal Acts are not included.
  The position on secondary legislation is similar. Statutory Instruments are reprinted whilst in regular demand, and when printed copies cease to be available we offer customers the British Library photocopying service. There is no Statutes in Force equivalent for secondary legislation.
  If your question has been prompted by difficulties experienced by yourself or a constituent in obtaining a particular piece of legislation, please let me have the details and I shall be happy to arrange supply.

  Legal Aid
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to publish his conclusions on the reform of the legal aid system in England and Wales. [35650]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor has today published a White Paper, "Striking the Balance", which sets out the Government's policy for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales. Copies of the White Paper are available in the Vote Office.
  391

ENVIRONMENT

  Contracts
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure fair competition between direct service organisations and the private sector in the tendering of contracts for local authority services. [33936]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We propose to amend the framework for white collar compulsory competitive tendering and to take vigorous enforcement action when our new guidance is breached.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to ensure fair competition between direct service organisations and the private sector in the tendering of contracts for local authority services. [33948]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We propose to amend the framework for the white collar CCT and to take vigorous enforcement action when our new guidance is breached.

  Forestry
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding environmental measures in respect of forestry. [33947]

  Mr. Clappison
  This Department receives many representations on the environmental aspects of forestry.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the area cost adjustment. [33949]

  Mr. Curry
  The work of the independent review team on the area cost adjustment has invited comments from local government on a draft report. It expects to present the final report next week.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many large-scale voluntary transfers of housing stock have been completed; and if he will make a statement. [33950]

  Mr. Clappison
  Fifty-one local authorities have transferred over 223,000 dwellings, generating over £3.6 billion in private finance. The 1996–97 disposals programme includes a further six authorities and 25,000 dwellings.

  Additionally, we are encouraging transfers in urban areas through the estates renewal challenge fund. We recently announced that 11 authorities will receive a total of £174 million to improve 19,000 homes on 29 of the most run-down and needy estates through transfers over the next three years. This will bring in a further £250 million in private investment.
  392

  Water Pre-payment Devices
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring his Department is conducting into the effects of the installation of water key pre-payment devices. [33951]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

  Local Authorities (Misconduct Reports)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in discussions with local authority association and insurance companies regarding the publication of reports commissioned by local authorities into allegations of serious misconduct by them. [33952]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My officials have had preliminary discussions with local authority associations and their discussions continue. We understand that the associations are writing to their member authorities to draw attention to the associations' code of practice on ad hoc inquiries in local government, published in August 1980, and that, in the context of their discussions with my officials arid with the Association of British Insurers, they intend to review the principles contained in the code.

  Pollution (Mines)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in dealing with water pollution from old mine workings. [33953]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Considerable progress has been made, and work to prevent pollution is under way at several sites. In addition, the Environment Agency and Coal Authority have identified a shortlist of abandoned coal mines which are causing deterioration in river water quality. Work is currently in progress to investigate feasible solutions.

  Design Standards
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage higher standards of design in town and country development. [33955]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I take this opportunity to encourage higher standards of design and we are considering what further national guidance might be useful. We have already launched the "quality in town and country" initiative and we recently set up a national urban design campaign, which will be the subject of a major exhibition in October.

  Public Interest Notices
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Audit Commission about the issuing of public interest notices. [33956]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Audit Commission from time to time to discuss a range of issues affecting local authority audit. However, the conduct of auditors' work is a matter for auditors and the Audit Commission, which
  393
  appoints them. Auditors are obliged to follow procedures laid down in statute and amplified in the Audit Commission's code of audit practice.

  District Auditors
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the controller of the Audit Commission concerning the work of district auditors. [33957]

  Mr. Curry
  None. The conduct of auditors' work is a matter for auditors and the Audit Commission, which appoints them. Auditors are obliged to follow procedures laid down in statute and amplified in the Audit Commission's code of audit practice.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authority associations about the response of authorities to district auditors' reports. [33958]

  Mr. Curry
  None. An authority's response to an appointed auditor's public interest report is a matter for the authority, their auditor and the Audit Commission, which appoints auditors.

  South Pennines Moorlands
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to protect and encourage biodiversity on the south Pennines moorlands. [33959]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 29 March 1996 I announced the classification of the Peak district moors—phase 1 of south Pennine moors—as a special protection area under EC directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Officials are currently considering the results of consultations with other Government Departments, and owners and occupiers on the classification of phase 2 of the south Pennines moors as a special protection area.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received urging that the Government introduce a tier of regional government above the existing framework of local government. [33960]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from time to time. The Government see no case for setting up new bodies to provide regional government, which would simply add an unwanted and unnecessary additional tier of bureaucracy and cost to existing arrangements.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the value for money criteria set by English Partnerships in considering applications for assistance; and what variation there is by region. [34420]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships investment guide, published in November 1994, specifies that all projects that the agency supports must offer good value for money in terms of the forecast outputs attributable to its investment. The guide details the five key outputs and sets out the appraisal criteria that the agency adopts and 394
  the priority areas in which it operates. The community investment guide provides similar information for the community investment fund. These publications ensure a consistent basis for approval throughout English Partnerships regions, within which each can express its own strategic priorities. Copies of the investment guide were placed in the Library on 24 November 1994.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure by region by English Partnerships in the financial year 1995–96. [34391]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships expenditure by region on its development programme in 1995–96, the agency's second full financial year of operation, is set out in the table.

  Region

  Expenditure £ million

  North East

  34.3

  North West

  52.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  55.0

  Midlands

  58.0

  South East

  25.6

  South West

  11.8

  Total

  236.7

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been(a) created and (b) retained by region as a result of English Partnerships investment in projects during 1995–96. [34418]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The agency's employment outputs do not currently distinguish on a comprehensive basis between jobs created and retained. This will be possible when the agency's new information technology project is fully implemented. The number of jobs which will be created or retained by region as a result of projects approved by English Partnerships in 1995–96 is set out in the table.

  Region

  Total jobs expected to be created/retained

  North East

  4,300

  North West

  6,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,000

  Midlands

  3,300

  South East

  1,600

  South West

  300

  Total

  24,000

  These figures relate only to the direct employment outputs of English Partnerships investment arising on the sites themselves. The agency's development projects also have significant indirect employment benefits on wider local economies.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will provide a list of the projects over £1 million development cost by region for schemes that received funding from English Partnerships in 1995–96; [34393]
  395
  (2) if he will list the new projects by region over £1 million begun by English Partnerships since its formation, excluding projects inherited from (a) English Estates, (b) city grant, (c) urban development grant and (d) other programmes subsumed by English Partnerships. [34419]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships has approved 218 projects, each costing over £1 million, since its formation in November 1993. Of these, 123 were approved in 1995–96. I have asked English Partnerships to write to the hon. Member with a list of these projects, by region. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of funding by English Partnerships, to(a) private sector, (b) local authority, (c) community, (d) voluntary sector, (e) non-departmental public bodies and (f) others in the financial year 1995–96. [34392]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships records project information by programme. The partnership investment programme invests in strategic projects which draw together a wide range of partners, primarily the private sector and local authorities, and the land reclamation programme supports local authority reclamation projects. The community investment fund supports smaller projects, undertaken by the voluntary sector and community groups, which achieve community benefits. Most of the agency's partnership investment projects also have community benefits. In addition, the agency undertakes development on its own account through a direct development programme where the needs is great, no suitable partner exists, and where such action—land assembly—will facilitate further private sector development. The table gives a breakdown of expenditure by these categories in 1995–96:

  Spend 1995–96 £ (million)

  Partnership Investment Programme

  117.4

  Land Reclamation Programme

  84.4

  Community Investment Fund

  0.1

  Voluntary Sector

  1.0

  Direct Development

  33.8

  Total

  236.7

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many successful challenge fund bids English Partnerships is a partner in; if he will name them; and what are the amounts of money committed. [34351]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships is a potential partner in delivering 106 of the successful challenge fund bids. Many of these projects have not yet reached the stage where financial resources can be committed and are currently under appraisal by the agency. I have asked English Partnerships to write to the hon. Member with a list of all these projects, by region. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  396

  Community Investment Fund
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which projects the community investment fund(a) has invested in and (b) made grants to in the financial year 1995–96 and how much by region; if he will name the projects; and what amount of money has been committed. [34352]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  English Partnerships has approved a total investment of £919,000 for community investment fund projects since the launch of the fund in June 1995. Payments to the value of £80,000 were made during 1995–96. The agency has set aside £3 million a year for the future operation of the fund. The community investment fund covers only those projects undertaken by voluntary and community groups which require an English Partnerships investment of less than £100,000. Most of the agency's partnership investment projects also have community benefits. In addition, the agency supports the groundwork foundation and groundwork trusts in developing community-based initiatives for the clearance and remediation of small sites. I have asked English Partnerships to write to the hon. Member with a list of all these projects, by region. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  European Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been made for the period 1994 to 1999 for European objective 5b funding; and how many applications in each of the fib areas have received funding. [34742]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government offices for the regions and MAFF regional service centres have received a total of 3,051 project applications for grant under the objective 5b structural funds programmes in England since the European Commission approved them between December 1994 and March 1995.

  The number of successful applications which have received offers of grant in each of the English objective 5b areas is as follows:

  Northern Uplands: 377

  South West: 321

  English Marches: 83

  Lincolnshire: 66

  East Anglia: 49

  Midlands Uplands: 47

  Pesticide Containers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods of disposal of empty pesticide containers are approved by him. [34739]

  Mr. Clappison
  Waste must be managed and disposed of in accordance with part II of the Environment Protection Act 1990. The Department does not recommend a particular form of disposal for empty pesticide containers but it has issued general guidance in the form of waste management paper No. 21 "Pesticide wastes." This deals with disposal of pesticide wastes derived from production and use. The final chapter consists of a code of practice which includes recommendations on disposal of empty pesticide containers.
  397

  Job Creation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new jobs have been created through regeneration policies covering the Greater London area, in each of the last three years. [34596]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of new jobs created in London by this Department's regeneration programmes over the past three years are:

  1993–94: 8,263

  1994–95: 12,391

  1995–96: 15,214

  These totals include jobs safeguarded and construction jobs in respect of some programmes for which it is not possible to disaggregate the figures.

  Public Path Orders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors led him to amend the Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993 to remove the ceiling on charges for the making of a public path order. [34856]

  Mr. Clappison
  The amendment of the Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993 is consistent with our policy of removing unnecessary bureaucracy from local authorities. Independent research, which we commissioned to examine the operation of the regulations, found that the ceiling on charges for the making of public path orders prevented local authorities from recovering their costs in most cases. It also found no evidence that the ceiling has encouraged greater efficiency.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the amount of money available from European funds for SRB payments in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [34868]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Funding from European structural funds adds to, rather than contributes towards, domestic expenditure on regeneration activities under the single regeneration budget. The SRB challenge fund, which began supporting schemes from April 1995, can provide matching funding for schemes also assisted from European structural funds. Information on the amount of such expenditure in the financial year 1995–96 is not yet available.

  New Housing
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of housing starts in England in the first quarter of 1996; and what was the equivalent figure for the same quarter last year. [34095]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is estimated that there were 31,800 new dwellings started in England during the first quarter of 1996, compared with 36,100 started in the first quarter of 1995.
  398

  Mixed Oxide Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc regarding the environmental implications of extending the manufacture and processing of MOX nuclear fuels. [34462]

  Mr. Clappison
  British Nuclear Fuels supplied Copeland borough council with environmental documentation to support the planning application for the Sellafield MOX fuel fabrication plant, a copy of which was sent to the Department. As part of the normal regulatory procedures for the plant, British Nuclear Fuels supplied technical documentation, which includes environmental data, to the regulators, including the then Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Information has also been supplied to the Department for preparation of a submission to the European Commission under article 37 of the Euratom treaty.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house tenants have bought their homes since 1979; how many council tenancies remain; and if he will make a statement. [34386]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the period between April 1979 and December 1995 about 1.462 million dwellings were sold by local authorities and new towns in England to sitting tenants. A further 73,000 empty dwellings were sold for owner occupation during this period, some of which will have been sold to council or new town tenants.

  At 1 April 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the stock of local authority and new town dwellings in England stood at 3.565 million.

  Waste Management Planning Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received with regard to the waste management planning scheme; [34679]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the waste management planning scheme with article 3 of the European waste framework directive to encourage the recovery of waste by means of recycling. [34680]

  Mr. Clappison
  In December 1995, my Department published guidance on waste management planning. It set out the information that the Environment Agency should collect about how much waste was produced of each type, where, and by whom; and about facilities disposing of or recovering waste—including facilities recovering non-ferrous metals discarded as waste.

  By following this guidance, the Environment Agency will be able to provide information to development planners to provide a framework for the increased recycling of all waste components, including non-ferrous metals.

  The guidance covers advice on waste minimisation and the co-ordination of recycling activities in local authorities to make this more efficient and sustainable. Therefore, insofar as it is required, I am satisfied that the guidance delivers the requirements of article 3 of the waste framework directive.
  399
  We received a number of representations about the guidance from representatives of the non-ferrous metal recycling industry.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many statutory instruments 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. [35036]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was placed in the House Libraries by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.

  Vacant Properties
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of vacant properties owned by(a) local authorities. (b) housing associations and (c) private owners. [33932]

  Mr. Curry
  On 1 April 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the vacancy figures for these categories were 71,800, 20,900 and an estimated 690,000 respectively.

  Market Testing
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated total savings from market testing for local authorities in 1995–96; and how much this amounts to for the average D band council tax payer. [33939]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimated savings from work subject to compulsory competitive tendering amount to £160 million in 1995–96, equivalent to about £10 off the average D band council tax. Individual authorities that have embraced the spirit of competition have made significantly higher savings and have improved standards.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made in regard to the allocation of capital resources for local authorities to tackle contaminated land in 1996–97. [35629]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have today written to 44 local authorities and waste disposal authorities informing them of the Secretary of State for the Environment's intention to issue supplementary credit approvals of nearly £7.4 million for 1996–97 in respect of capital expenditure on 83 new projects to deal with contaminated land problems.

  This makes a total of £14.1 million being made available under the contaminated land SCA programme this year, as the Department of Environment has already written to 35 authorities about making SCAs of £6.7 million in respect of 94 on-going projects from previous years and two new projects.
  400
  Since its inception in 1990–91 this programme has provided some £67 million of SCAs for work to be undertaken on contaminated sites.

  The SCA programme for contaminated land is aimed at tackling problems on sites in local authority ownership or where they have responsibility to take action and cannot recover their costs. The Department operates an assessment and prioritisation procedure to ensure that the available funding goes to projects representing the greatest threat to health or the environment.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the guidance note on implementation of the declaration of the fourth North sea conference in Ebjerg, Denmark, on 8 and 9 June 1995. [35630]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am pleased to be publishing the UK guidance note on the ministerial declaration made at the fourth North sea conference today. The guidance note sets out the commitments made at the fourth North sea conference and the actions necessary to implement them. It clearly demonstrates the progress that has already been made in realising those commitments and highlights our determination to continue to work for the protection of the marine environment, both in the North sea and in all the seas and coastal waters surrounding the United Kingdom. Copies of the guidance note will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Search and Rescue Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the declared maximum transmission range of the S61N; and if he will make a statement; [33611]

  (2) what is the declared maximum operation range, without refuelling, of search and rescue helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [33610]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 2 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about search and rescue helicopters.
  Pending the formal adoption of the criteria proposed by the SAR Helicopter Review Group there is no "declared maximum operating range" of search and rescue helicopters. The range at which helicopters can operate depends on the weather and the nature of the task, as well as on aircraft characteristics. As an example the range at which existing UK SAR helicopters could complete a stretcher recovery of a person from a vessel and return with them to base, in still air would be (in nautical miles):

  RAF Sea King: 265

  RN Sea King: 240

  Coastguard S61: 200

  "Maximum transmission range" is an unfamiliar term in the flying world, both civilian and military. It has therefore been assumed that the term means the maximum distance an aircraft can cover between two points, assuming no fuel used on SAR tasks. For the Coastguard SAR S61 the distance is 420 nautical miles.
  401

  Motorway Lane Markings
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study he has made of the system of motorway lane marking as used in France, designed to secure adequate distance between vehicles at given speeds. [34672]

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory has conducted research and has published the results in project report 118 "M1 Chevron Trial—Accident Study" in August 1995, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Trains (Luggage Racks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by region for the last 12 months the cost of the replacing stolen luggage racks from passenger trains; and if he will make a statement. [34986]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Seat Belts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport standards apply to the fitting of retrofitted seat belts on school transport; and if he will make a statement. [35443]

  Mr. Norris
  Retrofitted seat belts can be approved to either European or British standards. Each belt approved to these standards will display an approval mark.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to license seat belt fitters. [35444]

  Mr. Norris
  There are currently no plans to license seat belt fitters.
  402
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the safety of retrofitted seat belts. [35445]

  Mr. Norris
  There is a large body of research on seat belts generally but the Department has not commissioned research specifically into the safety of retrofitted seat belts.

  Selkent Buses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the operator of the Selkent route franchise of London Transport Buses. [35459]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for London Transport Buses.

  Passenger Rail Subsidies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what approaches for increased subsidy have been made to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising by each of the private operators providing passenger rail services since the commencement of their franchise agreements; and if he will make a statement. [35449]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  EU Bus and Coach Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the fiche d'impact for the EU bus and coach directive in the Library. [34988]

  Mr. Norris
  The Commission has not yet tabled a proposal for a European bus and coach directive, and consequently no fiche d'impact has yet been issued.
  403

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce his policy response to the fourth report of the Social Security Committee, HC196 of Session 1994–95, on the work of the compensation recovery unit. [33356]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The reply by the Government to the fourth report of the Select Committee on compensation recovery was published on 2 October 1995, Cm 2997. A compliance cost assessment of the Select Committee's proposals was also published on 14 February. Consultation exercises on the future of the compensation recovery scheme and on the implications of the compliance cost assessment ended on 13 November 1995 and 29 April 1996 respectively.

  The Government will announce their decision in due course.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the organisation of the work of the Benefits Agency's internal fraud investigators; [33788]

  (2) how many Benefits Agency staff have been (a) disciplined, (b) suspended or (c) dismissed for matters relating to benefit fraud in the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996; [33782]

  (3) how many Benefits Agency staff have been prosecuted for matters relating to benefit fraud in the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996; what were the charges laid and their outcome; how much benefit was defrauded in each case; what was the grade and office location of the Benefits Agency of each employee involved; and how many such employees were employed in offices at (a) local, (b) headquarters and (c) other levels. [33783]

  Mr. Heald
  Internal fraud investigations in the Benefits Agency are the responsibility of area directors and their equivalents, and the personnel services manager for Beenefits Agency central services.

  Each director has specially trained investigators who conduct investigations into staff working in the directorate. In addition to full-time permanent investigators, directors have panels of trained investigators, normally employed on other duties, who can be called on to assist in investigations when necessary. Often the panel members will have expertise in a particular area.

  The Benefits Agency security branch provides a central support and co-ordinating function for investigators throughout the agency.

  Disciplinary and prosecution action is also the responsibility of area directors and their equivalents within the agency. Disciplinary action taken specifically as a result of benefit fraud is not distinguished from that taken for other reasons in central records.
  404
  Details of staff suspended are not recorded as suspension is an interim measure taken by managers pending the conclusion of investigative action.

  Information is, however, collated centrally relating to the prosecution and disciplinary action taken as a result of area directors' investigations.

  Involvement of staff in benefit fraud is viewed very seriously by the Benefits Agency, and will result in dismissal and prosecution when proven.

  The figures in the table relate to disciplinary action taken between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996 as a result of area directors' investigations, where the investigation identified benefit-related fraud. This includes cases where members of staff were found to be "living together as husband and wife" with benefit customers, where such action resulted in a fraudulent benefit claim. The figures do not include cases where officers resigned.

  Number

  Benefits Agency staff dismissed for involvement in benefit related fraud

  10

  Staff receiving other penalties for involvement in benefit related fraud

  0

  Figures are not kept centrally relating specifically to prosecutions arising from benefit fraud.

  The cases listed in the list are those prosecutions resulting from area directors' investigations in the Benefits Agency, and which were completed between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996, which involved any benefit. This includes misappropriation of instruments of payment, and frauds which involved misuse of the benefits administration system rather than false benefit claims.

  Case 1

  Charge: Not recorded

  Amount defrauded: £2,655.22

  Outcome: 10 months-imprisonment

  Office location: London Central District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 2

  Charge: False accounting, deception

  Amount defrauded: £2,261.61

  Outcome: 240 hours community service

  Office location: Hackney and Islington District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 3

  Charge: Conspiracy to defraud

  Amount defrauded: £153,467.70

  Outcome: 18 months imprisonment

  Office location: South Downs District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  405

  Case 4

  Charge: Theft and deception

  Amount defrauded: £7,855.75

  Outcome: Six months imprisonment

  Office location: West Hertfordshire District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 5

  Charge: Conspiracy to defraud

  Amount defrauded: £79,803.28

  Outcome: Two officers were charged—both were acquitted

  Office Location: Newham District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 6

  Charge: Theft

  Amount defrauded: £20,495.53

  Outcome: BA employee sentenced to three years imprisonment. Seven external accomplices were also charged: three were cautioned, three were sentenced to community service, and one received six months probation.

  Office location: Sefton District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 7

  Charge: conspiracy to defraud

  Amount defrauded: £9,953.51

  Outcome: Charges against officer dropped by CPS. Co-conspirator sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

  Office location: Birmingham Chamberlain District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 8

  Charge: Not recorded

  Amount defrauded: £36,348.67

  Outcome: Two years imprisonment

  Office location: Oxfordshire District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 9

  Charge: Conspiracy to defraud

  Amount defrauded:£59,000.00

  Outcome: Officer sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. External accomplice sentenced to one years imprisonment.

  Office location: Hackney and Islington District

  Grade: Location Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Case 10

  Charge: Conspiracy to defraud

  Amount defrauded £34,094.50

  Outcome: Four months imprisonment

  Office location: Palace District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  406

  Case 11

  Charge: Not recorded

  Amount defrauded: £15,901.14

  Outcome: Two and a half years imprisonment

  Office location: Birkenhead District

  Grade: Local Officer II

  Level of employment: Local

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amounts were spent by the Government on the detection of benefit fraud in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [34031]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1993–94, over £70 million was allocated for the detection of benefit fraud. In 1994–95, the allocation increased to over £77 million.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the steps taken to publicise the availability of disability working allowance among(a) people with disabilities, (b) employers and (c) professionals working with disabled people. [33830]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Disability working allowance has been promoted regularly since it was launched in 1992. A comprehensive programme of publicity has aimed to reach the widest possible audience and has included campaigns at national and local levels. Initiatives aimed at specific groups are as follows:

  Disabled people:

  Television campaigns in 1992 and 1995;

  On-going newspaper campaigns from 1992, including articles in the jobs pages of local newspapers;

  Benefit News for Jobhunters which is published on a bi-monthly basis;

  Working with Benefits campaign on television, radio and in newspapers which started in 1995;

  On-going exhibitions and seminars such as the 1995 Motahility Exhibition (around 50,000 people attended) and Business In the Community seminar (Birmingham).

  Employers:

  Three videos about DWA have been produced aimed mainly at professional advisers and employers (1993–1996);

  National press campaign in March 1996 aimed at employers;

  Seminars have been held at places such as Remploy and The Shaw Trust;

  Ongoing distribution of DWA leaflets and literature to selected employers.

  Professionals working with disabled people:

  Campaigns in specialist press in 1992 and 1996 aimed at professionals working with people with disabilities;

  BBC Select's night-time television service promoted DWA in 1992;

  Benefit News for Jobhunters published on a bi-monthly basis has been widely distributed to professional advisers;

  Various seminars and the distribution of leaflets are carried out regularly to professionals: for example, SCOPE; MENCAP; NACAB and Job Centres.

  407

  War Pensions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost to his Department of disregarding war disablement and war widows' pensions in their entirety for the purpose of calculating housing benefit and council tax rebates. [33880]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A broad estimate of the cost of fully disregarding all war disablement pensions and war widows' pensions for housing benefit and council tax benefit purposes is £80 million per annum.

  Notes:
  1. Estimates are based upon the May 1994 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry; the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Survey; and data given in local authority subsidy returns for 1994–95.
  2. Estimates have been uprated to 1996–97 levels and use factors derived from the 1996 Departmental Report on the growth of average Housing Benefit and the growth of the war pensions caseload.
  3. In compiling these estimates, expenditure has been rounded, wherever appropriate, to the nearest £5 million.
  4. Estimates are broad order estimates only, due to lack of comprehensive data.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of introducing a taper of(a) 50 per cent. and (b) 70 per cent. on earnings above each of the earnings disregards for (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit and (iii) council tax benefit; and how many people would gain from these changes. [34231]

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

  50 per cent, tapered earnings disregard

  70 per cent, tapered earnings disregard

  Income support taper

  Cost

  £130 million

  £230 million

  Income support gainers

  180,000

  200,000

  Housing benefit taper

  Cost

  £1.4 billion

  £2.4 billion

  Housing benefit gainers

  800,000

  1 million

  Council tax benefit taper

  Cost

  £500 million

  £1.4 billion

  Council tax benefit gainers

  1.2 million

  2.6 million

  1. The cost of the income support taper includes the cost of increased numbers on income support, including any additional entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  2. Gainers include numbers additionally entitled to benefit.

  3. Figures are based on the 1994 QSE and the 1991/1992/1993 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1996/7 levels. Costs for income support are rounded to the nearest £5 million, gainers to the nearest 10,000. For housing benefit and council tax benefit costs are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion, gainers are rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

  4. Figures for IS include the effect of jobseekers allowance from October 1996. The effect on the back to work bonus has not been estimated, as future behavioural effects are very uncertain.
  408
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) couples and (b) lone parents claimed the child care allowance in respect of claims for (i) family credit, (ii) disability working allowance, (iii) housing benefit and (iv) council tax benefit, (1) since its introduction, (2) during 1995–96 and (3) currently. [34235]

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

  Cumulative to February 1996

  Current as at February 1996

  Family credit

  Couples

  2,000

  1,000

  Lone parents

  34,000

  22,000

  Disability working allowance

  Couples

  17

  9

  Lone parents

  90

  72

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  2. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. of all awards.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers for Family Credit have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are not yet available.

  3. Data are provisional.

  Appeals
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 333, if he will list those organisations and individuals with whom he is consulting with regard to his review of the arrangements for decisions and appeals. [34496]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The review is still being conducted and no decisions have yet been taken on the nature or timing of wider consultation.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalid care allowance are also in receipt of part-time earnings; and what is the average amount of earnings paid. [34225]

  Mr. Burt
  As at 20 June 1996, 24,725 invalid care allowance recipients had earnings from employment.

  Information regarding the number of hours worked and the average amount of earnings is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Source:

  Invalid Care Allowance database—100 per cent. count.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the eight-week linking rule for incapacity benefits as qualifying benefits for disability working allowance to two years; and how many people would gain from this change; [34247]
  409
  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of introducing a taper of (a) 50 per cent. and (b) 70 per cent. on earnings above the limit for exempt work for (i) incapacity benefit and (ii) severe disablement allowances; and how many people would gain from these changes; [34232]

  (3) what is his estimate of the cost of extending the eight-week linking rule for incapacity benefit to two years. [34246]

  Mr. Burt
  Information on which to base reliable estimates is not available.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of children per family claiming(a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance (i) in total and (ii) where the oldest child is aged under (1) five years and (2) 11 years. [34236]

  Mr. Rogers Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Average number of children in families receiving family credit and disability working allowance

  Family credit

  Disability working allowance

  All cases

  2.0

  1.9

  Oldest child aged under 5 years

  1.4

  1.4

  Oldest child aged under 11 years

  1.8

  1.8

  Notes:

  1. Average number of children per family are expressed to one decimal place.

  2. For Disability Working Allowance, the average number of children has been expressed as the average number in families with children.

  3. Data for Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance are 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.

  Mortgage Repayments (Benefits)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum monthly amount of benefit paid by his Department towards the payment of mortgage repayments on properties belonging to unemployed people. [34593]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There is no set maximum amount. However, for new income support claimants there is a limit of £100,000 on the size of mortgage for which help is available. At our current standard interest rate of 7.48 per cent. this gives a weekly amount of £137.38 with MIRAS, £143.85 without. This limit does not apply when part of the loan was used to adapt the home to meet the special needs of a disabled person.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female claimants of income support where the claimant (i) is signing on as unemployed and (ii) is sick or disabled, are also claiming for an adult dependant; and what is the average amount of benefit payable in each case. [34217]
  410
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Unemployed and sick or disabled income support claimants with adult dependants—August 1995

  Male claimants

  Female claimants

  Number of cases

  Average weekly income support

  Number of cases

  Average weekly income support

  Unemployed

  349,000

  £96.29

  19,000

  £84.15

  Sick or disabled

  282,000

  £76.81

  92,000

  £81.40

  Short-term sick cases paid by Automated Credit Transfer are not included.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of raising the income support earnings disregard for lone parents to £25 per week; and how many people would gain from these changes. [34233]

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

  1996–97 cost and gainers

  Cost (£ million)

  Income support gainers

  Increasing the income support earnings disregard for lone parents to £25

  20

  45,000

  1. The cost includes the cost of increased numbers on Income Support, including any additional entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Gainers, include people additionally entitled to Income Support as a result of the change.

  3. Figures are based on the 1994 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and the 1991/1992/1993 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1996/7 levels. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million, gainers to the nearest 5,000.

  4. The total cost includes the cost of Jobseeker's Allowance from October 1996. The effect on the back to work bonus has not been estimated, as it not possible to quantify reliably future behavioural effects.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were disqualified from income support where the claimant's partner was working for more than 16 hours a week; and what is his estimate of the cost of abolishing the hours limit for partners. [34216]

  Mr. Evans
  Information is not available in respect of the number of people disqualified from income support where a partner works more than 16 hours a week.

  The estimated cost of abolishing the hours rule for partners of income support claimants is about £150 million to £200 million per annum. This is at 1996–97 levels of incomes and prices, and includes the cost of jobseeker's allowance, income-related, from October 1996. The figures take no account of possible behavioural changes, or the increase to 24 hours a week for partner's hours from October 1996.

  In-work Benefits
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by labour sector the number of people receiving in-work benefits in each year since 1979. [34743]
  411
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available. Information is held on the occupations of in-work benefit recipients, rather than on the industrial sector in which they are employed.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by occupations previously covered by the wages council order the number of people receiving in-work benefits in each year since 1979. [34744]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the amount of national insurance contributions which have been unpaid during each of the last three years from(a) employers and (b) the self-employed. [34244]

  Mr. Heald
  Estimates of the value of national insurance contributions unpaid by employers are available only for the 1992–93 and 1993–94 tax years. A random survey of employers known to the Contributions Agency estimated that underpayments of class 1 NIC for 1992–93 and 1993–94 were £111 million and £76 million respectively.

  Self-employed contributors pay class 2 and class 4 contributions. Class 2 contributions are collected by direct debit payments or in response to the issue of quarterly bills. Estimates as to unpaid class 2 contributions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Class 4 contributions are collected by the Inland Revenue, which draws up its accounts on the last Friday in October. For the years ended 1993 to 1995 the amounts of class 4 contributions1 uncollected and written off were:

  1993: £66.7 million

  1994: £52.8 million

  1995: £34.5 million

  Figures for class 4 contributions are for England and Wales and Scotland only.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in each year since 1989 have been in receipt of a national insurance credit for(a) incapacity, where no benefit is in payment, (b) unemployment, where no benefit is in payment, (c) people entitled to invalid care allowance, (d) people receiving statutory sick pay, (e) women receiving statutory maternity pay and (f) men aged between 60 and 64 years. [34275]

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

  Table 1: Number1 of people claiming benefit due to medical incapacity (Sickness Benefit and Incapacity Benefit) and receiving National Insurance credits only (no benefit in payment)

  Total claimants (thousands)

  1 April 19892

  157

  31 March 19902

  205

  30 March 19912

  262

  4 April 19922

  320

  3 April 19932

  387

  2 April 19941

  440

  412

  Table 1: Number1 of people claiming benefit due to medical incapacity (Sickness Benefit and Incapacity Benefit) and receiving National Insurance credits only (no benefit in payment)

  Total claimants (thousands)

  12 April 19952

  512

  29 February 19963

  580

  1 Point in time data—numbers are as at date shown.

  2Source: 1 per cent, sample of all claims to Sickness Benefit in GB.

  3Source: 5 per cent, sample of claims for Incapacity Benefit, excluding a small number of cases not held on the computer system.

  Table 2: Number of unemployed claimants in receipt of National Insurance credits only

  Total claimants (thousands)

  May 1989

  274

  May 1990

  220

  May 1991

  280

  May 1992

  313

  May 1993

  335

  May 1994

  281

  May 1995

  231

  February 19962

  229

  Notes:

  1 Point in time data—numbers relate to the position on the second Thursday of May of the relevant year and are the number of unemployed claimants not receiving Unemployment Benefit or Income Support. Figures include a small number who will not receive credits, but cannot be identified separately.

  2 Data for February 1996 are the most recent available.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of unemployed claimants.

  Table 3: Number of people receiving at least one credit in the financial year given: by type of credit

  Financial year

  ICA credits (thousands)

  Men aged between 60 and 64 (thousands)

  1988–89

  116

  1,299

  1989–90

  129

  1,311

  1990–91

  143

  1,331

  1991–92

  174

  1,348

  1992–93

  210

  1,371

  Source:

  1 per cent. of NIRS (National Insurance Recording System) taken at February 1994.

  Funeral Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average cost of a funeral in each of the last five years and for the current year in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom as a whole; and if he will make a statement; [34412]

  (2) what figures his Department has on the average cost of a funeral in each of the last five years and for the current year in each region of England; and if he will make a statement. [34413]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department does not collect information on funeral costs. Where someone has good cause for taking responsibility for a funeral but they have insufficient funds, help is available from the social fund. The reasonable cost of a dignified funeral is allowed. This
  413
  includes up to £500 for a specified funeral director's charges, plus all the necessary disbursements for either a burial or cremation.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent investigations his Department has commissioned into the cost of simple funerals. [34405]

  Mr. Evans
  Social fund funeral payments cover the reasonable cost of a dignified funeral. This includes up to £500 for specified funeral directors' charges, plus all the necessary disbursements for either burial or cremation. In the case of burials, the cost to the taxpayer could well exceed £1,000. In deciding the reasonable costs, the adjudication officer takes into account the level of prices charged locally for each of the items allowable.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what medical and scientific personnel and resources are utilised by the War Pensions Agency when it decides whether to award a pension to former service personnel who are claiming disablement because they participated in experiments in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. [34473]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 1 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the medical and scientific personnel and resources utilised by the War Pensions Agency when it decides whether to award a pension to former service personnel who are claiming disablement because they participated in experiments in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down.
  Claims to War Pensions are considered individually and according to their specific circumstance. War Pension may be awarded when it is accepted that disablement is attributable to or aggravated by service (including participation in the tests).
  War Pensions legislation provides that medical matters are determined by medical officers appointed or recognised for the purpose. Administrative officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State confirm service details made in relation to the claim.
  War Pension doctors are fully qualified medical practitioners with wide clinical experience. On entry they undergo prolonged training on all aspects of the War Pensions Scheme, including the law, policy and medicine in relation to War Pensions. This includes discussion and information relating to particular service zones and experiences. In addition they have access to a well stocked library which contains medical, scientific, and service (including historical) information.
  War Pensions doctors base their adjudication on relevant medical evidence, which may include service medical details, and post service medical records. War Pensions claimants may be required to undergo a War Pensions medical examination or be seen and examined by an independent specialist accredited to an appropriate speciality. Where the medical issues are complex, or some conflicting evidence exists, the case may be referred to a Regional Consultant for examination and report or in some cases for a documentary opinion. This referral is accompanied by a full typewritten Statement of Case, containing all available relevant evidence. Regional Consultants are people of special eminence in their field of work.
  414
  In cases where service at the Clinical and Biological Defence Establishment is an issue, relevant information, whether service medical or scientific, is obtained from the Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) the disability living allowance care component and (b) attendance allowance have had their benefits suspended during a period in hospital and residential care during each of the last two years. [34782]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 1 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claimants of (a) the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) care component and (b) Attendance Allowance (AA) have had their benefits suspended during a period in hospital and residential care during each of the last two years.
  The information requested is not available in the format requested.
  It is only possible to provide the number of suspensions for DLA care component at any one point in time. As at 31 May 1996 there have been 31,100 suspensions due to period spent in hospital or residential care.
  Data is not held centrally for AA as the majority of cases are paid combined with another benefit by the District Offices. The information, therefore, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of the disability living allowance care component and attendance allowance have been overpaid benefit as a result of a stay in hospital or residential care during each of the past two years; in how many cases this overpayment was recoverable; and where an overpayment was recoverable, what was the total value of benefits overpaid. [34783]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 1 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking has any claimants of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) care component and Attendance Allowance (AA) have been overpaid benefit as a result of a stay in hospital or residential care during each of the past two years; in how many cases this overpayment was recoverable; and where an overpayment was recoverable, what was the total value of benefits overpaid.
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  Figures for DLA overpayments due to a period of hospitalisation or residential care prior to July 1995 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As a result of an enhancement to the computer system, figures are available from July 1995.
  415
  The figures below are from 1 July 1995 to 29 February 1996.

  Number of overpayments

  Number recoverable

  Value of recoverable overpayments (£)

  Hospitalisation

  2,715

  1,704

  455,049.01

  Residential care

  1,445

  577

  424,383.04

  Total

  4,160

  2,281

  879,432.05

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Figures for AA overpayments due to a period of hospitalisation or residential care prior to April 1996 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As a result of an enhancement to the computer system, figures are available from April 1996.

  The figures in the table are from 1 April 1996 to 26 June 1996.

  Number of overpayments

  Number recoverable

  Value of recoverable overpayments (£)

  Hospitalisation

  763

  437

  95,463.73

  Residential care

  604

  315

  146,045.97

  Total

  1,367

  752

  241,509.70

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he has issued letters and a leaflet to claimants of the disability living allowance mobility component concerning details of recent periods in hospital in advance of Parliament's decision on the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996; and if he will make a statement. [34781]

  Mr. Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 1 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking on what basis he has issued letters and a leaflet to claimants of the Disability Living Allowance mobility component concerning details of recent periods in hospital in advance of Parliament's decision on the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendments regulations 1996; and if he will make a statement.
  The Regulations in question are subject to negative resolution procedure. They were made on 4 June 1996 and laid before Parliament on 7 June 1996. The letters and leaflets in question were not issued to customers until 15 June 1996.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many statutory instruments laid before Parliament by his Department in each of the last three years have been exempted from the requirement in section 172(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee because they were made within six months of the coming into force of an Act of Parliament; and 416
  if he will list each of the Acts of Parliament concerned with the number of statutory instruments affected in each case. [34074]

  Mr. Burt
  In the 12-month periods ending on 26 June 1994, 1995 and 1996, none, 11 and seven respectively, of which 11 were made under the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994, six under the Jobseekers Act 1995 and one under the Child Support Act 1995.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the statutory instruments made under the Jobseekers Act 1995 which have been laid before Parliament with the date of laying and the date of coming into force in each case; how many further instruments the Government have in draft, out to consultation or otherwise in preparation to implement the Jobseekers Act 1995; and if he will consider introducing regulations to consolidate the statutory instruments relating to the jobseeker's allowance. [34075]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on those statutory instruments which have been made under the Jobseekers Act and laid before Parliament, together with the coming into force date of each, is set out in the table. In addition, a number of statutory instruments which will be made under powers contained in the Jobseekers Act are currently in preparation. The regulations governing the back to work bonus and transitional provisions will be consolidated, but there are no current plans to consolidate any other jobseeker's allowance regulations.

  SI No.

  Title

  Date laid

  Date of coming into force

  1995/3228

  The Jobseekers Act 1995 (Commencement Order No. 1) Order 1995

  111 December 1995

  12 December 1995 and 6 April 1996

  1995/3276

  The Jobseeker's Allowance (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1995

  20 December 1995

  7 October 1996

  1996/193

  The Social Security (Back to Work Bonus) Regulations 1996

  11 February 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/194

  The Housing Benefit, Supply of Information and Council Tax Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  11 February 1996

  1 April 1996

  1996/195

  The Employer's Contributions Reimbursement Regulations 1996

  11 February 1996

  6 April 1996

  1996/206

  The Income Support (General) (Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996

  11 February 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/207

  The Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996

  11 February 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1126

  The Jobseekers Act (Commencement No. 2) Order

  118 April 1996

  22 April 1996

  417

  SI No.

  Title

  Date laid

  Date of coming into force

  1996/1252

  The Income Support (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1996

  18 May 1996

  8 July 1996

  1996/1307

  The Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1996

  113 May 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1345

  The Social Security and Child Support (Jobseeker's Allowance) (Miscellaneous Consequentials) Regulations 1996

  24 May 96

  7 October 1996

  1996/1443

  The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  7 Jun 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1460

  The Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996

  11 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1509

  The Jobseekers Act (Commencement No. 3) Order 1996

  110 June 1996

  11 June 1996

  1996/1510

  The Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Supply of Information (Jobseeker's Allowance) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996

  14 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1511

  The Social Security (Back to Work Bonus) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  17 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1515

  The Jobseeker's Allowance (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  18 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1516

  The Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  111 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1517

  The Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  111 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  1996/1518

  The Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1996

  111 June 1996

  7 October 1996

  The Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 1996

  10 June 1996

  [Not yet debated]

  418

  SI No.

  Title

  Date laid

  Date of coming into force

  The Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996

  5 June 1996

  [Not yet debated]

  1 Date made.

  Earnings
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of(a) men and (b) women whose earnings are below the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions, indicating for each the estimated average weekly hours of work. [34791]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures from the labour force survey, winter 1995, show that in Great Britain there were an estimated 550,000 men with earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; these men worked on average 16.2 hours per week. Of the estimated 2 million women below the limit, average weekly hours were 11.7.

WALES

  Forestry Commission Woodland
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Forestry Commission woodlands in Wales has been sold off since 1981. [34675]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to reply.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 2 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of woodlands sold in Wales.
  Forest Enterprise sold 16,842 hectares of woodland in Wales between 1981 and March 1996 and this represents some 12% of the area owned in 1981.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Forestry Commission woodlands there were in 1981; and how many now exist in what was the former county of Clwyd. [34676]

  Mr. Evans
  There are no records of the number of individual woodlands in Clwyd, but the area of woodland is estimated to have increased since 1981 from some 22,000 hectares to nearly 23,000 hectares.

  EU Business (Veto)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the items of EU business which have been vetoed by the Government since the announcement of the non-co-operation policy which would have applied in Wales; and what assessment he has made of the impact of each item in Wales. [34489]
  419
  Mr. Hague
  Under the policy of non-co-operation the United Kingdom withheld agreement to 74 measures requiring unanimous approval. The Prime Minister announced on 24 June that the policy had been lifted. All the measures affected by the policy are now expected to be taken forward.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statutory instruments 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. [35035]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of statutory instruments introduced by the Welsh Office during the past three years which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation is as follows:

  1994: 1

  1995: 0

  1996 (from 1 January to 1 May): 2.

  NHS Nurses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time nurses were employed in (i) hospitals, (ii) community service and (iii) general practice in the Welsh NHS in (1) 1980, (2) 1985, (3) 1990 and (4) 1995. [35222]

  Mr. Hague
  A reliable split between nursing and midwifery staff employed in the hospital and community service is not separately available, and so the information given in the first part of the table relates to all directly employed NHS staff in the nursing and midwifery group.

  Numbers of staff in post

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  Hospital and community service (excluding pre-registration learners) at 30 September:

  Full-time

  13,264

  15,964

  17,002

  116,152

  Part-time

  11,798

  11,965

  13,619

  116,515

  Nurses in general practice (at 1 October):

  Full-time

  11

  15

  —

  —

  Part-time

  95

  196

  —

  —

  Total

  106

  211

  753

  21,062

  — Information not collected centrally.

  1 Excludes staff on local payscales for whom no details of contractual commitment are available centrally.

  2 Provisional.

  Health Care Integration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an evaluation exercise of the comparative costs and benefits of(a) integrated hospital, community and ambulance services and (b) separating ambulance services from other health provider services. [35226]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to set up an evaluation exercise of this nature.
  420

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time doctors were employed in general practice in Wales in (a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995. [35223]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on the contractual commitment of general medical practitioners was collected for the first time in 1990. The information is given in the table:

  Unrestricted general medical practitioners at 1 October

  1990

  1995

  Full-time

  1,553

  1,499

  Part-time

  82

  220

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those trusts which have not to date signed contracts with their local health authorities. [35224]

  Mr. Hague
  The information provided by NHS trusts is as follows:

  Contracts agreed but not signed

  Agreement awaited

  Wrexham Maelor

  Carmarthen

  Glan Hafren

  Ceredigion

  Gwent Community

  Derwen

  Nevill Hall

  Llanelli

  Gwynedd Community

  Pembrokeshire

  North Glamorgan

  Morriston

  Glan-y-Mor

  University Dental Hospital

  Mid Wales Ambulance

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  North Wales Ambulance

  University Hospital of Wales

  South East Wales Ambulance Llandough Rhondda

  Powys

  Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates he will receive proposals for revising the boundaries of ambulance trusts from(a) the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group and (b) Pembrokeshire NHS trust. [35225]

  Mr. Hague
  I have not received any formal proposals from either the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group or the Pembrokeshire NHS trust.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instigate a study into the costs and benefits of(a) single-handed and (b) double-handed ambulance crews providing first attendance at the sites of accidents and other emergencies; what representations he has received on the proposals to institute single-handed response systems; how it relates to (i) Orcon and (ii) other standards; and if he will make a statement. [35227]

  Mr. Hague
  The Department of Health has set up a group to review ambulance performance standards. The group's recommendations are expected to address methods of response, and I will be taking advice on the implications of these recommendations for Wales in due course.
  421
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to health service units in Wales in relation to the benefits aligning ambulance trust boundaries with(a) the new health authority boundaries and (b) the other emergency services' boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [35228]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  NHS Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from(a) health authorities and (b) trusts concerning the departmental efficiency savings required from them during the 1996–97 financial year. [35229]

  Mr. Hague
  A number of health authority and NHS trust chairmen and chief executives have expressed some concern at the ability of their organisations to continue to deliver efficiency improvements of 3 per cent. a year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that beef for human consumption imported into the United Kingdom from EC countries conforms to the same standards as beef processed by abattoirs in the United Kingdom in respect of precautions against BSE. [31008]

  Mrs. Browning
  All fresh meat imported into the UK from other member states or third countries must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council directive 64/433/EC.

  The Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996, as amended, prohibits the sale for human consumption of all bovine meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter, were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered after the commencement of the order, whether in the UK or overseas, other than those born, reared and slaughtered in those third countries specifically excluded by the order listed in the schedule to the No. 2 amendment order. The list of countries is confined to those where the Government are satisfied there is no history of BSE and public health rules do not prohibit imports.

  The third countries exempted are from the order are:

  Argentina

  Australia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  Poland

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Uruguay

  422

  United States of America

  Zimbabwe

  As regards bovines less than 30 months of age, a number of countries with BSE have introduced controls requiring the removal of specified bovine offals. We continue to keep the position under review.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total net cost to the Exchequer of the current BSE eradication scheme in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the effect on the United Kingdom rebate, for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) thereafter. [35330]

  Mrs. Browning
  The latest available estimate of the total cost of BSE measures taken in the UK in 1996–97 is £1,037 million. In 1997–98 the cost is estimated to be £748 million and in 1998–99 £685 million.

  Estimates for costs in 1999–2000 and subsequent years are not yet available.

  After taking account of the net contribution from the EC and the reduction in our abatement, the costs of these measures to the UK taxpayer will be around £2 billion over the three-year period 1996 to 1999.

  These costs take account of the measures covering compensation for cattle over 30 months, the new calf slaughter premium, the package of aid for renderers and the abattoir and cutting industries and additional running costs for the agricultural departments.

  They do not include any estimate for the normal operation of market support measures or for any additional costs arising from the "accelerated slaughter" of cattle particularly at risk of developing BSE, for which precise estimates are not yet available.

  Meat and Bone Meal Fertilisers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the quantity of mammalian meat and bone meal fertilisers spread on land since August 1988. [31196]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not collected centrally. An industry estimate of the quantity of mammalian meat and bone meal fertilisers used is 4,000 tonnes per year, of which 10 per cent. was spread on agricultural land.

  Dairy Cows
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received that dairy cows older than 30 months are being auctioned at markets for sums less than the Government slaughter compensation price, with particular reference to Holsworthy in north Devon. [33118]

  Mr. Baldry
  Compensation is paid by the Intervention Board to approved collection centres, which may be abattoirs or liveweight markets, when eligible animals are presented for slaughter at designated abattoirs. The scheme rules do not prevent producers from selling their animals at agreed prices below the compensation rate and I am aware that some have done so.
  423

  Listeria
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct an inquiry into listeria contamination of milk. [35060]

  Mrs. Browning
  I know of no grounds for such an inquiry. Proper heat treatment effectively destroys any listeria contamination in raw milk and the vast majority of milk undergoes a heat treatment. In addition, there are strict hygiene controls on production and processing of milk under the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the British Agrochemicals Association concerning the implementation of the packaging and packaging waste directive (94/92/EC). [34740]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. I intend to publish shortly a consultation paper on our proposals in this area and to send copies to business organisations, including the British Agrochemicals Association.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq and Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken in respect of missing(a) Kuwaiti and Iranian prisoners of war in Iraq and (b) Iraqi prisoners of war in Iran; and if he will make a statement. [34030]

  Mr. Hanley
  We urge Iraq and Iran to fulfil their obligations under the relevant UN resolutions covering prisoners of war and support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. At meetings of the ICRC's tripartite commission and its technical sub-committee, we have repeatedly pressed the Iraqis about their failure to account for the Kuwaiti and other nationals detained in Iraq after the Gulf war and still unaccounted for.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision was taken on applications made to the British post in Islamabad by Tahira Jabeen, Fazal ur Rahman Hussain and Noor ur Rahman Hussain, Ref: Con/5267, for British passports; on what date the applications were made; on what date the Home Office in London was asked to make inquiries in the United Kingdom; on what date he received information about those inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [35232]

  Mr. Hanley
  No decision has been taken on the passport applications made by Tahira Jabeen, Fazal ur Rahman Hussain and Noor ur Rahman Hussain, to the British high commission in Islamabad. The three applications remain under consideration:

  The applications were made on 13 December 1994 and the applicants interviewed on 2 October 1995.
  424
  Inquiries were made of the Home Office on 3 October 1995 and a response was received on 19 November 1995.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for the issue of visas to Russian citizens to visit the United Kingdom were received by the British embassy in Moscow and the consulate in St. Petersburg, in each year from 1991 to 1994 and in the current year to date. [35235]

  Mr. Hanley
  Applications for United Kingdom visas received by the British embassy in Moscow and the British consulate general in St. Petersburg from 1991 to the present date were:

  Moscow

  St. Petersburg

  1991

  57,834

  Nil

  1992

  50,303

  Nil

  1993

  61,367

  1,429

  1994

  86,661

  16,658

  1995

  95,850

  18,059

  1996

  40,974

  3,903

  The 1996 figures for Moscow are correct as at 31 May 1996, and for St. Petersburg as at 31 March 1996. St. Petersburg started its entry clearance operation on 17 November 1993.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the extent to which the elections held in Kashmir during May were properly conducted and were free and fair and (b) the accuracy of the official estimates of turnouts; and if he will make a statement. [35032]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Given the complex conditions in the Kashmir valley, we are not in a position to make a clear-cut evaluation of the conduct of the elections, or to say we agree or disagree with the official estimates of turnouts.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Appeal Court
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many cases referred to the Court of Appeal for sentence review in the last five years had the sentences(a) increased and (b) reduced; and if he will make a statement; [35311]

  (2) how many sentences were referred to the Appeal Court for review in the last five years. [35351]

  The Attorney-General
  During the last five years 232 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and 10 in Northern Ireland. Twelve were subsequently withdrawn in England and Wales and one in Northern Ireland. To date, 200 of those cases have been heard by the Court of Appeal. Sentence has increased in 172 cases out of 200 or 86 per cent. No case resulted in a reduced sentence.
  425

PRIME MINISTER

  Group of Seven Summit
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the G7 summit at Lyon. [35352]

  The Prime Minister
  I attended the Lyon summit on 27 to 29 June with my right hon. and learned Friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  I have placed in the Library of the House the communiqué, the chairman's statement and other statements and documents issued by the summit.

  The summit started with a discussion of economic matters among the G7. In President Yeltsin's absence, we were joined by the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, for a discussion of wider international issues. After the formal conclusion of the summit, we held a meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General and the heads of the International Monetary Fund, World bank and World Trade Organisation to discuss the role of the international institutions, in particular on development.

  On the first evening we agreed and issued a declaration on terrorism, condemning the appalling attack in Dhahran and other recent terrorist outrages. We pledged ourselves to fight terrorism by all legal means and agreed that the relevant Ministers should meet in Paris in July to discuss further action. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary plans to lead the United Kingdom delegation.

  Discussion of the world economy demonstrated the extent to which the United Kingdom's economic policy agenda is now shared by all our partners in the G7. Although growth has slowed in some countries since last year, it is picking up again. Unemployment remains higher than many of us would wish, particularly in continental Europe, but we agreed that the way to bring it down was by liberalising labour markets and through other supply side measures. This is reflected in the communique's endorsement of the conclusions of the G7 meeting in Lille earlier this year to discuss employment issues.

  There was also consensus on the policies necessary to maintain international monetary stability. We endorsed the work done by Finance Ministers. Their report makes it clear that the key to stability is not management or fixing of exchange rates but sound domestic economic policies.

  In Halifax last year we agreed steps to make the international financial institutions more effective. Many have now been taken and we welcomed the enhancement of the IMF's surveillance capacities and the agreement to increase the resources currently available to it under the general arrangement to borrow.

  We recognised, however, the need to improve the co-operation between regulators of financial markets in the light of growth in the volume and speed of transactions. We agreed to study in more detail UK ideas for "lead regulators" of internationally active financial institutions. Officials will meet soon to discuss detailed proposals and Finance Ministers will report back to the Denver summit. We also agreed to co-operate more closely in combating financial crime.
  426
  We also reviewed progress in reforming the UN. Significant steps had been taken: 1,000 jobs have been cut, with high level posts reduced by 23 per cent.; these were 25 per cent. fewer staff than 10 years ago; and the 1996–97 budget incorporated a 10 per cent. cut in real terms. But much remains to be done and we agreed to review the situation at next year's summit. In particular, a rationalisation of the UN's role in development is necessary to avoid duplication and overlap between its various agencies.

  Under President Chirac's theme of globalisation, and with valuable contributions from the heads of the IMF, World bank and UN, we looked at the problems of poorer countries and how they could best be helped. In particular, we focused on the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

  We agreed that in the long run no amount of aid would help unless these countries were willing to help themselves. Aid nevertheless has a crucial role to play, as long as it is effective. It must therefore continue to be conditional on sensible adjustment policies and good government. In particular, we agreed that bilateral donors should reinforce the international financial institutions' efforts to discourage unproductive expenditure by modifying their own aid and export credit policies. Aid should also be targeted at the poorest and focused on basic human needs such as health and education.

  Following up initiatives originally launched by the UK, including ideas floated in 1994 in Valetta, the summit endorsed further steps to offer a number of highly indebted poor countries an exit from their unsustainable debt burdens. The IMF will offer more concessional lending from the enhanced structural adjustment facility, to be funded primarily by optimising the management of the IMF's own reserves. The World bank has offered to contribute in the order of $2 billion from its own resources to this initiative. We called on bilateral creditors to improve on the existing Naples terms which allow remission of up to 67 per cent. on a country's debts.

  In discussion of trade, we reaffirmed our desire for further liberalisation on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of World Trade Organisation Trade Ministers in Singapore, including new tariff initiatives. Many of us made clear to President Clinton our deep concern at recent US legislation of a extraterritorial nature relating to Cuba. Unilateral measures of this kind are a serious threat to an open world training system.

  We discussed a wide range of global and political issues with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. He briefed us on the prospects for the second round of the presidential elections in Russia. We welcomed the progress made on nuclear safety and security at the Moscow summit last April, and urged all countries to examine closely the 40 recommendations on combating transnational organised crime drawn up by our experts following the remit we gave them in Halifax.

  There was considerable discussion of environmental issues. We agreed it was essential to maintain the impetus following from Rio and to play a positive role in the UN General Assembly's special session on the environment next June.

  In pursuing non-proliferation, we affirmed our undertaking to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty

  427
  by the start of the next session of the UN General Assembly. We also called on all states to make every effort to secure a global ban on the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines, and welcomed the bans already adopted by some countries, including the UK, on the production, use and export of these weapons.

  A separate declaration was issued on Bosnia and Herzegovina which emphasised that the prime responsibility for implementations of the Dayton agreement lies with the different communities and their leaders, and underlined the importance of the elections due to take place on 14 September. These should take place on time, in free and fair conditions. We also made clear our insistence that Karadzic step down immediately and permanently from all public functions and take no part in governmental decisions. We reaffirmed the importance of all those indicted by the international war crimes tribunal appearing in The Hague for trial. We warned of the costs of non-compliance with Dayton in terms of sanctions and the availability of economic assistance. We also pledged our full support for Carl Bildt, the high representative, and for efforts to accelerate economic reconstruction in order to encourage co-operation and reconciliation between the different communities.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July. [34385]

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

  Ranjeet Matharu
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will order a review of the Crown prosecution papers on the case of the arrest of Ranjeet Matharu for the rape of a 19-year-old Swedish woman with a view to establishing how(a) the Crown Prosecution Service and (b) police procedures can be improved. [35101]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  No review is possible of the case to which my hon. Friend refers because it arose in 1988–89 and in accordance with Crown Prosecution Service procedures the file would have been destroyed three years thereafter. It is the recollection of the police officer concerned with the case that lack of corroboration, which at that date required a specific warning to the jury, was an important factor on the decision not to proceed with charges of rape and buggery. The Government have since implemented in section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the recommendation of the royal commission on criminal justice that the rule that juries should be warned of the danger of convicting without corroboration in sexual offences should be abolished.
  428

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [35030]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: This information is not available in the form requested. However, a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was placed in the House Library by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.

SCOTLAND

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, 17 May,Official Report, column 620, if he will give for each public interest immunity certificate the legal event which led to its being issued; and which of the certificates is currently in force. [34824]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The four public interest immunity certificates signed by the then Secretary of State for Transport and the one public interest immunity certificate signed by the then Home Secretary in relation to the fatal accident inquiry were prepared in relation to matters or documents which it was considered should not, in the public interest, be the subject of evidence during that inquiry. Those certificates were signed for the purpose of the fatal accident inquiry. In the event, none of these certificates was relied upon and the inquiry concluded in February 1991 without any of those certificates having been produced in response to any line of questioning.

  The two certificates signed in April 1992 by the then Secretary of State for Transport and the one certificate signed by the then Lord Advocate related to the taking of evidence from Dr. Thomas Hayes under a letter of request issued in civil actions then being pursued in the United States. One of these certificates was withdrawn in May 1992 by the then Secretary of State for Transport because the matters to which it related had entered into the public domain by virtue of disclosures made in the United States from official sources. The two remaining certificates did not require to be deployed because the High Court in England ruled that it was not competent to take evidence from a former Crown servant in that capacity under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.

  The final certificate signed in May 1992 by the then Lord Advocate related to the taking of evidence from a journalist under a letter of request issued in the aforementioned United States civil actions. This certificate also did not require to be deployed because the matter was referred to the High Court tin England but did not proceed to a hearing and the matter was not pursued by the parties to the United States actions.
  429
  Accordingly, all proceedings, in respect of which these certificates were signed, have been concluded.

  Learning Disabilities (Residential Care)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy regarding residential and village communities for people with learning disabilities; what research he has commissioned to evaluate such facilities; and if he will make a statement. [34826]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Residential and village communities are one of a range of residential options available for people with learning disabilities. Decisions on which of these is most appropriate should be taken on an individual basis. However, we await with interest the results of an evaluation of the various types of residential accommodation for people with learning disabilities which has been commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  European Funding
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress in respect of the Barmac N166 site objective 1 application. [34834]

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

  Since February, there have been a number of discussions and meetings between the company, officials of the Scottish Office and of the Department of Trade and Industry's shipbuilding unit and oil and gas projects supplies office. An informal meeting was held on 13 June between United Kingdom officials and 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.

  Overhead Electricity Lines
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a decision on the application under the Electricity Act 1989 for necessary wayleave to keep installed an overhead line across land at Dalespot, St. Ola, Orkney; and if he will make a statement. [35268]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decision on Hydro-Electric's application for a wayleave to keep installed an overhead electricity line at Dalespot, St. Ola, Orkney shortly.

  Cattle Slaughter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Scotland if he will list the locations his Department is(a) using and (b) considering using for the storage of the remains of cattle aged 30 months or over following processing of carcases at rendering plants prior to final
  430
  disposal; what is the estimated (i) maximum and (ii) minimum periods these remains will be at these storage sites; and if he will make a statement. [31550]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: The rendered remains of cattle slaughtered in Scotland under the 30-month scheme are either stored on site by the rendering company concerned or at a storage facility in Liverpool provided by the Intervention Board for this purpose.

  Other locations will be considered if, and when, additional storage facilities are required. As announced by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 April, a number of options for the disposal of meat and bone meal produced at plants are under active consideration and in all cases full weight will be given to protecting the environment. The options include incineration and energy recovery. The period of storage will vary between stores and will be dependent upon the final disposal route chosen.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [34298]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The main responsibility for animal welfare matters rests within the animal health and welfare branch of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department. The Department also provides administrative support to the state veterinary service in Scotland. Current posts with a direct involvement are as follows:

  Number

  Senior Civil Service

  1.0

  Grade 7

  1.0

  HEO

  1.0

  EO

  6.5

  AO

  10.0

  AA

  20.0

  Personal Secretary/Typists

  6.0

  This does not include other officers, for example, more senior officers, lawyers, press officers and others, who may occasionally spend some of their time on animal welfare matters.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility. [34296]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The Department is responsible for all animal welfare issues as they apply to Scotland. This includes all aspects of farm livestock; domestic, captive and wild animals; zoo animals; and the ban on certain methods of killing or taking of birds and wild animals.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [34297]
  431
  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  DOMESTIC LEGISLATION

  Welfare of Animals on Farm

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949 (Ch. 70);

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954 and 1964 (Ch. 46 and Ch. 39);

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1962 (SI 1962 No. 2557);

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (1966 Ch. 36);

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (1968 Ch 34);

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 308);

  The Docking of Pigs (Use of Anaesthetics) Order 1974 (SI 1974 No. 798);

  The Welfare of Livestock Deer Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 593);

  The Removal of Antlers in Velvet (Anaesthetics) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 685);

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982 No. 1884);

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Amendment) Order 1982 (1982 No. 1626);

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 1982 (SI 1982 No. 1627);

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 114);

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 526;

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991 (51 1991 No. 1412;

  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 2126).

  Welfare of Animals at Market

  The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2628);

  The Welfare of Animals at Markets (Amendment) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No. 3085);

  The Welfare of Horses at Markets (and Other Places of Sale) Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2627).

  Welfare of Animals During Transport

  The Transit of Animals Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 289);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 399);

  The Animals (Sea Transport) Amendment Order 1930 (SI 1930 No. 923);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1931 (SI 1931 No. 750);

  The Transit of Animals (Sea Transport) (Amendment) Order 1932 (SI 1932 No. 4984);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1939 (SI 1939 No. 5842);

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Order (SI 1952 No. 1291);

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1958 (SI 1958 No. 1272);

  The Export of Horses (Veterinary Examination) Order 1966 (SI 1966 No. 507);

  The Export of Horses (Excepted Cases) Order 1969 (SI 1969 No. 1742);

  The Export of Horses (Protection) Order 1969 (SI 1969 No. 1784);

  The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 1377);

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No. 1024);

  The Importation of Animals Order 1977 (SI 1977 No. 944);

  The Export of Horses and Ponies (Increase in Minimum Values) Order 1978 (SI 1978 No. 1748);

  432

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No. 1013);

  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 (SI 1981 No. 1051);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 815);

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) (Amendment) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 52);

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 (SI 1994 No. 3249);

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 131).

  Welfare of Animals at Slaughter

  The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 731).

  Other Legislation which have Welfare Implications

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 290);

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1938 (SI 1933 No. 5674);

  Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (Ch. 55);

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Ch. 22);

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3293);

  Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (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;

  Game (Scotland) Acts 1772 and 1832;

  Night Poaching Acts 1828 and 1844;

  Hares (Scotland) Act 1848;

  Games Licences Act 1860;

  Poaching Prevention Act 1862;

  Ground Game Act 1880 (as amended);

  Hares Preservation Act 1892;

  Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991;

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

  EC LEGISLATION

  EC Directive 88/166 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens Kept in Battery Cages;

  EC Directive 91/628 on the Protection of Animals During Transport;

  EC Directive 91/629 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Calves;

  EC Directive 91/630 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs;

  EC Directive 93/119 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Slaughter or Killing;

  EC Directive 95/29 Amending EC Directive 91/628 on the Protection of Animals During Transport;

  433

  EC Directive 86/609 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).

  EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes;

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport;

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter;

  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes;

  European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.

  National Lottery
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the development of policy on the distribution of lottery proceeds. [35631]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am writing today to the chairmen of the Scottish lottery distributing bodies to consult them on a change to the policy directions issued to the Scottish Arts Council under section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. This would allow an amount of revenue funding to help arts organisations gain long-term financial viability, in a way which would not substitute for existing grant in aid.

  The programme would aim to help arts organisations consider and in some cases change their objectives and the markets within which they operate; inject new creative,
  434
  technical and managerial skills into the organisations to help them achieve their objectives; provide balance sheet stability; and deliver better value for money.

  The consultation which I have launched will last until 23 August. I will then consider the responses to the consultation process, with a view to announcing any change to the directions as soon as possible.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Lincolnshire Councils
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when borough status will be awarded to the North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire councils. [33954]

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to the resolution of certain outstanding issues, it is hoped that the petitions for the grant of charters conferring borough status on the North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire district councils can be submitted to Her Majesty the Queen later this month.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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. [34359]

  Mr. Newton
  On 5 April I visited the Merton drug action team, which covers my hon. Friends' constituencies of Mitcham and Morden and of Wimbledon. I have no plans to visit other hon. Members' constituencies on official business in the next three months.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that some time ago I accepted an invitation to receive an honorary degree at the University of Leicester on Friday 5th July 1996. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence on Friday 5th July 1996.

Burma: Human Rights
2.32 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to continuing violations of human rights against ethnic minorities by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) in Burma (Myanmar).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burma, including violations against ethnic minorities. Together with our EU partners, we have taken action both bilaterally and in international fora to put pressure on the State Law and Order Restoration Council, known as SLORC, in Burma to implement human rights reforms. We shall continue to take this action.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which will give encouragement to those who are suffering at the hands of the SLORC regime. Is my noble friend aware that the human rights organisation with which I work, Christian Solidarity International, and other aid organisations are obtaining continuing evidence of gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the SLORC regime against ethnic minorities, such as the Karen, the Karenni and the Mon peoples, including murder, rape, torture, pillage and slave labour, which has forced tens of thousands of survivors to flee to refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese border? Can my noble friend say what contribution Britain is making to the efforts of the international community to try to alleviate the suffering of those people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we share entirely the concern expressed by my noble friend. We have been providing help for the Karen, Karenni and Mon peoples for some time along Burma's borders in terms of support for relief work in refugee camps, health and schooling facilities and teacher training. In the past four years we have also provided about £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. We continue to support the Burma Border Consortium's work on the Thai-Burmese border. We are deeply concerned about the situation and continue to raise our concern both bilaterally and in every international forum in which we can do so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I understand that the European Commission has considered, or is considering, the withdrawal of trade benefits to Burma. Can the Minister tell us anything more about that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at this moment I cannot say any more on that specific issue, but I can assure the noble Lord that together with our partners in the European Union we have made a démarche to the SLORC administration in Rangoon. We have made sure that no instance when such comments should be made to that regime is forgone.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given the brutality of that regime, will the Government consider raising the question of international economic sanctions against Burma both with our European Union partners and in the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is an attractive thought that some form of sanctions might do some good, but I am afraid that it would be a dialogue of the deaf. We know that the United States is considering sanctions. The Danes have asked us and other European partners to consider an export ban for Burma, but there really is no evidence of international support. It is critically important to continue to try to influence SLORC. We shall continue to do that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we all know that the Minister needs no encouragement to defend human rights, but may I suggest that we have a special duty to the Karen, who fought against the Japanese by our side during the war, and that we should perhaps take up the question of the Anglo-Burmese who recently died in prison who was a respected member of the community? I understand that it is alleged that he was imprisoned (although he was an honorary consul of several countries) only because he afforded the use of his fax and his telephone to the democracy movement. Does the Minister agree that there are limits to the extent to which one can rely on quiet words behind the scenes—although I know that they are important?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend's last point first. Of course, there are limits to the extent to which we can rely on words alone. We were deeply sorry to hear the news of Leo Nichols' death on 22nd June. The Danish,

1297
Norwegian, Finnish and Swiss representatives for whom he was the de facto honorary consul will ask the authorities for a full explanation, with the backing of EU partners.
To answer my noble friend's earlier question, the United Kingdom will, of course, always be grateful for the loyalty of the ethnic minorities in World War II, and was particularly mindful of their interests in preparing for Burma's independence. The terms of association that we agreed between the minority peoples and the Burmese in a united Burma was one of the good things that were left behind. What has happened now is a tragedy for Burma and for South-East Asia. I hope that the ASEAN countries will join the rest of us in other places in bringing more pressure to bear on the SLORC regime which is doing such desperate harm to the Burmese people.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that talking to the SLORC regime and applying diplomatic pressure will make any difference at all to its behaviour in terms of human rights? A regime which refused to recognise a president elected by an 85 per cent. majority of the electorate and took over power itself is hardly likely to listen to persuasion. Surely sanctions are the only way, as my noble friend suggested. Should not Britain join those countries that are taking a lead in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I know that sanctions appear to be an easy option for bringing pressure to bear, but I simply do not believe that it is the only way, or necessarily the quickest way, to bring about change. We are highly critical of that regime. We have been the co-sponsors of resolutions in the United Nations. We are looking at all ways of bringing pressure to bear, but until other ASEAN countries also take action I do not believe that we shall quickly see a change. But it must be both European countries, who have a great interest and owe a great debt to Burmese people, and ASEAN countries who join with us in the action that we take.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm on behalf of the Government that the situation has recently deteriorated further in Burma? In light of that fact, is it true that we are sponsoring two high-profile trade missions to Burma? If so, should we be doing so?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the situation has worsened. There was a trade mission which received some financial support last February, but since then there has been no further assistance for such trade missions. One can bring about improvements in people's attitudes when working alongside them, but at the moment there is no intention to support further trade missions. If British companies decide to go to Burma on a private basis we cannot stop them. However, many companies are well aware of just how bad the situation is in that country. The Government have withheld help from the BEAMA mission which is going this month. That mission will go without Government support.

Britain and Singapore: Air Services
2.41 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in discussions between Britain and Singapore with the intention of liberalising air services between the two countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, a first round of talks was held in Singapore in March, and a second round of talks is currently taking place at the Department of Transport.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these negotiations are dragging on for a long time? Can he assure the House that the interests of Manchester International Airport are not being subordinated to the interests of Heathrow or British Airways? At the same time, will he promise to visit the magnificent exhibition on the Committee Corridor which commemorates the success of Manchester International Airport over the past 50 years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, from a glance at my diary I understand that I am to visit that exhibition this evening. The air services agreement involves complex negotiations and a number of factors are involved. Certainly, Manchester has been involved in determining our negotiating position with regard to Singapore. But one must also take into account the interests of British airlines and British consumers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a number of years ago there was a direct daily Concorde flight between Singapore and Heathrow and that that service was interrupted only by the refusal of the Iranians to allow the aircraft to overfly Iran? Will my noble friend consider securing consent from Iran so that the daily Concorde flight can be reinstated?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing that historical fact to the attention of the House. I will endeavour to find out whether or not there is any restriction on Concorde operating that route. But, restrictions aside, it would be for British Airways to determine whether or not it wished to operate that service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this issue is important to the Singaporeans? Following his welcome reply this afternoon, will there be further discussions so that we keep in touch with the Singaporeans and pursue this endeavour in which they have so much faith?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to both Singapore and the United Kingdom. Discussions are taking place at this very moment within the department.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords,I recognise the need to ensure that progress continues in the development of an open skies policy and fairer competition throughout and recognise the desirability of maximising the role of airports outside the London region, but does the Minister accept from me that we do not feel we should probe his negotiating position? That cannot be helpful. We wish him well in securing a good deal for Britain, our airlines and consumers and, it is to be hoped, for the Singaporeans.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. We are in the middle of detailed negotiations and do not wish to expose our position. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that we must put the interests of UK consumers, airlines and airports at the front of our minds and pursue a liberalising policy on that basis.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister explain the latter half of his reply to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? It has been said that at present Manchester Airport is at a disadvantage compared with the other two major airports in this country. If that is so, will the Minister ensure that that position is rectified as soon as possible?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we understand the needs of regional airports and the importance of services operating to those airports. That is a matter which we take fully into account in determining our negotiating position. No doubt that is one of the issues that is being discussed as we speak.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are other sections of the British population who are concerned about this; namely, those who live under the flight path at Heathrow? Those people wish Manchester well.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recognise that. Some may say that the feeling is mutual as far as concerns Mancunians. We understand the environmental difficulties in the field of air transport and seek to put in place a regime that minimises them.

Aid Distribution: Criteria
2.45 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what criteria they decide the proportion of the total aid programme to be spent in east Europe and on what criteria they decide the proportion to be spent in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Middle East.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a number of factors are taken into account in allocating our aid resources to particular countries. These include traditional ties to Britain, the recipient country's political and economic policies, respect for human rights
1300
and the rule of law. The other prime factor, however, is the need for aid and the effectiveness with which it is used.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while aid to the former communist countries of Europe increased by some 773 per cent., from £15 million to £131 million, in the three years to 1994–95, aid to sub-Saharan Africa—the world's poorest region—declined by 5.5 per cent., from £418 million to £395 million? While it is important to assist transition in the former communist countries, how can this ever be, even in part, at the expense of aid to the poorest people in the world? Does the Minister have any plans under her own fundamental expenditure review to enable communist countries to graduate from aid so that assistance can be concentrated on those in the world in the greatest need?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question, yes, we do. In particular, the countries of central Europe are moving faster than many others towards free markets and greater growth.
To return to the original premise of the question, 8 per cent. of our bilateral budget was spent on Europe, eastern Europe and central Asia—the former Soviet Union—compared with about 75 per cent. on sub-Saharan Africa and Asian countries where the greatest poverty exists. We have sought to concentrate our assistance in sub-Saharan and Asian countries where it can do most good. I understand the anxiety that has been expressed, but it must be right to help countries that are moving quickly away from an old demand system and, at the same time, to concentrate assistance on those most in need.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in the initial response to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my noble friend referred to the need to ensure that aid was effectively spent. Can my noble friend assure the House that one of the criteria that she wants to establish is that countries which are recipients of aid take effective action against corruption, particularly that which is sponsored or promoted by governments themselves?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that one of the main criteria for the effective use of aid is that development assistance goes to projects for which it is intended. For that reason, I shall continue to be critical where any aid money, whether bilateral contributions or through any channel, may be siphoned off by those who seek to make irresponsible use of it. I can give my noble friend the assurance that our evaluation and monitoring system of the British aid programme prevents that. The same is not yet the case for all multilateral programmes. We hope that it will become so.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, as Members on these Benches support the aid given to eastern Europe, especially through the know-how fund, which deals

1301
extremely effectively with projects in former eastern Europe, will the Minister consider increasing rather than decreasing the amount of aid available to the Asian bloc countries, and in so doing think about increasing the aid budget as a whole rather than shifting the funds from one place to another?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that we may soon be able to increase the aid budget as a whole. That is something upon which I am working. However, I am conscious that the know-how funds are doing an enormous amount of valuable work, just as the resources we concentrate on the poorest countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are similarly doing valuable work. One of the most effective areas in which the know-how funds are operating in the former Soviet Union is the work they are doing on nuclear safety, some of which I was privileged to hear about at AEA Technology this morning. That work is for the good of all mankind, not just the countries concerned.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no one in the House, I am sure, objects to help for eastern Europe? Most people would support what the Government are doing, but not at the expense of the other people. The figures the Minister quoted are not relevant. What is relevant is the trend, and the increase to eastern Europe at the expense of other poorer countries. Cannot that be taken into account?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed, it is taken into account. The fastest increase in assistance to central and eastern European countries, central Asia and the former Soviet Union comes from EU moneys, about one-sixth of which we contribute. It is not all falling upon us. The important point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is that it is vitally important to cure some of the problems of pollution that are just sitting waiting to emerge upon the world and not those countries alone. Preventing such pollution problems in the future is vital. The know-how funds are valuable, not just for the countries where they are deployed but for a much wider area. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. He knows that we shall do all that we can for the poorest countries in the world. I am committed to doing so, so is the department, and so are the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the annual review of her department for 1995–96 which I found interesting reading. Will she confirm that her department now spends 25 per cent. of its total budget (£620 million) through the EU? Is she satisfied that she has as good control over that money being spent through the EU as she could get if it were paid directly to the countries involved, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are going wide of the Question, not surprisingly, I think. Because the ODA has a first-class record in monitoring and evaluating our own research, it has been asked by
1302
the EU to help put in place similar systems not only involving our funds but also those of other people. That will allow us to concentrate resources where they are most needed and where they can be most effectively used.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, did not the Government give an undertaking two or three years ago that any aid for eastern Europe would not be at the expense of aid to the poorer countries? What has happened to that undertaking?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's memory is slightly off course, but I shall not debate that with him. The work we are doing in the countries of central Europe and the former Soviet Union is important world-wide. Those countries were formerly putting money, for all the wrong reasons, into some of the poorest countries. In this global world there is an evening out. We intend to concentrate British aid funds on the most needy and those who can use them most effectively. I shall continue to see that that happens.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are all heartened by her undertaking in answering questions that she is fighting for an increased aid programme? I am certain that she has nothing but good will from the whole House in that effort. Will the Minister forgive me for returning to an old theme of mine? With the pressure on the aid programme, is there not a real difficulty? She keeps telling us that the aid programme is about poverty alleviation and yet it is constantly diverted for other purposes. Is this not the time to bring a strategic statement about the aid programme to the House so that we can all examine it, debate it, and, as far as possible, put ourselves wholeheartedly behind what she is trying to do?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very tempting on this issue, but I am not one who gives into temptation very easily, as he knows. Four years ago we were concentrating about 62 per cent. of our resources on the poorest. That has now increased to over 70 per cent. of our resources. I believe it is right to concentrate the aid on helping those most in need. That was a recommendation by the fundamental expenditure review, which we accepted as Ministers. That is being implemented.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the Minister giving priority to the poorest countries within the former Soviet Union? The image of what is meant is sometimes distorted. I am thinking in particular of Kyrgyzstan and the countries in central Asia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we go back to what I said at the beginning. We must give aid where it can be used effectively. It is not yet particularly easy to target some of those countries. Where we do, it is frequently achieved through the excellent NGOs, thereby alleviating pockets of poverty in those countries.

Research Councils: Director General
2.57 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present terms of reference of the Director General of the Research Councils and with the way in which the post has been functioning, and whether they propose to appoint an advisory expert group, as envisaged in the 1993 science White Paper.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, yes, very satisfied. With the benefit of experience, we do not propose to appoint a standing group of independent experts as envisaged in the 1993 White Paper, Realising our potential.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that, under the long-hallowed Haldane principle, policy decisions of research councils and the definition of priorities within their spending allocations are intended to be free of any political consideration and independent of government? Is it therefore appropriate that the post of director general should be as a civil servant within the Department of Trade and Industry? The former advisory board for the research councils was capable of giving advice upwards to government and downwards to the research councils. In the absence of such an advisory group of experts, is there not a serious risk that, as Sir Mark Richmond recently wrote:
"The Director General's appointment is likely to become dangerously monocular"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not accept that. I do not accept in any way that the present director general has done anything other than offer the best of independent advice to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and my honourable friend the Minister for Science and Technology. His role is to advise. He is a valued and respected adviser. He has to be an adviser. It is right that the power and responsibility for this matter should rest with the President of the Board of Trade. It is important to note that, where decisions have been taken on the basis of the advice that he has tendered to government, that information has been made known through the annual booklets and allocations of the science budget, the director general's own review of the science budget portfolio and the research councils' responses to the technology foresight initiative. It is clear to those interested in this field what advice is being given and the Government's response to it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that there is some real anxiety that the research councils might drift into becoming mere satellites of the DTI? Perhaps he could go a little further in explaining why what seemed a good idea in 1993
1304
(to set up an advisory group of experts) has now lost its attractions. I believe that the Government could benefit from the existence of such a body.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is not a case of the Government changing their mind now. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, may recall, when my right honourable friend Mr. William Waldegrave appeared before a Select Committee of this House as far back as July 1993, he indicated that his thinking had moved away from the establishment of such a body. The balance is between whether there should be this small expert group or whether it should be left to the director general himself to determine what advice he should receive and from what sources. It is interesting to note that, when he was preparing that review of research councils' portfolios dealing with just such matters which are of concern to my noble friend, he consulted no fewer than 300 people across the sciences of our country. The advice he received has benefited from his own membership of the Technology Foresight Steering Group.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was privileged to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and heard Mr. Waldegrave give evidence? Is he further aware that it became clear that, by comparison with our competitors in the international field, we were doing poorly? Is that still the position and, if so, when will it be reversed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we debated the matter in May when I set out a number of figures and details which seemed to me to indicate that we were doing well in research. However, the noble Lord's question is some way away from the issue of whether the director general should be advised by a small closed group or whether, as this director general has determined, he should take his advice from a broader range of sources. I believe that, if that is what he has chosen to do, he should be encouraged to do what is most appropriate as he sees it. He is certainly acting independently and is publishing the basis of his advice.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is this not typical of the muddle that arises when moving the directorship away from the Cabinet Office to the Board of Trade? What has the Board of Trade got to do with medical research?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, the decision was not taken recently. It was taken by Mr. William Waldegrave in 1993 when he had responsibility for the matter. It is not a decision which flows from the move to the Department of Trade and Industry. I have no doubt that the responsibility is appropriately placed within that department. I do not wish to rake over cold ashes, but I am sure that the noble Earl will recall that Bill Stewart, who was then Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, made it clear in an extended article to the press that he saw nothing disadvantageous about the move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that the mere fact that his right honourable friend took a view in 1993 does not make that correct either then or now? However, we may reflect on that.
We are puzzled by one issue and would like the Minister to clarify it. Why are the two possibilities regarded as incompatible? Why cannot the director general ask questions of whomever he wishes while at the same time having an advisory group, independent of government, not paid a salary by government, but simply giving objective advice? I believe that the Government originally thought that proposal to be sensible. Is it not the case that the two are compatible? I understand that the scientific community would very much welcome the existence of a small independent body and I am not at all clear about the reason for setting one's face against it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not trying to indicate that, because my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave took that view almost three years ago, it is the only basis for it. We have looked to see how the director general has proceeded and in our view he has done extremely well. As Mr. Waldegrave's successor said:
"He has created not an inner circle but an open circle into which people from right across industry and the science base have been able to feed their views".
Our view in 1996 is that that is a valid assessment of the way in which the director general has taken up and followed through his responsibilities.

Railway Heritage Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Deregulation (Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is the first to be made by my department under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It makes two changes to existing legislation. It abolishes the requirements for television dealers to register with the BBC and for them to hold and pay a fee for a dealer demonstration licence. Necessary protection for the television licensing system is maintained by retaining the requirement for dealers to notify all sales and rentals to the BBC. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has reported that the order meets the requirements of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.6 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 9 [Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave out subsection (1) from Clause 9. The effect of that subsection, as amended by the Government yesterday, is to provide that anyone in the UK who is subject to immigration control shall not be eligible for any local authority tenancy. We deal here with local authority tenancies, not with the more general homelessness responsibilities on which the House has already voted.
A person is not allowed local authority housing unless he is of a class specified by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has not yet specified any classes. We do not know when the Secretary of State will specify any classes or, indeed, whether he is going to do so. Therefore, it becomes vital to ask what the commencement date of the clause will be. If it has a commencement date before the statutory instrument is published, we shall have a much wider restriction than the House at earlier stages of the Bill believed to be the case. If the provision does not come into effect until after the publication of the statutory instrument specifying which classes the Secretary of State intends to exclude, the Bill will come near to leap-frogging the Housing Bill, which repeals this clause altogether and is about to begin its Report stage in your Lordships' House.
It is rather unusual to have a clause in a Bill repealed by another Bill that is already progressing through the second House. I believe the reason for that was to

1307
provide help as regards the anomalous situation in which local authorities find themselves, created by the rather unplanned nature of the Government's timing. By stopping housing benefit without stopping local authority obligations to house, the Government place a considerable and unforeseen financial burden on local authorities. That is not a particularly well-planned piece of legislative timing.
There have been negotiations between the Government and local authority associations for government help to local authorities, but that appears to have been going wrong. I wish to ask the Minister, first, whether any progress has been made on those negotiations and, secondly, whether any local authority has yet received one penny under those arrangements. Of course, the burden of handling asylum seekers who are homeless falls particularly on a very limited number of London local authorities and the burden on them is very severe.
In this Chamber I have referred already to a letter which I have received from the Director of Housing and Social Services for the London Borough of Sutton. He tells me that the 5 per cent. threshold which local authority spending must cross before it becomes eligible for any help is 5 per cent. of the total standard spending assessment for social services as a whole. That is not a fence; it is a Himalaya which no local authority can jump.
He tells me also that help under the Children Act is not being allowed to be extended to the families in order to keep them together. In other words, it will lead to children being taken into care, which will of course immensely multiply the cost to taxpayers, of whom I remind the Minister I am one.
Also, when families break up, as they sadly do under stress, the obligation to help is extended to only the one member of the family who has made the claim. That falls particularly severely on women who have been victims of domestic violence who leave their violent partners and find that they are deprived of any help whatever. Those are the technical points.
But the issues in this clause go a great deal wider than that. Under Article 21 of the UN convention on refugees it is provided that, as regards housing, the contracting states shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. I cannot see how the Government's action can in any way be brought within the scope of that article. In passing, I must once again remind the House that that convention is incorporated by Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 so that that is something of which British law may take notice.
I believe that this is yet another case in which the Government are in breach of their international obligations. It is also another instance in which we have a recent Court of Appeal judgment. That Court of Appeal judgment would be plainly repealed by the passage of this clause. Therefore, the first legal point which arises is that it seems that local authorities anticipated the commencement of this Act.
This is becoming a sadly familiar story. I believe that it is part of the increasing ignorance of parliamentary form which is sadly common in the country as a whole. Will the Government issue guidance to make it plain that Acts of Parliament do not come into force until they have had three Readings in both Houses and have received Royal Assent? I hope that that is at least one matter on which we all agree.
Again in relation to the case heard in the Court of Appeal on 25th June, the issue was in effect one of destitution. The Department of the Environment commenting on the case in the Guardian misled the Guardian reporter, no doubt inadvertently. The Department of the Environment complained that financial need by itself had been found to be a criterion of vulnerability. It has not. Lord Justice Neill spelt that out in words of one syllable. At page 22 of the judgment—and this is the one judge in the other case who judged with the Government—he said:
"I can take the circumstances of Miss Araya as an example. She has no capital. She has no income. She is prohibited from obtaining employment and therefore has no opportunity of earning any money. She has no family or friends in this country … she has no knowledge of the English language. Apart from any emergency accommodation which has been made available to her, she is homeless".
Therefore, the priority need consists not merely of a lack of money but of a combination of a lack of money with the sheer impossibility of rectifying that situation. If that is not priority need, I do not know what is.
That situation has been putting a great burden on innumerable voluntary organisations of many kinds which have been struggling to cope with the chaos that has been created. In that context, I must join with what my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said yesterday about how much we owe to the role of the churches. They have been taking in people in church halls and keeping them out of the rain and frost when perhaps otherwise they would have died. It is a matter of profound gratitude that the Church has not passed by on the other side.
But the overcrowding has been gross. There have been cases of five people having to share one blanket. The churches need their halls, especially at weekends. We cannot expect the churches to do without them for ever. Families and communities again have been trying to take their share of the burden. In one case, a Sudanese women gave refuge to 20 people in her small flat. You cannot go on with that for ever.
I can think of no category of people to whom I have less sense of obligation than I have to convicted terrorists. But we would not treat convicted terrorists like that. We feed them and give them shelter. I do not think that any noble Lord would propose to change that.
I do not see how we can continue to treat people in that way. I believe that it is something that no civilised country should tolerate. Even if the claimants were bogus, no civilised country should tolerate that treatment; but many of them are not bogus. What must they think of this country? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I certainly had a feeling of déjà vu when I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List because it has been considered already in Committee and on Report. I do not have a great deal that is new to say although I congratulate the noble Earl on finding something new to say by the simple expedient of not actually speaking directly to the amendment. The amendment removes a subsection of the clause which says that long-term council housing will not be available for asylum seekers, but the noble Earl strayed into the rest of the clause and discussed points on homelessness. However, in a spirit of good humour and good relations, I shall attempt to answer the points which he raised, but I shall not do so at great length because I should then be going very wide of the amendment.
As regards the amendment itself, social housing, council housing and so on is a very valuable asset. As I have told your Lordships before, when people acquire the tenancy of a council house, they gain housing for life. They can stay in it for as long as they wish and they acquire succession rights whereby they can pass on the tenancy to a close relative. They obtain certain rights of assignment. They can exchange that property for a property acquired by another tenant elsewhere and, of course, they acquire the right to buy.
We are concerned that such housing should go to those with a clearly establishe long-term need—people who have the right to remain indefinitely in this country. Those are the groups of people to whom we propose to give entitlement under the homelessness legislation. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that those are the classes of persons who will be eligible to be considered on the housing list along with all the other British citizens.
Such groups will be refugees; in other words, those who have been granted refugee status. I should point out to the House that seven out of 100 applicants for asylum actually fall into that category. Persons granted exceptional leave to remain will also be in those groups and, similarly, the figure in that respect is 16 out of every 100. Finally, the other group of persons, quite aside from asylum seekers, are those with indefinite leave to remain. Under the Immigration Rules, those people will actually be allowed to apply for and obtain long-term council housing.
I am sure that all noble Lords are in complete agreement that those people ought to be treated in the way that I have just suggested. However, the question remains: should people whose needs are at present quite clearly only temporary be given access to long-term social housing? I do not believe that they should until their claim has been established. I should remind your Lordships that only a tiny minority of such claims are established. I do not believe that they should be given access to council housing, which is what the noble Earl's amendment would do. It would give people whose right to be here is still very much in question that entitlement. Indeed, if one looks at the statistics, one certainly sees that the majority will eventually be found to have no right to be here. The noble Earl's amendment would give all those people the right to join the list for long-term housing.
1310
We do not believe that housing created with taxpayers' money ought to be used in that way. There are plenty of people, especially in those areas of the country where asylum seekers turn up in large numbers, who are looking for long-term social housing—British citizens and indeed the other categories of immigrants that I have mentioned. Therefore, we believe that social housing ought to be kept for those groups of people; namely, British citizens and the immigrants who have been recognised as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain. That is my defence for the subsection. The noble Earl seeks to strike it out of the legislation but, to be honest, he did not really argue on that basis. He talked about other parts of the clause which deal with homelessness.
I turn now the noble Earl's questions. He said that he did not know when the Secretary of State would specify the classes of people. I should point out to the noble Earl that we shall certainly not commence the provisions in the clause until the order is in place, which will be about three weeks later. The Bill will not leap-frog the Housing Bill, which will not be commenced until well into the autumn; whereas, as long as Parliament is willing and the other place does whatever it has to do as regards the amendments which your Lordships have proposed to the Bill, we hope to put the legislation now before the House into effect as soon as possible. As I said, there will be no leap-frogging.
As far as concerns negotiations with local authorities, with the Court of Appeal decision there is no need for grant on homelessness costs because, as I indicated previously, those people who were denied benefit from February, and those who did not apply but can show that they would have done so if the rules had not been changed by this House and the other place, will be eligible for housing benefit again. Therefore, the question of homelessness costs would not arise. However, we still intend to pay grant in respect of costs under the Children Act. We shall be laying a special grant report about that in the autumn.
I turn now to the matter of the threshold. I believe that I have answered the question before. Such thresholds are normal in many grant regimes. Indeed, this grant follows many of the principles of the Bellwin formula grant regime. It seems to me that it is only right and proper for there to be some incentive for local authorities to be prudent with public money. If they received a 100 per cent. grant, there would be no real incentive for them to be careful with public money. Therefore, we believe that it is important to have thresholds in this respect, as we do with many other grants.
As regards the duty to take children into care, I should point out to the House that there is no duty as such. However, a local authority has the option of supporting a whole family in a house. It is within the local authority's discretion to do so, if it feels that that is the best way to honour its obligations under the Children Act.
There is also the question of local authorities not knowing how Parliament works. Perhaps professors of history—dare I say it?—should spend a little more time with their students trying to explain to them how Parliament works so that those who eventually become journalists, for example, will at least have a working

1311
knowledge of it and will therefore be able to inform the public. I do not believe that local authorities anticipating parliamentary decisions is an issue that falls under housing allocation. The Department of the Environment is currently considering whether the definition of "priority need" should be reviewed in the light of the second Appeal Court decision. I refer to the decision made last week rather than the one of Friday 21st June. However, I do not wish to say anything further in that respect because I understand that the authorities are still considering whether to appeal to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
I return now to the amendment before us. I believe that I have made my case on a number of occasions. Long-term social housing should go to people with a long-term and established right to remain in this country. With that explanation, and bearing in mind that I have answered some of his questions which do not actually relate to the amendment, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that he has a sense of déjà vu: so do we. I believe that the Minister failed to appreciate one of the logical links in my argument which I did not spell out because I thought that it would be generally understood. When I see large numbers of people who are homeless, I see only one effective route out of that situation; but I see that route being blocked up. I want to open the block. That is why evidence of homelessness is relevant to need for local authority housing. I do not see the logical flaw in that. I grant that the purpose of the amendment has been debated before, but it has not been debated in the light of the present state of the Bill, which has become a great deal tighter as a result of amendments passed yesterday.
As for local authority housing going to asylum seekers, as I understand it, their chances in that respect are a great deal less than their chances of obtaining asylum status. In his comparison, the Minister was trying to draw too firm a series of absolute antitheses. Any ordinary person obtaining local authority housing may lose his job, get on his bike, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and go to look for work at the other end of the country. That has happened and people have occasionally had to do so. That person may move in consequence of a bereavement or a family tragedy. One must not assume that people always stay in the same place. The permanence is a lot less absolute than has been suggested by the Minister.
I do not see why the Minister is quite so worried about housing being given to people who might not be allowed to remain in this country. I say that because, if their claim is finally found after appeal to be without foundation, the Government have the right to deport them. The Minister sounded as if he were telling me that the Government are incapable of exercising that right efficiently. That may be a misapprehension; but, in that case, it is a misapprehension that the Minister risked creating.
1312
There is also the question of priorities. The Minister makes a point which I hear. But I make a point about gross physical hardship, both to asylum seekers and to those who are helping to support them, which I believe to have priority. I cannot see why the Minister does not recognise my point. The Minister is unwise to invoke the Bellwin scheme. When I first arrived in this House, I was enlisted by people from my local authority to help obtain assistance under that scheme for storm damage caused in the great gales of 1987. It was practically impossible to find any damage severe enough to come under the Bellwin scheme.
As this is the last time that we can argue the point, and as I seem to have entirely failed to persuade the Minister by any other means, I must test the opinion of the House.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Avebury, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mar.C.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clancarty, E.

Melhuen. L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea,L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra,L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Glenamara, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Grey.E.

Scanlon, L.

Habgood, L.

Sefton of Garston. L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Hayman, B.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham,B.

Shepherd, L.

Hooson, L.

Stallard, L.

Howell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Varley, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

1313

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison. V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hertford, M,

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hothfield, L.

Ashboume, L.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Attlee, E.

Ilchester, E.

Balfour. E.

Inglewood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ironside, L.

Birdwood, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blaker. L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch. B.

Kintore,E.

Boardman, L.

Knollys, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bradford. E.

Lauderdale, E.

Brentford, V.

Lindsay, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Liverpool, E.

Bridges. L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McConnell.L.

Broughshane, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Butterworth. L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Caldecote, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Campbell of Croy, L.

Manton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Marlesford, L.

Camcgy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carrington, L.

Mersey, V.

Cayzer. L.

Middleton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton. L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Chorlcy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clark of Kempston. L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown. E.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Munster, E.

Crathome, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Crickhowell. L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cromer, E.

Palmer. L.

Cuckney, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham. L.

Rawlings. B.

Demton of Wakefield, B.

Rees, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Renton, L.

Downshire. M.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth.L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Ferrers. E.

Seccombe, B.

Finsberg. L.

Sharples, B.

Flather,.

Shaughnessy, L.

Forbes. L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Slim, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strafford, E.

Geddes. L.

Strange. B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sudeley. L.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tebbit, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teynham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

1314

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Weatherill, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wharton, B.

Vivian, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Wynford, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.39 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has applied to a housing authority as a homeless person either—

(a) before the date of commencement of an order made under this section; or

(b) before becoming an immigrant of a class specified by the Secretary of State by an order made under this section.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 concerns the issue of retroactivity. It is, I think, common ground that this House does not like retroactive legislation. It passes it in extreme circumstances but the case for retroactivity on each occasion has to be made out with considerable care. The point of the amendment is to deal with people who had already claimed asylum before the legislation came into effect; or, at the material time of commencement were not immigrants of a class specified by the Secretary of State.
We cannot spell out what that means until we have some idea what classes the Secretary of State will specify. However, I understand that the vires will allow the Secretary of State to specify any classes he might choose. Therefore, in both those cases we think that people should not be affected by the clause unless they came into the country and claimed asylum after the commencement of the Act.
We have had an argument about the deterrent effect of the withdrawal of benefits and housing assistance. The Minister advanced the argument again yesterday. However, if deterrence is to have any logical meaning, it can apply only to deter acts committed after the commencement of the legislation; otherwise it is a complete nonsense. I hope to hear a reassuring answer. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this surely is not retrospective legislation as ordinarily understood. Clause 9(1) does not confer any right to a priority for long-term housing. It confers merely a facility. That facility does not square with the amendment. The amendment does not bite on a facility; it bites merely on an entitlement which does not exist.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the amendment we are considering again what happens to people who are subject to immigration control as regards homelessness legislation. We are being asked to consider two cases. First, there are people who sought assistance under the homelessness legislation before Clause 9(2) of the Bill had effect, and who then find that they are outside the scope of an order continuing

1315
their entitlement under the homelessness legislation. We are also asked to consider the case of people who initially have entitlement under the homelessness legislation but who subsequently lose that entitlement when their immigration status changes.
I wish to make the Government's position absolutely clear on these points. We intend to align entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit. For so long as someone is entitled to housing benefit by virtue of his immigration status—for example, by being a person who sought asylum at the time he arrived in this country—or, if he retains an entitlement to benefit as part of the transitional package associated with the benefit changes that will flow from what is now Clause 11 of the Bill, he will retain entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation. That is what an order under Clause 9(2) will provide for.
If your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 5, it will mean that persons from abroad who are here on limited leave—such as visitors and overseas students, who have not been entitled to social security benefits since 1994—would continue to be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation, and the entire cost of meeting that obligation would fall on the housing authority.
Your Lordships will be aware of the immense burden that this could impose on the few housing authorities which would receive most of those cases. It was in recognition of just that problem that we have been proposing to make a special grant available to local authorities to meet a substantial part of the cost to them that would have followed from the early withdrawal of housing benefit in February. That is no longer necessary. But it remains important that we are able to make the scope of the homelessness legislation consistent with the rules on housing benefit.
At Report stage the noble Earl argued that the provision was retrospective and would unduly affect people who entered the country before these provisions were in force and with no expectation that they would be introduced. In other words, they were relying on the safety net of the homelessness legislation. The Government have for many years had a clear policy that visitors and other persons who are given limited leave to remain enter the country on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds. We are back to this difficult problem—it appears difficult for some people to grasp. People who apply in country have said when they enter this country that they are coming here for business reasons, to visit, study, or whatever it may be, and that they will have no recourse to public funds. That is the condition on which they are granted entry.
What the noble Earl says confirms what I have been telling your Lordships all along during discussion of the Bill; namely, that those people are saying one thing to the immigration authorities but mean something entirely different. They come here because they see the availability of these benefits. One of the benefits they see is that if they come into a category that falls within the homelessness legislation the local authority will help them to gain housing—albeit short term—in this country. Therefore we are doing no more than ensuring
1316
that the conditions of entry to which such people agreed when they walked into this country are observed in practice.
The noble Earl also raised the question of what happens to someone being accommodated under the homelessness legislation when his entitlement ceases as a result of an adverse decision on his application for asylum. The answer is that his entitlement under the homelessness legislation, as I have said before, will match his entitlement under social security benefits. They will cease at the same time. If that person wishes to remain in this country pending the outcome of an appeal—I need not remind your Lordships that only three out of every 100 appeals actually succeeds—it is for him to make his own arrangements for his continuing financial support; or, as many of them do, he may look to his own ethnic community for assistance.
The policy here has two related strands. It is not just a matter of ensuring that those people who enter this country on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds do not receive benefit. It is equally to ensure that local housing authorities are not faced with further additional costs.
I am not sure whether the noble Earl wishes to pursue the matter to a vote. I hope that he will not, but will withdraw the amendment. However, if he does not do so, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he clarify one vital point on which I hope that I have understood him accurately? Am I to understand that the alignment with housing benefit means that those who have entered the country and claimed asylum before 5th February will not be subject to this clause?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, those who entered this country and claimed asylum before 5th February are protected by the transitional arrangements which we agreed. If they claimed asylum properly, until the next decision is made they will continue to receive housing benefit and to be subject to the homelessness legislation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. That was the principal point that I wished to elicit from him. I am extremely glad to hear him say it.
Perhaps I may say cursorily to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that one can have an entitlement to a facility. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place to hear me say it, but if he wishes to apply for a facility to which he is not entitled he will soon discover the distinction.
On the point which the Minister has made repeatedly about public funds, one must see an asylum seeker entering the country as being in a position which is very much analogous to being under duress. I have already drawn the parallel and I make no apology for reiterating it, since the Minister repeated the point to which it was a reply. If one were to have a severe climbing accident and were asked, before being rescued, to undertake to

1317
pay the six-figure cost of the rescue, one might legitimately argue that the promise had been extracted under duress.
I shall not again quote Article 31.1 of the UN Convention. I believe that the Government are in breach of it, but I shall not pursue the point now and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Entitlement to child benefit]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Saving for social security regulations]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply to a person whose claim for asylum has not been determined by the Secretary of State within three months of the date on which it was made.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment stands in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It proposes that if a claim for asylum status is not determined within three months, the claimant should be entitled to benefit. That would locate responsibility firmly where it should lie: that is, with the Government for having failed to determine the claim within three months. At the moment, there is a financial incentive for the Government to be inefficient, to delay determination in order to avoid paying benefit. That is bad public policy. What is worse is that it means that some of the most vulnerable and destitute people are starved out of their right to pursue their claim because they have no means of subsistence. Why should those seeking asylum be penalised because our systems are inefficient?
At the moment, it takes 19 months from the initial receipt of a claim to its determination. We still have unresolved claims going back to 1991. I believe that the figures are: 15 per cent. in 1991, 15 per cent. in 1992, 25 per cent. in 1993 and 25 per cent. in 1994. Over 10,000 asylum seekers, as at last February, have been waiting since 1991 for their claims to be determined. The current backlog which was 46,000 in 1993 is now nearly 68,000 and is rising by 2,000 a month.
The Government will presumably say what they said last night; that is, that many extra staff are being employed but that they are "being swamped by a rising tide" and such suitable metaphors. What one normally does with a moored boat on a rising tide is to loosen and lengthen the rope. The Government are failing to do that. As I understand it, the Government have appointed 500 additional caseworkers who heard just under 44,000 applications last year. That is a rate of 1.7 cases determined per week per caseworker. It means either that the decisions are difficult and time consuming because the claimants may well be genuine or that the competence of the staff and the Government is less than satisfactory. Such is not the case in other countries where they deal with asylum claims much more expeditiously than us.
The amendment therefore firmly locates responsibility for delays and the refusal of benefit where it belongs: with the Home Office. Asylum seekers should not be put into a prolonged state of limbo because the Government have not got round to determining their claims. Just because the Home Office cannot get its act together, that is no reason for the DSS to deprive people seeking asylum the benefit on which to survive in the meantime. It is deeply unfair to make asylum seekers the victims of Home Office dilatoriness. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I find this an interesting and intriguing amendment. The noble Baroness wishes to impose a time limit of three months on the Home Office to reach a conclusion about applications. She suggests that the Home Office has a deliberate policy of delaying because, of course, it delays the payment of benefit. That is not true because—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister give way? I did not say that the Home Office had a deliberate policy of delay. The words I used were that at the moment there is a financial incentive for the Government to be inefficient. Those are the words I used.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her argument the wrong way round. There is no financial incentive for the Government to be dilatory at the moment but there may well be potential for that accusation once my changes have been brought in because people will lose benefit after the first Home Office decision. However, at the moment the longer the decision is spun out, the longer people remain on benefit.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a ballroom dancer; if so, she may know that it takes two to tango. The delays currently in the system are put into the system by the applicants, both in their first request for asylum to be considered in the Home Office and then in subsequent appeals. The more they delay—especially the appeal stage—the longer they stay on benefit in this country. That is one of the problems which I brought to your Lordships' attention. It seems to me that the noble Baroness has gone a fair part of the way in agreeing with me, without saying so, that it is one of the major problems in the system.
The situation is made even worse and more difficult for the Home Office, as I explained yesterday, when one considers the increasing numbers of asylum applications we have seen in this country. I do not wish to go over the figures in great detail again but remind your Lordships that a decade ago the figures ran at 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 applicants per year; last year they reached a total of 55,000. That is a fair tide. The seafaring example that I gave the noble Baroness was of rowing against that tide: the harder one rows, the less chance one has of succeeding if the tide is flowing ever faster. That is what is wrong here.
We have made considerable improvements in the asylum system which I explained to your Lordships yesterday. We made 21,000 decisions in 1994, 27,000

1319
in 1995 and we are on course to make 37,000 decisions in the current year. There have also been unfortunate delays with appeal determinations largely because of the terrific increase in applicants. If we still only had 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people applying for asylum, I might well be able to accept the noble Baroness's amendment, so long as the applicants did not stall, delay and ask for adjournments and reconsiderations. However, the position is that we have managed to increase appeal determinations from 2,400 in 1994 to a projected 19,000 this year.
What I find most intriguing about the noble Baroness's amendment is that she wants the whole process to be speeded up, yet her party opposed the short procedures which the Home Office and the Government introduced and are introducing in order to carry out the speeding-up process. We introduced the short procedures so that people entering the country are interviewed quickly and their cases dealt with quickly. It is intriguing that the noble Baroness's party opposed the speeding up that would have come from the short procedure.
It is all very well to say that if a decision is not made within three months—and I presume that is for in-country applicants—then those applicants should be allowed benefit. But at the same time the noble Baroness says, "By the way, we don't like you using a short procedure and we voted against it when you tried to introduce it". We introduced the short procedure which I believe will greatly help. Of course, we are at one and agree that it is important that we make decisions quickly. It is important for the British taxpayer who, I remind noble Lords, pays out £200 million every year to people who turn out not to be justified in their claims. But it is also important for the genuine asylum seekers.
I should have thought we would all want decisions to be made as quickly as possible so that the uncertainty is removed as quickly as possible. I should like to have heard yesterday and today some positive measures which would help us to deal with the increasing numbers and to prevent that increase so that we could deal with the genuine cases quickly and not have them sitting for months wondering whether they will receive asylum.
That is not the right way to proceed. The right way is the direction that we are taking. The figures I gave yesterday, when noble Lords were kind enough to ask me what had happened since we made the changes in February, indicated that by May there had been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of asylum seekers. If that kind of trend continues and we can bring the figures down so that they are much more in line with the numbers seeking asylum from our fellow Europeans, we shall be able to do what the noble Baroness wants us to do and deal with asylum applications very quickly. The measures I have proposed will do that. I really do not need an amendment from the noble Baroness stipulating three months when I have had her opposition to every other part of my department's policy and the policy of the department of my noble friend Lady Blatch in order to deal with the increasing number of asylum applicants in this country.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. This is the usual process that we see throughout Tory social security legislation: when in doubt, finger the victims; it is all their fault for seeking benefits; if only they were clued in enough conveniently not to seek benefits, we should not have to deal with them and there would not be delays. That is a pretty story. We get it in relation to JSA, child support, child benefit issues, and now in relation to asylum seekers. It is their fault for seeking benefit; that is the reason for delays at the Home Office and why we cannot get money for them. They cannot have benefits because they are being foolish enough to ask for them. The very act of asking for benefits disqualifies them.
It is a classic Tory government argument. We have heard it time and again in relation to social security. If people are unemployed, it is their fault for not finding a job; if people are destitute, it is their fault for not being self-supporting; if people are not receiving support from a partner, it is their fault for not naming him, even though they may be frightened of doing so. It represents a constant fingering of the victim. That is all we have heard from the Minister today.
If the Government were right, if they were so overwhelmed by delays that have grown in the past 18 months, as they have tried to suggest with all the images of poor little rowing boats against enormous tides that we are getting yet again—you would think the speechwriters could find new metaphors, having used boats and tides for the last three sessions running; there are other metaphors in the repertoire, I assure the Minister—if the Minister were right in his argument that these problems have occurred only recently and there are huge increases in the figures, why then are 10,000 people still waiting from 1991? Why then are similar numbers still waiting from 1992? Why are similar numbers still waiting from 1993, if the tide of immigrants that is swamping us has come so recently and so rapidly that only now we cannot cope?
I have the figures in front of me. Applications in 1990 were 26,000; in 1991, 44,000; in 1992, 24,000; in 1993, 22,000; in 1994, 32,000; and the figure as of February for the number of applications still outstanding was 15 per cent. for the first three years and 25 per cent. for the past two. I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I never said that it was only in 1995 that the increase occurred. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look at Table 2.5 in what I suspect is the book she is looking at. She will see that the 4,000, 5,000 and 6,000 I cited in the mid-1980s and the second part of the 1980s began to increase quite sharply in 1989 and 1990, reaching 73,000 in 1991. That is the problem. It is not just that the numbers of applications increased in a jump to 1995; the increase started in 1989 and took off in a very big

1321
way in 1991. Thankfully, the numbers fell back a little, but they have begun to increase again. I commend Table 2.5 relating to applications.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case the Government have had five years to deal with this rising tide and have failed to do so. In other words, instead of what we were told yesterday about extra case workers and so on, as though this were a recent phenomenon, and since other countries tightened up we have been swamped, the Minister now concedes that it is a situation to which we have been trying to respond for the past five years. The problem continues to worsen and the Government have failed, not over one or two years, but over five years to deal with a problem in which the number of applications outpaces the resources that the Government are willing to apply to resolve it. Therefore, the Government are simply seeking to deny people benefit in order to deny them the ability to sustain their claim. That is the consequence.
We cannot have it both ways. Either this is a recent tide, in which case why were the earlier applications taking so long to resolve; or it has been a longstanding tide, in which case why have the Government been so inefficient in responding to it? Which of those two situations do the Government prefer as an accurate description? Either way, the asylum seeker is the victim, either of the Government's dilatoriness or incompetence or of their refusal to take the need seriously.
The Minister made a point about the Opposition Benches voting against the short procedure. As I understand it, although I was not personally involved in that debate, we voted against the short procedure because it was unjust. We did not, I understand, vote against the whole clause. Therefore the Minister is wrong to attribute to these Benches opposition or hostility to speeding up procedures. Speeding up those procedures cannot and must not be at the expense of the fair assessment of claims.
At the end of the day we see the Government doing what they always do—blaming the asylum seeker for seeking benefit and seeing that as the source of the problem. There are other amendments that we shall wish to explore at even greater length. Were that not the case, I should seek the opinion of the House. However, at this stage I shall not do so.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I might assist the noble Baroness. I have obtained some figures on applications for asylum per million of population in 1995. The source is the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in a Written Answer: the United Kingdom, 1,000; France, 400; the Netherlands, 1,900; and Germany, 2,100. Does the noble Baroness agree that those figures call for the Minister to think again?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very grateful for that contribution. I encourage the Minister to comment on those figures.
So not only are we tardy, dilatory and ineffient, but we are far more so on all three counts than are our European neighbours, for which the noble Earl, Lord
1322
Russell, contributed the figures. I hope that the Minister is not as complacent about such dilatoriness when it costs people their basic means of subsistence as he is in other areas of social security where fraud, error, over-payment and under-payment continue to mount. However, as I said, there are other issues that we shall wish to explore. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where the evidence adduced in support of the claim establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he would be sent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the last few minutes of debate on the previous amendment. It showed, as we have attempted to show all through our consideration of the Bill, that the fundamental objection to the short procedure, the certification provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill, is not that it is wrong to speed up applications or appeals—of course it is desirable to speed up applications and appeals; it is desirable to have enough people to do that—but that it is unjust. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
"the more accelerated a procedure, the higher the risk that an erroneous decision will be made".
The research project that was commissioned by the Refugee Council on these procedures confirmed that,
"Many genuine refugees will not be identifiable as a result".
These are the dangers of injustice to which we have pointed at all stages of the Bill.
Amendment No. 9 uses the wording that the Government themselves, under pressure, inserted in Clause 1 to seek to extend the protection provided by subsection (5) of Clause 1 to victims of torture to those who would now be denied benefits under Clause 11, the new clause introduced yesterday.
Those noble Lords who voted by such a large majority to protect the victims of torture from the risks of an accelerated procedure under Clause I should, I suggest, be even more keen to ensure that those victims of torture are not put in a position of destitution as a result of the provisions of Clause 11 of the Bill, ruled so recently by the Court of Appeal to be illegal.
The Government cannot object to the wording of the amendment because it is their wording; it is the wording they persuaded the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and his colleagues was an appropriate alternative to the wording which had been carried by a large majority in Committee on the Bill. We are not entirely happy with the wording. We still think that the risk of torture in a country or territory to which a person would be sent misses the point we were seeking to achieve which is torture in the country he came from, which may not always be the same. But we have, I think the House will agree, played safe and made sure that we are free of criticism by using the wording which the Government themselves have devised.
The principle, however, is very clear. The principle must surely be that if we are concerned with victims of torture, since we have agreed, as the Government have now agreed, that they should be protected from the risks of an accelerated procedure under Clause 1, how much more so do we need to be satisfied that they are not punished under Clause 11 of the Bill by the denial of benefits and by the threat of destitution? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, all sides of the House agree that torture is utterly repugnant. My noble friend Lady Blatch acknowledged that the will of the House expressed in Committee was that there should be a safeguard on the face of the Bill to exempt genuine victims of torture from the special appeals procedure. My noble friend brought forward amendments at Report stage to give effect to the will of the House but to reduce the scope for exploitation of the asylum system by people who would seek to circumvent our procedures by claiming to be victims of torture.
I accept that the amendment now before the House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, uses a similar form of words to the torture exemption in Clause 1. But it does not follow that what is appropriate in the context of Clause 1 is appropriate in the context of benefit entitlement. The amendment cannot and does not purport to apply to torture victims until a decision is made on their asylum application. It is not possible to establish whether there is a reasonable likelihood that someone has suffered torture until their claim has been assessed. The amendment is therefore only concerned with torture victims who have been refused asylum and are appealing against that decision.
If the Home Office, in assessing an asylum claim, finds there is a reasonable likelihood that the applicant has been tortured, then in the great majority of cases it will, of course, grant asylum or exceptional leave to remain. It may be that an applicant has been tortured on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. In that case he would almost certainly be recognised as a refugee. A person who has been tortured but does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the 1951 convention would normally be granted exceptional leave to remain.
If the applicant is granted asylum or exceptional leave, he will from that point on be entitled to benefits on the same basis as a British national. So if an applicant can demonstrate at the initial decision stage that there is a reasonable likelihood that he has been tortured, then in the great majority of cases he will receive benefit. The amendment, of course, does nothing to help this particular group.
If the applicant cannot adduce evidence which establishes a reasonable likelihood that he has been tortured, the amendment does not assist him. It would not confer benefit entitlement on an appellant unless he had succeeded in demonstrating there was a reasonable likelihood that he had been tortured. So the amendment would genuinely assist only the small group of people who can demonstrate at the initial decision stage that
1324
there is a reasonable likelihood that they have been tortured but who are nevertheless refused asylum and exceptional leave.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall only detain him for a moment. Last night one of the issues we discussed at some length with his noble friend Lady Blatch was how one established that one had been tortured and whether there would be time, for example, to obtain adequate medical evidence to show one way or the other. Part of the purpose of the amendment, which I strongly support, is to try to ensure that such an applicant, in what might be a period extending to a couple of weeks—beyond the original three days—would be sustained while he was obtaining the evidence to show his case one way or the other. The noble Lord will appreciate that obtaining evidence in three days is almost impossible.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what that intervention means. If someone applies at the port of entry for asylum and the grounds are that they have been tortured, then, as noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, told us in the last amendment, it will be some months before their case comes to be decided. I would have thought that there is more than enough time for them to obtain any necessary medical evidence in order to substantiate the claim they made on arrival. Without prejudging what I shall do about it, even if someone applies for asylum within the three days that your Lordships imposed on my amendment yesterday, then that person will be eligible for benefit up until the point at which the Home Office makes a decision. So I do not understand the noble Baroness's problem. I do not understand it in the context of what I would like the law to be, namely, on arrival, and I do not even understand it in the context of the change made by the Opposition that it is on arrival or plus three days. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that such a person will only have three days to find the medical evidence. Once they apply for asylum they will have that amount of time between that day and the time that their case is examined to put together the medical evidence.
There may be some people, as I was saying, who are refused asylum or exceptional leave, but there will always be good reason for that. It may be, for example, that there are changed circumstances in their country of origin and that, indeed, the party they support has come to power. Now, if you have come to this country and said, "I am being persecuted because 'x' party is in power and they don't like my party" and subsequently 'x' party loses power and your party wins, it does not seem to me that you can actually continue to pursue your asylum application.
I have to let the House into what I was going to say is a small secret but it is not actually a secret. Perhaps I can tell your Lordships there are some applicants from Pakistan who find themselves in exactly that position. I find it interesting to know how you can continue to say that you may be persecuted for your political beliefs

1325
if your party has actually gained power over the opposition, and that in a free election too in the country I have just given as an example—not that I think there would be any examples of torture from Pakistan. However, I instance it as a case where people continue their asylum application after their own party has gained power.
There could be an increased incentive to make allegations of torture in an attempt to gain access to the benefit system. That is another build-in of delay that people can make. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said yesterday, when describing asylum applications from in-country applicants, that it was the trump card in their back pocket that they played after they had been here for quite a time, had used up their money, and said, "I would quite like to stay here". This proposal would give them a second trump card. They could play the trump card for asylum; they could then play another trump card and say, "Ah, but I was tortured".
I do not think that we need to put this test into the benefit system. The principal test that should be applied to asylum seekers is the test applied by the Home Office. The Home Office makes a decision. The Home Office has to consider whether the application for asylum is justified. If it is justified, then in seven out of 100 cases it grants that asylum. If there are other circumstances—there are many and they do not just include torture—and we decide to give exceptional leave to remain, we give that. I do not believe that to put a kind of second tier arrangement on the benefit system is right or sensible. It is right and proper that we leave these issues to be determined by the principal question to be answered: does this person justify being granted asylum in this country or indeed exceptional leave to remain? If the answer to those two questions is yes, for whatever reason, they can obtain access to all the benefit systems in exactly the same way as British citizens. I do not believe that it is sensible to apply another, further test to the benefit system.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will allow me, on behalf of my noble friend and myself, to offer the warmest thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I discovered this morning that Mr. Igbinidu has been allowed to stay. When my noble friend rose just now, she had not yet received that information. Now that she has, she wishes to be associated with those thanks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's speech will teach me to seek the agreement of the Government Front Bench by using their own words. In effect, by saying that this amendment will not work because it will bite too late, the Minister is saying that his own words, which the Government persuaded the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool to accept at Report stage, will also bite too late for the accelerated procedure under Clause 1. If it applies to one, it applies to the other. He cannot have the argument both ways.
1326
With this amendment, we seek, in the Government's own words, to ensure that at whatever stage an applicant produces evidence which establishes reasonable likelihood that he has been tortured, that stage will trigger the restoration of benefits. It is not necessarily the case that the person established such a claim at the very beginning of his application, and it may well be that he has been denied benefits. But at the stage when he substantiates such a claim, it is not by any means clear to me that the Government will immediately grant asylum or exceptional leave to remain.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be helpful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I should say with regard to the evidence that the effect of the amendment differs from the torture exemption in Clause 1. Under Clause 1 it is open to the adjudicator to disagree with the Home Office and decide that there is a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured. That reinstates the right of appeal to the tribunal and provides the appellant with a further opportunity to put his case.
I am not sure if we are at cross purposes. Certainly, I should not like the noble Lord to think that my noble friend Lady Blatch had not acted totally honourably in respect of the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool to which she agreed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not use the word "honour" and I do not use such words. I do not think I need respond to that part of the Minister's reply.
If there are consequential amendments which would follow to parallel the role of the adjudicator and the possibility of further consideration which exists under Clause 1, then it would be possible for the Government to introduce them as an amendment to a Lords amendment at the Commons reconsideration. We are necessarily at a very late stage of the consideration of the Bill—not because I chose to bring forward this matter late but because the Government chose to bring forward this clause late and at the very last possible minute.
I shall not apologise, given the time that we have had and at this late stage of consideration of the Bill, for overlooking the possibility that there might need to be consequential amendments. The fact of the matter is that applicants for asylum, asylum seekers, make claims of having been tortured at several possibly different stages in the course of their application. Some of those people, the more self-confident, perhaps those who have been less damaged by torture, can perfectly well make their claim of torture at a very early stage. I hope the Minister will agree that in such cases it would be grossly unjust to deny them benefit as soon as that claim had been reasonably established in the terms which the Government inserted into Clause 1(5).
But it is also not uncommon for an applicant to produce evidence of torture at later stages. Torture victims need time to talk; they need time to disclose and time to learn to live with their experience. They may not be able to think about it, let alone talk about it, before then. We know of a case dealt with by a London

1327
solicitor in which a lady did not disclose the fact that she had been raped in prison until the hearing in the Court of Appeal. Despite the allegation having been made at such a late stage, she won her appeal. So at whatever stage a well substantiated and well founded claim of torture is made, surely at that stage—it ought, of course, to be as early as possible—benefits should be restored.
Can the Minister give some indication of the protection which might exist for those who have established a claim of torture without having yet established a claim for asylum or exceptional leave to remain? Or is the Minister saying that there are no such cases?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that question, with the leave of your Lordships' House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wonder whether the two Members of the Front Benches do not realise that the House is sitting and we are not in Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond very quickly. I tried to make it perfectly clear that a claim of torture is rightly and properly to be considered at the time of the asylum application claim. That is the right and proper place. As I indicated in my intervention—I tried to keep my speech as short as I could—the concession that we have made ought to allow people who have a claim a route to reconsideration if the adjudicator thinks that that is right and disagrees with the Home Office on the basis of the evidence that he has in front of him on the claim of torture.
But I do not believe that a claim of torture—just a claim—should be sufficient to reinstate entitlement to benefit. Where applicants adduce evidence of a reasonable likelihood that torture has taken place, then the pressure point, if I may so call it, is the pressure point of changing the decision and ensuring that he obtains status as a refugee or exceptional leave. Then he obtains both. He gets refugee status or exceptional leave and the benefit. I do not think I can go much further than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly will not apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. We are dealing with this matter at this stage of the Bill, not through any wish of our own but because we are forced to do so.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was not asking for an apology. I was only asking the noble Lord to obey the rules of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my closing speech on an amendment it is perfectly legitimate for me at any stage of the Bill to seek clarification from the Minister. It is for the benefit of
1328
this House and the consideration of any individual amendment to have the facts clearly before us if they have not been established before. This is the first time that the amendment has been debated. It was not possible to debate it in Committee because of the time available yesterday. I do not in any way acknowledge that there is anything improper about the way in which I, or indeed the Minister, have conducted the debate on this amendment. The Minister has not told me, as I asked him to do, that there are no cases where somebody who, to use the words in the amendment, has established a reasonable likelihood that he has been tortured will continue without benefit until the final decision as to his refugee status or exceptional leave to remain has been resolved. There are therefore people who, having made a reasonable claim of torture, not merely on the balance of probabilities of the case but which has been established, are still going to be deprived of benefit.
I do not see how, in a civilised country, we can force people who have been tortured into destitution in the way that is proposed by the Government's amendment. I do not believe that they intended it that way but that is the effect of their new clause, and I shall seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heighain, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Ilchester, E.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd,L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carlisle, E.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clancarty, E.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick,L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Methuen, L.

Dubs, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ezra,L.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell,L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L

1329

Russell, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Straffonl, E.

Sandwich, E.

Taverne, L.

Seear.B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Tordoff, L.

Serota,B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sawel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shannon, E.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Southward, Bp.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Stallard.L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Ailsa,M.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hertford, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Holderness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hothfield, L.

Balfour, E.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birdwood, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blaker, L.

Ironside, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardman, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Bradford, E.

Kintore, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Knollys, V.

Brentford, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Leigh, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lindsay, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Caldecote, V.

McConnell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Manton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Chorley, L.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Middleton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Courtown, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norrie, L.

Downshire, M.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Finsberg, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Forbes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Geddes,L.

Rawlings, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goschen, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthom, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodney, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

1330

Seccombe, B.

Swinton, E.

Sharpies, B.

Tebbit, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Teviot, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Slim,V.

Trumpington, B.

Stewartby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wilcox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Wynford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Young, B.

[*See col. 1364.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert ("or is given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is probably a probing amendment, but it may not be—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: You cannot probe on Third Reading.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hear a comment from a sedentary position about Third Reading. We would not be in this position if the Government had not produced the clause that we are now debating fractionally over 24 hours ago. I think that this side is occasionally entitled to ask for the indulgence of the House when we are coping with what should have been a gap of four weeks between the Committee and Third Reading stages in just 24 hours. If that means that we have to ask for the indulgence of the House, I hope and expect that it will be extended to us.
I am seeking to discover the intent behind the clause and whether we are reading it correctly. As I understand it, under subsection (1) any asylum seeker of a prescribed description may be excluded from benefits. Subsection (2) then allows those asylum seekers whose claims succeed and who are then recorded as being refugees to have their benefits backdated for the period during which their claims were being determined. What is the position of those who are not awarded refugee status but who are nonetheless granted exceptional leave to remain? I take it that the Government intend that they also should receive backdated benefit. If not, will the Government explain to the House why not?
I should like to make a couple of points. First, the Minister has admitted—he has done so again today—that there is very little in practice to distinguish between the two groups: those called refugees and those who are granted exceptional leave to remain. The Minister's own description earlier was that those granted ELR had bullets flying around them whereas those granted refugee status had a bullet with their name on it. However, the Minister admitted that life was equally dangerous for both groups; that their lives were equally

1331
at risk; that they were equally entitled to asylum, and that it would be equally inhumane to return them to their country of origin.
As the Minister said just five or 10 minutes ago on the previous amendment, those granted ELR may very well have been victims of torture, but not of "torture" as defined under the convention, which would technically classify them as a refugee. The Minister made much of the point that he well accepted that victims of torture could be granted exceptional leave to remain—in other words, the distinction that is made between those granted refugee status and those granted ELR does not hold up to argument. The Minister accepted that many people might fall into one category rather than another according to whether they came from, say, Bosnia, or Somalia.
Secondly—this is a different point, I hope—at the moment anyone who is granted exceptional leave to remain is treated under the benefits system in exactly the same way as if they had been granted refugee status. Both are entitled to full benefits. I am not sure whether the Minister is listening to the argument so I repeat that at the moment anyone who is granted ELR is treated under the benefits system in exactly the same way as someone granted refugee status. Both get full benefit entitlement. Once a claim is determined and the claimant is granted either ELR or refugee status, both go on to be treated for benefit in the same way. As far as I am aware it is only in this clause, which we saw for the first time 24 hours ago, that for the first time the Government are seeking to treat those with ELR differently under the benefits system from those granted refugee status. They will grant backdated benefit to those with refugee status, but not to those with ELR, although in all other respects the two groups of applicants are treated identically. Why? It seems utterly mean and unnecessary.
We are not talking about very large sums. After all, if somebody seeking exceptional leave to remain applies at the port of entry, he will get benefit. Once a person is awarded ELR, he will get benefit. All that we are talking about is the backdating of benefit for the period during which the claim was being determined. Why draw a distinction between ELR and refugee status only in relation to backdating and nowhere else in the entire benefits system, especially when the Minister has conceded, as he did a few moments ago, that there may be very little to distinguish between the two groups of people on issues such as torture?
Thirdly, when the Government made the concession about the backdating of benefit in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment, the Minister made much of the fact that churches and charities which supported asylum seekers in the meanwhile would get their financial costs reimbursed when the benefit was backdated. The Minister said that that would encourage churches and charities to be discriminating as to whom to support. It was an invitation more or less for them to back strong cases.
The Government have subsequently accepted that ELR is a strong case. Why then are the Government willing to backdate and to refund when a bid for refugee
1332
status has succeeded, but not for ELR? If that omission is not accidental and I suspect that it is not—presumably because three times as many people come in under ELR as come with refugee status—what we have is a grudging, mean, arbitrary and unreasonable distinction on one slender point in the entire benefits system, the backdating of benefit. The Government have made a grudging concession in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment, but in this clause they are rowing back even from that concession. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness in this amendment, which corresponds to one that I tabled as a manuscript amendment yesterday but did not move because I felt that it was not fair to the House in the circumstances. I had attempted to table the amendment at 10.48 p.m. on Sunday evening by faxing it to the House. Although it had been taken off the fax machine, it did not reach the Public Bill Office until I came in at 2.30 p.m. on Monday and asked where it was. The amendment was still sitting in an in-tray in the Minute Room. It was then taken to the Public Bill Office and distributed, but it did not become available to your Lordships as Amendment No. 10A until halfway through our proceedings.
That is an illustration of the dangers of foreshortening proceedings as the Government have chosen to do. It was not simply a case of the documents relating to the government amendments not being in the Library or the Printed Paper Office when the Leader of the House said that they were, as was mentioned yesterday. The point is that the period of time within which one could study the documents and then formulate amendments was impossibly short, particularly for Back-Benchers who did not have the advantage of receiving the documents prior to their being laid in the Library and the Printed Paper Office, as did the two Front Benches.
The amendment deals with an important point. I share the opinion which has been expressed by the noble Baroness that, in practice, there is hardly anything to choose between refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. I think I am right in saying—the Minister has all the figures so perhaps he can remind us of the facts—that in the past 10 years, a period during which the Minister says that there has not been any change in the countries of origin—a matter on which we had a dispute at an earlier stage—there has been a marked shift from the awarding of refugee status towards the granting of exceptional leave to remain when there can be no possible reason in the countries of origin for that division of the asylum-seeking community into the sheep and the goats, with that large increase in the goats compared to the sheep over the 10 years that we are considering.
I am interested in certain countries, one of which is Turkey. The number of people from Turkey being successful in applications for asylum has plummeted over the past 10 years, a period when by any objective test conditions in the south-east (where most of the refugees come from) have materially worsened. However, hardly anybody from Turkey is awarded refugee status. Those who succeed in their applications

1333
are normally granted exceptional leave to remain. I believe that the same is true of Bosnia and Somalia, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness. The conditions in both countries are appalling.
The noble Baroness rightly points out that under the convention a person has to demonstrate an individual fear of persecution, whereas in many of those countries the fear is endemic among large sections of the population. However, it must apply to particular groups within the community for them to be eligible either for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. That distinction is an artificial one and there is no real difference between those in one category and those in another. It is impossible therefore to understand why the Government should deprive one group of eligibility to asylum and yet backdate benefits in full to the date of the passing of the Act for those in the other group. The division of asylum seekers into two groups is incomprehensible, illogical and immoral. I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure where the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, leads us. I believe that it would widen the criteria for refugee status. He contends that we ought to allow more people to have refugee status than the seven out of 100 that we do. I do not know how he comes to that conclusion. We apply the UN Convention test of whether or not the person before us ought to be declared a refugee. That is the test we have signed up to in the international agreement.
However, we have decided that it is too harsh simply to divide people into those who pass the test and become refugees and those who fail it. Therefore, although we are under no international obligation to do so, we have introduced exceptional leave to remain. By and large, ELR operates in respect of those countries where there is serious trouble. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, accepts that. If one has regard to the figures relating to Somalia—where I am sure all noble Lords will accept there is serious trouble—in 1995 a very large number of people were given exceptional leave to remain. They may not pass the test under the UN Convention, which is an individual fear of persecution, but there is no doubt that there is such bedlam going on in such countries that it is humane and decent for us to give them exceptional leave to remain. Somalia is one such country; former Yugoslavia has been another. However, people are beginning to return to Bosnia. They have been given exceptional leave to remain in this country. We hope that the situation has changed sufficiently for them to be able to return, if not to their own villages, certainly to their homeland. The other country in that category last year was Afghanistan. Those three countries accounted for the great majority of the exceptional leave to remain category. That category is quite different from refugees.
We do not believe that we are under an obligation to treat both categories in the same way. Refugees are accorded specific rights under the UN Convention and we ensure, as we should, that those rights can be exercised. For that reason, refugees automatically
1334
receive benefits. Having read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, we concluded that we should backdate refugees' benefits to the point when they first claimed, if they were in-country applicants and did not initially receive benefits.
The granting of exceptional leave to remain is quite different from the grant of refugee status. It is a discretionary concession made by the United Kingdom Government over and above our obligations under the UN Convention. It is intended to address circumstances not covered by the convention in respect of which some discretion ought to be exercised. The right to remain, which exceptional leave gives, is not identical to that given to refugees. ELR is granted for one year in the first instance. It may then be renewed for a further two periods of three years. That provides a total of seven years on three renewals before settlement is considered.
An individual must pass three reviews at one year, four years and seven years before he or she can be considered for settlement. Refugee status is awarded for four years. At the end of that period settlement can be applied for. I do not believe that the two can be equated. The award of exceptional leave is made at the point when the person is refused asylum. When the individual has been refused asylum we then look at the case. It is established, first, that the individual does not meet the criteria set out in the UN Convention and therefore is not, as claimed, a refugee. Consideration is then given to whether or not the individual should return to his or her own country.
I have explained why we decided that refugees who appeal should be treated in the same way as our own citizens and benefit should be backdated for those who succeed. But when individuals who have been given exceptional leave to remain appeal—as some do because they want refugee status—or those who have been denied both ELR and refugee status appeal, they do so against the decision not to grant refugee status, not against the decision to refuse ELR. The critical matter is the refugee test. If at the end of the appeal system they are not found to be refugees, as happens in 97 cases out of 100, we do not see any case for retrospective payment of benefit. If the case is then sent back to the Home Office because the adjudicator believes that perhaps the department ought to look at the matter again, the Home Office may decide to exercise its powers and grant ELR. Grant of exceptional leave to remain ensures that a person can stay in the UK. We give them access to benefit at the same rate that applies to UK citizens, but it does not make them refugees.
I believe that this amendment pushes the concession that I have made a bit too far. The amendment would equate refugee status with exceptional leave to remain. I do not believe that the two can be equated. The consideration by the Home Office and the appeal process are based on the test of refugee status or not. In that regard, we fulfil both our humanitarian and United Nations obligations. When someone is found not

1335
to have refugee status we are prepared—as it were, off our own bats—to consider whether the individual ought to be given exceptional leave to remain.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt with the distinction between refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. Has the Minister taken any legal advice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in this field there is plenty of legal advice. It may be that one takes the legal advice which suits one. That is the same in every field. We are certain—this has stood the test of time—that there is a distinction between refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. I am not sure whether the noble Earl suggests that there is no distinction. There is a very big distinction, and I have tried to explain it clearly. It certainly exists in view of the way that the whole procedure has been run and is set out. Refugee status is the critical test to be applied and that fulfils our international obligations.
We have decided as a country—in my view quite rightly and, I am sure, in the view of all noble Lords—that there are some people who, while they cannot prove that they are refugees according to the international criteria, have a call on our humanity. In that regard we give them exceptional leave to remain and allow them access to the benefit system immediately. I do not believe that we should go one step further and give them the same rights as refugees and backdate the benefits. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not know, but I do not think that the Minister was persuaded by his own case as he was making it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Always!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister was almost persuaded by it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Always.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, by the time it reached here, I can assure the Minister that it was "almost". I have to say that I thought the case pretty weak. The Minister for Social Security was trying to argue as though he were a Minister in the Home Office. He went to considerable trouble to explain that there was a difference in why an individual may end up being labelled—if I may use that phrase—a refugee, or being labelled as someone granted exceptional leave to remain. He showed us that there was a difference between the different periods of settlement: four years as opposed to seven years. That has nothing to do with it. It is irrelevant. It is a Home Office consideration as to how someone is designated. It is not concerned with social security legislation as to whether, first, that person is necessitous, and, secondly, whether the person has disqualified himself, even though necessitous, by some inappropriate behaviour. That is a social security test.
1336
That is what we are talking about in the amendment. We are not talking about the Home Office test, or what is the label. We are talking about social security tests, are they necessitous? Answer, yes. Have they disqualified themselves?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): Give them everything!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister says, "Give them everything". It makes me realise, despite the courtesies, and so on, of the House, which we all respect and usually enjoy, how wide is the gulf between the two Benches. Despite the conciliatory language we seek normally to employ to persuade, the remark made by the Minister from the Home Office, "Give them everything", as though this was some sort of game show with the arrow going around, as on some cheap television commercial, suggests a lack of seriousness and concern and empathic imagination of what people who are fleeing from torture experience when they enter this country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness add that the Minister made that intervention from a sedentary position, but may the record show it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept what the noble Earl says. I return to the substantive point. The Minister was making the case, which I do not doubt is a valid Home Office case, as to the distinction between someone here as a refugee who has an individual fear of persecution and someone here for exceptional leave to remain because he or she is part of a generalised group of people who may therefore be at risk.
In both cases the social security issue is that both cases are necessitous and have not disqualified themselves. We have established that they are necessitous. That is the whole point about the means test for income support and income-related benefits. They have not disqualified themselves. Indeed, the Government have accepted, by giving them exceptional leave to remain, that they come within the same need for humanitarian treatment. So what is the difference?
All the considerations that the Minister has offered us are irrelevant. He has accepted that if both apply at the port of entry they will receive benefit; if they are both granted their status, they will receive benefit. All the Minister has done at the very last moment, having made a concession to those who are granted refugee status to have back-dated benefits, is to row back. For the first time in the benefit system he is putting a wedge between two categories of claimant. With the leave of the House, I invite the Minister—I realise that this is Third Reading—to tell me where at any previous point in the benefit system a distinction has been drawn between those who are claiming and obtain refugee status and those who obtain exceptional leave to remain.
I invite the Minister to tell me where previously any difference has been drawn. I accept the Home Office case, but this is a social security case. We have had the reply from him today speaking as Minister for

1337
Social Security. Will he tell us? He is silent. In other words, the Minister cannot tell us that at any time until now any distinction has been drawn in the social security system between those granted refugee status and those granted exceptional leave to remain. That is, until yesterday, for the first time. Why?
It is not the sums of money, because they will not be that large. It will be only for a short back-dated period for those who are subsequently granted exceptional leave to remain. It is not numbers. We are not talking about great numbers. We are not talking about a high cost. What are we talking about? Is it that the Government cannot bear the thought, having been overruled by the Court of Appeal and having therefore had to make concessions, of a loss of grace. I can think of nothing else but a desire to be grudging and mean. There is no other reason in the social security system. There is none at all, except to be grudging for its own sake. It is unbelievably petty-minded, mean and indecent of the Government. The fact that the Minister has not challenged my remarks at any point to contest anything I have alleged against the Government makes my argument for me. However, I shall not push the amendment to the vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in regulations shall authorise the exclusion from benefit under subsection (1) above of any person—

(a) who has made a claim for asylum within the period specified in that subsection, or

(b) who has appealed against a refusal of asylum and either—

(i) the appeal has not been certified as being without foundation, or

(ii) a special adjudicator has disagreed with such certification.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I could understand if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, were to use the phrase déjà vu about the amendment. I am well aware that the House is by now weary of the Bill. The number of empty seats in the Chamber, the clear loss of interest since yesterday, indicate that the House has had enough of the Bill. Therefore, those of us on the Front Benches, the Bishops' Benches and elsewhere who continue to press amendment after amendment are obliged to explain why we are doing so, and why we feel so strongly that we are pushing Members, especially on the Government Benches, to the limit of their patience.
In that category, perhaps I may say that I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the patience and resilience they have shown, although the gulf between us is extremely deep. It would be less than generous not to recognise that they have both handled a whole set of repeated demands made upon them, not just from these Benches but from elsewhere in the House, with considerable grace, patience and determination.
Having said that, it stands to reason that we on the Opposition Benches in these last few amendments on Third Reading are obliged to explain why we regard the matter as being of such great significance that we have been prepared to bore Members of the House—some of them out of the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has advanced the argument—I believe that noble Lords in all parts of the House will recognise this—over, over and over again that the proportion of those determined to be genuine asylum seekers—he has given figures of 4 per cent. and 7 per cent., including all forms of extended leave, to reach about 25 per cent. of the total, and a little less in 1995—shows that the great majority of those attempting to enter this country are, to use his words, "bogus asylum seekers".
We on this side of the House are ready to admit that there are bogus asylum seekers. We have said, and we should like to repeat, that we believe such people have no right to stay in the UK, or indeed to make life much harder for those who are genuine asylum seekers. However, the problem is that taking the argument that those who are successful appellants or successful first claimants tells us exactly how many genuine asylum seekers there are is not a convincing argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred in his very last answer to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. He said, "We apply the UN test. Successful applicants satisfy the UN convention". But the UNHCR in a recent memorandum about exactly that said:
"A country's recognition rate of refugees may more often reflect the narrowness or liberalness of that state's application of the refugee definition rather than the legitimacy or otherwise of individual claims. The lower figures are then tendentiously used as evidence that bogus claims are increasing, thereby justifying further restrictive measures".
They are its words, not mine. We have heard that tendentious argument repeated over and over and over again in the proceedings on the Bill.
I repeat, those are not my words but they are the words of the very organisation which the Minister called in his support. I refer to the UNHCR speaking about the United Nations Convention. The change in the climate of belief and disbelief has had a great deal to do with the sharp drop in the number of asylum seekers found to be genuine.
I wish to make only one further remark about that. We should be very careful about using the word "bogus" with the words "asylum seekers", as though they were married together and were one concept. There are bogus asylum seekers and there are many genuine asylum seekers. When we see, as on Monday the Independent so tragically indicated, a young man beaten up to the point of losing an eye because a group of thugs in the street regarded him as a bogus asylum seeker we can see the extreme dangers that this House will run if it stereotypes asylum seekers as though all or almost all were bogus.
We have pressed these matters because once in a while a Bill comes before the two Houses of Parliament on which there is such anxiety and concern that it flows well beyond the confines of this House or another place.

1339
This Bill falls into that category. I have spent 10 years of my life in government—four as a junior Minister and nearly six as a Cabinet Minister—and I have seen such Bills. They do not arise often but perhaps once in three or four years a Bill which in a sense is about the conscience of a nation comes before Parliament for consideration and decision. I believe that this is such a Bill. It is such a Bill because far beyond ourselves those groups in what is sometimes called civic society—the many democratic organisations beyond Parliament—have almost all given voice to their grave anxieties and concerns about the Bill.
I do not wish to detain the House more than briefly but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what those organisations—they are not constituents but organised voices of concern—have said about the Bill. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said, about the decision to remove all benefits from asylum seekers, which is what we have been debating:
"The CAB Service believes that the fundamental principles of justice are undermined by the introduction of the regulations designed to remove … benefits from asylum seekers".
The CAB is not a political organisation. The courts share that concern. There have been many quotations of Lord Justice Simon Brown and I shall not repeat them. However, at page 21 of his judgment he makes the point that those seeking to appeal against the refusal of asylum will now have no access to funds or benefits of any kind once they have gone through their original claim; that they will have no accommodation and, being ineligible for housing benefit, no prospect of ever securing any; that they are forbidden to be employed and cannot find alternative means of keeping themselves alive; that they are unlikely to have many families or friends to fall back on; and that their claims take up to four years to proceed.
They are in a uniquely terrible position. Of those five situations laid down by the Appeal Court, four apply only to asylum seekers and do not apply to our own people. However, I fully accept the parallel with regard to the first of those conditions; that is, the withdrawal of benefit. The other four conditions—no prospect of obtaining accommodation, no right to be employed, no likelihood of being supported by family and friends and the length of their appeal—are not on all fours with the two cases.
Even the Government's own Social Security Advisory Council, which is appointed by the Secretary of State for Social Services, stated:
"The reality of the proposals is that thousands of men, women and children will be left with no means of providing themselves with food or shelter".
They are its words, not mine. It went on to state,
"Health professionals have warned that, given their vulnerability, they may be in such precarious physical or mental health that some may die".
Those issues go well beyond what is normally at stake in legislation. They are issues in respect of which the country is passing a milestone towards, I believe, a less generous, a less conscience-led, a less liberal—and I mean that in the broad sense of the word—and in many ways a less moral position. That is why we have gone on and on and on about this Bill.
I do not want to sit down without making one further comment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said in his marvellous forensic style—he would have had a great career in another profession had he not had a great career in his own—that it was time that the many critics of the Bill gave positive indications of what might be done. Perhaps I may mention three. Will the noble Lord consider making available through all diplomatic posts clear information about the terms upon which anyone seeking asylum may receive it in this country? Will he consider making sure that those landing on our shores and going through a port will have access to telephones and to the numbers of advisory council bodies to enable them to discover the grounds on which they can make their claims for asylum? Will he consider providing leaflets in many languages which will tell them as they arrive that they need to make an immediate claim if they are not to lose their chance of making out a case for asylum? Will he agree that those leaflets should make a specific case for those who claim that they have suffered torture? Such actions will make many of us feel a great deal better because they will enable the genuine cases to pass through what is now a very narrow and indeed narrowing door.
I do not wish to detain the House longer except to say that this morning, by some irony, being a Member of sub-committee A of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, I looked at a document on how the British Government could define and determine those countries within the Lomé Convention, mostly African and Caribbean countries, which in the committee's view had such a terrible record of human rights that their membership of the Lomé Convention should be suspended. I repeat that Her Majesty's Government were scrutinising the steps they would take to bring about the suspension of a country on the grounds of human rights.
If we can do that within the terms of the European Union, cannot we do that within the terms of this Bill? Cannot we say that countries of that kind are exactly those to which people should not be sent back? That is what Peers on many sides of the House have argued at many points in the Bill. Yet in relation to another matter we are told by the Government that it is perfectly possible to do so.
I believe that we are passing a milestone. I wish that it was a milestone on a road of ascent but I fear that it is a milestone on a road of descent. I say to all Members of the House that we extend our apologies for keeping the House sitting for so long, but it is the only legitimate constitutional and parliamentary answer that we have in trying to draw the attention of this House to what we regard as an immoral and very bad Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a feature of every system of administration of justice that there should be rights of appeal. In our system, unlike many continental systems, we have both absolute rights of appeal and discretionary rights of appeal. The discretionary right of appeal usually makes provision for some filter system in order to ensure that the right of appeal is not abused. Leave is required from the trial judge or, if he fails to

1341
give it, leave is then required from the Court of Appeal. A point of law must be raised, a point of law of public importance when it reaches the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. That is a normal feature of any administration of justice. You condition the right of appeal, you filter it, by reference to the merits of the right of appeal, by reference to the merits of the case to be the subject matter of the appeal.
That is not what is happening in regard to the right of appeal in asylum cases. An entirely arbitrary approach is adopted in order to limit the appeal. If you have access to funds which enable you to survive, you can continue with your appeal. But if you cannot raise money, first because you are not allowed to work and secondly, because there are no charitable sources to support you, then in practice you will lose your right of appeal.
As a lawyer and a former member of the Bench, I find it very distasteful that the state should give with one hand a right of appeal and then remove it on the basis that you will be starved of your opportunity to exercise that right of appeal because you are not allowed to work if you seek to exercise your right of appeal and you are not allowed any social security support.
I return to where I started. If the right of appeal is to be restricted—and I fully understand that there are many circumstances in which it should be restricted—it should be restricted by reference to the potential merits or demerits of the appeal. It should not be restricted by something quite ulterior; that is, the ability to survive for long enough to enter and argue your appeal. Accordingly, I strongly support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken for me entirely, as has indeed the noble and learned Lord, whose intervention I very much appreciated. I wish to add two pieces of evidence on the narrow point and one on the wider point. The first concerns a survey of 722 appeal cases between July and December 1995, cases heard by special adjudicators. Even of those cases dismissed, only 16 per cent. were seen as totally incredible. Only a small number of the unsuccessful cases are manifestly unfounded.
The second quotation should be familiar to the Minister because he spoke the words himself as recently as 19th June on the Housing Bill. I asked him whether he was able to predict whose appeals would succeed. The Minister said:
"I was beginning to wonder whether the lateness of the hour was affecting the noble Earl when he asked how I could tell who was going to be successful and who was not. I then realised that he asked the question in order to answer it himself; the answer being, of course, that I could not tell. That is true. If we could tell, we should have been able to make a much finer judgment on the whole question of asylum seekers and their continuing right after they had been turned down by the Home Office for the first time"— [Official Report, 19/6/96; cols. 426–427.]
I could not have expressed the matter better myself.
The Minister is admitting that when somebody appeals we do not know whether he will succeed. Therefore, in denying benefit to all those who appeal, we are denying benefit to some genuine refugees as well as to some who are not. The Minster is using a very blunt instrument.
1342
We have dealt with the general effect of the Bill. I warned the noble Baroness privately as long ago as last December, when the Bill was still in another place, after I had spoken at a protest meeting in Central Hall, that I was alarmed by the damage that the Bill was doing to race relations. I do not seem to have convinced people.
I have a very recent report from the Commission for Racial Equality. Mr. Herman Ouseley in his introduction said:
"Throughout 1995, stories were trailed in the tabloid newspapers about 'asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants' and 'benefit fraudsters'. The notion of 'bogus' arrivals at British airports has taken root in our folklore and every message reinforces the damaging and false stereotype of immigrants as people who only know a few words of English: 'benefits', 'asylum' and 'lottery handouts'. Combine this with the fact that virtually all the images projected of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers—and these terms now seem to be used interchangeably—are of people with origins in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia and it is little wonder that race relations are sometimes on a knife edge".
The noble Baroness shakes her head. I really do not think that she knows.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should first say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that I am grateful to her for her remarks to my noble friend and myself about our patience. I hope that by showing that I am demonstrating that I appreciate the seriousness of the issues which we are discussing and, indeed, the seriousness with which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords opposite address this issue. Therefore, I accept that plaudit with courtesy and I return it. I understand how deeply she feels about this issue.
In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told me yesterday in the clearest possible terms that her party would repeal the whole of this Bill and therefore would be quite happy to accept the expenditure of £200 million for this year and next year, perhaps rising to £300 million in the following year. I accept that there is a difference between us. As a Minister for social security and as a Treasury spokesman, I must try to contain the amount of money which my department spends and therefore which must be taken from the British taxpayer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would it not be quicker to say New Liberal, new dangers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think it sounds more like old Labour.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that has been continuing Liberal policy. It is neither new nor old. We are not given to changing our practice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that I should become involved in a discussion about that. But certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has made her position quite clear and I am quite clear as to where she stands. I must say that the position is not quite as clear in relation to the party

1343
directly opposite me in this regard because I have not heard any indication that they would repeal this legislation and face the expenditure that I have mentioned, rising to perhaps £300 million in the next three years. That would be extra expenditure and if I understand all the discussions which have been taking place during the past few weeks about what is described as "on the road to the manifesto", it seems to me that if you suggest any increases in spending you must also suggest some savings elsewhere in your budget. I wonder which benefits for British citizens will have to be reduced or removed to cover the £300 million more that the party opposite wishes to spend on those people whose right to asylum turns out to be unfounded. Perhaps I shall hear an answer later on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, admitted that there are bogus asylum seekers. She could not do otherwise. If that were not so, it would be suggested that all 55,000 people who came in this year should be granted asylum. I suppose that it would save the Home Office quite a lot of money in administrative costs if that were so but I fear that it would cost my department and the taxpayer a great deal of money into the future. Therefore, I am happy to hear that.
There was a suggestion that we apply the convention more narrowly than other countries. Perhaps I may just tell the noble Baroness that it is the courts and the adjudicators who ultimately determine whether we have properly applied the UN convention in each case; in other words, either the court or the adjudicator decides. There have been many challenges to our decisions on appeal and by way of judicial review, but, while we lose the occasional case, we succeed and win the vast majority of those challenges. That leads me to draw the conclusion that we are obeying and applying the terms of the convention in the way intended. It is not just a judgment of us; it is a judgment of the courts and of the adjudicators. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, as in the case he mentioned earlier where the adjudicator referred the matter back to the Secretary of State who then granted exceptional leave to remain, it is the Secretary of State and not the courts who determines the application?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the point is that the adjudicator will have decided that the applicant does not fulfil the criteria for refugee status. If the noble Lord wishes to close the door at that point, so be it. However, I do not believe that he does, and neither do I. In those circumstances the adjudicator can suggest that the Secretary of State ought further to consider the case before a final conclusion is reached. At that point the Secretary of State may decide, in a very few cases after the appeals circuit has been gone through, that exceptional leave to remain should be granted. The majority of cases for ELR are decided by the Home Office in the initial decision-making process when it is decided that a person does not qualify as a refugee. Then, as I said during the last debate, the second question is asked; namely, "Can this person go back to his own country?". In the case of somewhere
1344
like Somalia, Afghanistan or even the former Yugoslavia, it might be unreasonable to expect him to do so and, therefore, the person would be granted exceptional leave to remain. That is the way the system works.
I turn now to the amendment before us. It has two effects. The first would allow benefit to be paid to those people who claim refugee status at the port of entry or within three days of arrival. I suspect that that part of the amendment is redundant; indeed, the noble Baroness did not mention it. In fact, the noble Baroness spoke to the second part of the amendment which would restore benefit entitlement to all those asylum seekers who appeal against an initial adverse decision, except for those whose claims have been certified as being without foundation.
I must reject the amendment for the following reasons. All those asylum seekers who would gain access to benefit during the appeals process would already have received a full substantive decision on their asylum claims. That is to say, their cases will have been assessed against the criteria set out in the UN convention. I see no grounds for requiring UK taxpayers to support people who have been found not to be refugees.
When I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I was not sure whether he was suggesting some serious filter, just as we have in the civil courts and especially in the criminal courts where guilt or innocence is established and where people have the right to appeal. However, not every case can actually go to appeal; indeed, as I understand it, each case has to be filtered before that procedure can be followed. Of course we do not do that. In an asylum case, anyone who wishes to do so can start off the appeal process. Then, in the first instance, it is up to the adjudicator to look at the case and decide whether a correct decision was made at the lower level. I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise to the House if I did not make my point clear. My suggestion was that, if the appeal is to be controlled in some special way, it should be done by reference to the potential merits or absence of merits of the appeal. One does not do it by an indirect reference to the ability to survive, having removed from that person the right to work and the right to any social security benefits.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying. However, I must point out to him that, as almost everyone appeals, I believe it would be quite difficult and time consuming for us to set up a system which would introduce a first sift of all the appeals submitted in order to sort out the very small number that may be justified. It must be remembered that only three in 100 applications turn out to be based on fact and, therefore, entitled to refugee status. I am not entirely sure what percentage we might have to sift out—perhaps, 90 per cent. to leave 10 per cent. in which the 3 per cent. would still be a comfortable minority—but it would involve a pretty big sift.

1345
If my noble friend Lady Blatch came to the House with a proposal to introduce such a sift system and it was pretty rough and ready, I suspect, having listened to arguments on the issue, that the people who take the opposite view to the Government on the matter would oppose us. However, perhaps I am not seeking a very easy way out of that dilemma; indeed, I do not believe that there is one. Most people on the Opposition Benches would demand that anyone who wished to appeal on being denied refugee status should have his or her case properly considered. I believe that that conflicts with some kind of initial sift to decide whether or not an appeal was justified.
The benefits system is there for a variety of reasons. The problem is—I have tried to prove it but, obviously, I have not convinced some noble Lords opposite—that the present system acts as an attraction to people to keep their claim going as long as they possibly can because, in that way, they can continue to receive benefit. I am not complaining about that. It seems to me to be a sound behavioural reaction from the individuals concerned. However, I do not believe that the Government, who are responsible to taxpayers for the spending of public money, can allow such a situation to continue. We must do something to try to inhibit what has been happening and what has grown into a very expensive commitment on behalf of British taxpayers.
I have already suggested that in the benefits system British citizens do not generally receive benefit while appealing against a refusal decision. If they did, they would all have an incentive to appeal against a decision not to award benefit. Every time a British citizen was refused benefit, he or she would have every reason to appeal because the benefit that they had been refused would continue to be paid. I do not believe that anyone has suggested that we incorporate such a provision in the benefits system; yet we incorporate it in the appeals system so far as concerns asylum. Interestingly enough, nearly half of those who appeal in the British benefits system—to be honest, there are not too many in number compared with the number of decisions which are made by the Benefits Agency—win their appeals. Last year only three out of 100 asylum seekers won their appeals.
As I have said many times, it is wrong to treat asylum seekers more generously than British citizens. Moreover, it is certainly wrong for British taxpayers to be asked to pay benefit to those people for months when 97 out of 100 of those involved in such cases will actually turn out to be, as I described yesterday, not the right people to receive the benefit. I do not believe that the British public would consider that to be a reasonable and sensible way to proceed. In fact, if members of the public knew in detail what was happening, I believe that they would be outraged. When I say, "what was happening", I mean the number of people who apply for asylum while receiving benefit for months and whose applications then turn out to be unjustified.
The more incentive that there is to appeal, the more appeals will be forthcoming and the longer it will take to process them. The longer benefits remain in payment to the vast majority of appellants whose claims for asylum are unfounded, the higher will be the cost to
1346
British taypayers. The longer the very few genuine refugees or asylum seekers have to wait for a decision, the longer they will be left in a state of insecurity, worry and concern. I do not believe that the current situation can be justified.
Apart from the noble Baroness and the Liberal Democrats, who have made it quite clear that they would just live with the situation as a consequence of their general policy towards asylum seekers, I have not heard any real suggestion as to how we can manage to stop this very considerable expenditure of public money. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, if she does not do so, I hope that my noble friends will join me in the Division Lobby yet again.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to respond to three points that the noble Lord made. I do not often say this to him, but as regards my first point I do not think he can have listened at all to what I said. I drew, in considerable detail, on the parallel that he often makes between those denied benefit who are United Kingdom citizens and those denied the right to appeal who are asylum seekers. The position does not stand on all fours, as the noble Lord knows well. It is possible for someone in this country who has been refused benefit and is appealing against it to continue to be on a housing list. It is possible for that person to do casual work and it is possible for him to fall back on a network of family and friends. In all three respects there is no parallel with an asylum seeker who often knows no one here. If I may say so, the argument the noble Lord made does not do him credit. We tried to address exactly that argument in some detail, leaning—if I may say so—on the words of the Court of Appeal judgment which directly addressed this subject. The noble Lord will be aware that page 21 of the judgment lays out in detail the difference between a UK citizen and an asylum seeker in this regard.
Secondly, it is interesting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, attempted to respond to something that the noble Lord asked for earlier; namely, to make constructive suggestions. I am no lawyer but I understand that the granting of legal aid depends to some extent on the likelihood of the success of a case which is being put forward for legal aid. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was suggesting something rather similar; namely, that one would consider the basis on which an appeal would be brought. We on this side of the House would certainly consider that, just as we would consider closely the expenditure on officials, as distinct from the cost of keeping people on benefit for months and months on end.
It must be possible to deal with procedures more rapidly. That does not mean a period of three days, but it certainly need not mean four years. The noble Lord talks as if four years and three days respectively constitute the same length of time. It must be possible to deal seriously with an appeal in a period far shorter than four years. Perhaps the Home Office may take four years to deal with these cases. That seems to me an extraordinary length of time.

1347
Thirdly, I feel that the Minister is straining at a relatively small element of expenditure while being prepared to swallow a large one. As the Minister knows, the sum of £300 million is a large sum of money. We believe that that sum could be substantially reduced in the ways that I have hinted at. But the Government have never yet denied the estimate publicly made that the poll tax cost taxpayers £10 billion. They never seem to be willing to consider the ways in which huge sums of money are wasted in this country by noble Lords and Members of the Government opposite. They always point to some small expenditure and hope that none of us will notice the great gaps that have opened up as a result of the irresponsible use of taxpayers' money. We are not prepared to be blamed for that as if it happens only as regards one side of the House. That is not the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations may provide that this section shall not apply to a person who is considered by the Secretary of State to be a vulnerable person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 which stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs, I wish to speak—I have given notice of this—to Amendments Nos. 13 and 16, and to group Amendment No. 16 with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
The provision I am discussing picks up a point we have been making throughout these debates on social security. As regards all our housing and social security legislation, however grievous the behaviour of the individual may seem in that he appears to have made himself deliberately homeless, or he has refused to be available for, or to be actively seeking work, or the individual has failed to co-operate with the CSA to divulge the name of an absent parent—whatever the sin, if I may use that phrase, and however threatening the penalties—we have always made a distinction between those who are not vulnerable and those who are. However badly the Government may feel someone has behaved, and however severe may be the sanctions imposed on that person; some proportion of benefit has always been restored within two weeks or so to those who are vulnerable. In other words the issue of basic subsistence for those who are vulnerable overrules a judgment of what is wrong or inappropriate in their behaviour. It is a basic principle of our welfare state that those who are vulnerable and who cannot reasonably be expected to look after themselves should not be denied by society the basic means on which to live.
However, in this Bill—as we know to our cost—the Government are proposing to scrap benefit for all asylum seekers who apply in country—however strong their case turns out to be—and to take 19 months to determine a case, however severe the need. Yet these asylum seekers—unlike some people within the British social security system—who are subject to sanctions
1348
have committed no sin or been guilty of bad behaviour. They simply made a mistake of applying in country rather than at the port of entry. They made a bureaucratic mistake, whether through ignorance, illiteracy, intimidation, fear or whatever. For that they lose 19 months or more of benefit. What is even worse is that within that group of asylum seekers who have made a bureaucratic mistake and have lost benefit are some of the most traumatised and vulnerable people any of us are likely to encounter.
What would this amendment do? It would not give basic means of support to the single, fit and healthy and those who have some capacity to support themselves—particularly after six months—and who perhaps will find work. Even though I believe those people should continue to receive benefit, that is not what this amendment achieves. The amendment refers to those who are defined as vulnerable. That is a well-established term in social security legislation and it is at the heart of the Housing Bill which is currently going through your Lordships' House. Therefore we know whom we mean by vulnerable people; that is, those who have dependent children, those who may be poorly fed, in poor health and traumatised (there are 3,000 or 4,000 of them a year coming through) together with the sick and disabled, the frail elderly and the terminally ill. Those people should be regarded as vulnerable and eligible for basic benefit.
Whom are we talking about? I give an example which I have received today from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. The source of this information is a nurse practitioner based in Southwark who is part of a three-boroughs' primary healthcare team. She describes several cases that she has dealt with this morning. One of them concerns a man in his fifties with TB. He has nil income. He will spend two weeks in hospital—that is the infectious period only—and upon discharge, if the nurse cannot get him into Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity hostel, which has limited places but which is rent free and provides care, he will be back on the streets. The nurse states that that will inevitably re-activate his TB and require him to be re-hospitalised. In the interim he will infect others. The nurse states that TB is a disease of poverty and is on the increase, especially among ethnic minorities, who more often than not contract it after arrival in the UK because a UK strain of TB is usually diagnosed.
This morning that same nurse dealt with another refugee asylum seeker—a 72 year-old who currently receives no benefits and was hospitalised following an assault while sleeping on a park bench. After a couple of days in hospital he may be back on the park bench. The nurse points out that the homeless are sitting targets for such assaults. The nurse is dealing with those who are vulnerable through disability, ill-health, frailty, old age or terminal illness. They have nowhere to keep their medication if they live on the streets. Where do they keep their insulin if they do not have a fridge? What happens if their crutches are nicked? That has happened to one person the nurse has dealt with. How do they replace the crutches? Incontinence is common among traumatised people. How do they maintain personal hygiene when they have no money to buy food or to

1349
find accommodation? What happens when their immune systems are compromised through poor nutrition, exposure and poor diet? Are we really willing to see such people live, sleep and perhaps die on the pavements? Are we really willing to see some of our streets become like the streets of Calcutta when the refuges, shelters and church halls are full?
Apart possibly from Greece, no other country in Europe of which I am aware offers no means of support whatsoever to in country applicants for asylum. We are the meanest and worst in Europe apart possibly from Greece. According to the information that I have from reputable organisations, all other countries offer at least hostel accommodation and food. Perhaps noble lords will forgive a literary allusion. Thomas Carlyle said that a widow showed her sense of sisterhood by infecting people with cholera because those who were well off did not clean up the water supply. That man with TB will reinfect others with TB in terms of a new notion of brotherhood.
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden make some basic provision for the needy and vulnerable. It may be a reception centre. They may offer modest subsistence support. Germany has three times the asylum seekers that we have but it offers accommodation, food and modest benefits. Greece has some element of discretion. We alone in Europe offer nothing to those who apply after they enter this country even though they are the most vulnerable, are terminally ill, have dependent children, or are pregnant, disabled, frail and elderly. They will live on our streets, and they may die on our streets. I exaggerate not at all.
In practice, local authorities cannot walk away from responsibility for children under the Children Act 1989. The Government will face significant costs for reimbursing those local authorities for bed and breakfast accommodation or for taking the children into care. Equally, those who are vulnerable are likely to come within the community care and National Health Service provisions. However, hospitals are now beginning to refuse to discharge patients such as that man with TB and will keep them in hospital at £250 a day because we will not offer them £50 a week in income support.
Will the Government think again even at this late hour? We are talking about people who are vulnerable, destitute and innocent. They are here. We should surely be doing something other than turning our back and walking away. No other country would be as flinty as we are in the face of such destitution. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 16, a relevant amendment, so that we keep the issue to a single debate. I hope that that is acceptable.
Amendment No. 16 takes up the point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, but with a difference. It states that Clause 11 and the schedule should not come into force until such time as the Minister is able to ascertain and assure the House that there is provision
1350
for this basic subsistence—the means of keeping alive. At the most basic level that means food vouchers, and some kind of shelter—the level that simply keeps body and soul together. It is the bottom level that any civilised country can possibly accept.
Amendment No. 16 proposes that the provisions of the Bill should not be finally introduced until the Government can say to Parliament and the people that that minimal provision has been made. We heard some eloquent and moving testimony from the right reverend Prelates in this House about the terrible pressure being brought to bear within church halls, voluntary halls and churches in a desperate effort to shelter people who have nowhere else to go. There is a limit to how much the churches, and men and women of good will, can carry. The Minister should not allow these draconian provisions to go ahead until he or she can be sure that there is provision so that people do not die on the streets.
I do not wish to detain the House. The amendment is the bottom line; there is nowhere to go. Below the level proposed in the amendment one is beginning to deal with people who are starving or dying of the cold, and those who cannot protect themselves from the rain and the snow. Even in the 1805 Eastbourne judgment this country was not prepared to leave such people simply to fight on their own for survival on the streets.
I conclude my brief remarks by reading a letter sent to me by one of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who happens also to have been a refugee in his time—a man who has brought great lustre to our country. The noble Lord sent me the letter and asked me to read it out on his behalf; I did not ask him for the letter. He says:
"Anybody on British soil cannot be left helpless in terms of dignified survival, family ties, health, housing, clothing and an opportunity to become acquainted with the culture of this land".
He concludes by saying that he is unable to attend because he is on tour in Germany, and signs the letter, "Yehudi Menuhin". I leave his words to say more eloquently than I can why the amendment should be approved by this House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I heard yesterday from an asylum seeker who contracted muscular dystrophy after arriving in this country. Will a person with a serious disease which everyone knows is not susceptible to cure be left to fend for himself? Will that person nevertheless be left with a nil income? Will a person who is seriously ill be ineligible for free prescriptions? What happens when that person needs medication and goes to the chemist? Are such people to be denied all kinds of medication because they failed to apply for asylum at the port of entry? If we are going to treat people who are seriously ill in such an inhuman way, we have come to a pretty pass. However, I understand that that is the meaning of the new clause tabled by the Government which, if we are not careful, your Lordships will allow to go through.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in these three amendments, and certainly in the speeches that we have just heard, we are going right back to the basic principle. The divide between this side and the other

1351
side of the Chamber is perfectly clear. Members on the other side are quite content with the current situation and do not feel that we owe it to the British taxpayer, or indeed to the genuine refugees themselves, to try to contain the problems that we have in dealing with the very considerable number of people who come here and apply for asylum.
We are invited to consider streets full of people who are destitute and traumatised. I hear those two words from the noble Baroness week after week across this Dispatch Box about every single group in the country. I find it odd to square that with the fact that I am responsible for payment of something like £90 billion worth of benefits in one shape or form. Speaking on behalf of the British taxpayer, which is the pressure group I like to think I represent, it does not seem to me that we are mean minded or mean spirited when spending that kind of money on the social security system.
However, be that as it may, we have once again heard this picture painted about asylum seekers. There is one simple way that asylum seekers can obtain benefit when they arrive in this country: it is to be honest when they arrive here, and to say, "I have come seeking asylum". That is the way that they will gain entry into the benefit system until the first decision is made.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the Minister read the judgment in the Kihara case? Is he aware that Mr. Kihara attempted to claim asylum at the port and was dissuaded from doing so by the customs authorities?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not trade special cases because I do not know the details of any. However, I have enough experience at the Dispatch Box to know that noble Lords—not deliberately—will perhaps report what they read in newspapers. However, cases are not always totally exposed by the people who wish to make a point and therefore I shall not deal with specific cases. If someone applies to a customs officer instead of the immigration officer, it could be proved and an adjudicator would be likely to accept that it was an application on arrival. I am clear that that would be the case relating to arrival.
People who come here seeking asylum can have access to the benefit system. However, noble Lords opposite wish to give access to the benefit system to people who come here illegally. That is one group. The other group are those who come here and say at the point of entry: "I have come here on business, as a visitor; I shall be no burden on the British taxpayer". On that basis, we let them in for a limited period of six months.
If people are so traumatised and if they have selected this country to come to; if they have decided that it is a safe country in which they will not be persecuted, I fail to understand, despite all the special pleading I have heard over many hours, why it is unreasonable to expect them to say at the moment of entry: "I am being persecuted in my country of origin and seek asylum". That seems to me a logical position. To depict it
1352
otherwise, as we have just heard, is false, as is the picture of the streets of Britain being full of refugees, traumatised and sleeping rough. All the work under the rough sleepers initiative in London shows that there has been a considerable decline, thanks to the Government's initiatives and a considerable amount of money spent on people sleeping rough in London. There is little, if any, evidence that those who are still sleeping rough are refugees. I am not persuaded by the arguments that have just been put.
It has also been suggested that we run a mean system here, meaner than a list of countries about which your Lordships heard. In that case, I ask: why do some asylum seekers come here from those countries seeking asylum? The applicant in the cause célèbre of the Court of Appeal's judgment of 21st June came from Belgium. I ask and hope for an answer—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I ask the Minister to consider this fact. So far, the Bill has not passed. We are talking about the situation when the Bill has passed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, since February we have had in place the same proposals and principles that I am defending at the Dispatch Box. I have explained the result: there has been a decline. I notice that the noble Baroness did not answer my question: why should someone come from Belgium? I consider it to be as safe as this country. Why should they come from Belgium to seek asylum here? There must be some reason. If Belgium or France are so generous in benefits—and some asylum seekers came from France—why do not people ask for asylum there? I am puzzled. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will explain.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I did explain, if the Minister had listened to the case I gave. It related to someone who came here from France. The French had sent an Iraqi asylum seeker back to his country of origin where he was tortured. Therefore, when he escaped again from Iraq he did not wish to remain in France and came here.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, presumably he came directly here. I am looking at cases of people who went to France, Charles de Gaulle Airport. They were not being persecuted in France. I am interested to know that the noble Lord thinks that France is not a safe country. I would not take that view of the French, I consider France to be a civilised and humane country. Anyone coming from abroad would be as likely to gain refugee status and be as safe there or in Belgium as in this country.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would it be so dreadful if we were known in the world, as we have been in the past, as a most liberal country for refugees and if our reputation were greater than Belgium's?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, nothing we do will diminish our reputation for accepting

1353
refugees when they have proved their refugee status or for granting people exceptional leave to remain when they have not justified their refugee status. They may have come from countries in a fair degree of turmoil, such as I mentioned. Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia are four of the key countries from where at the moment the majority come of those who are given exceptional leave to remain.
My point is that we give such people access to the benefit system as long as they apply on arrival. Many do—one out of three applies already on arrival. Last month that had increased to one in two. The idea that everyone who comes is traumatised to the extent that they cannot apply on arrival does not hold up. Last year's statistics show that the vast majority of the people who came from Afghanistan—one place in awful turmoil—who were quite traumatised applied at the port of entry on arrival. I do not believe that the Opposition can put that argument; logic is not on their side.
The amendments wish to draw a distinction between the vulnerable and the non-vulnerable. It is not an easy line to draw, as the noble Baroness knows. We wish to make regulations under which we seek to restore benefit. That is done on the basis of a clear distinction between those who claim on arrival and those who do not. As concerns vulnerable people—children or the elderly—the noble Baroness asks your Lordships to believe a false picture. They would be catered for under the Children Act and the care in the community legislation. Those duties remain. The picture which she painted in order to advance her case for the first amendment is totally false.
No one spoke to Amendment No. 13 but it is in the group and was included in some of the noble Baroness's remarks. The amendment takes us into the territory of some of the other benefits in the system. The Court of Appeal ruled on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. It left those regulations which exclude asylum seekers from other non-contributory benefits unaffected. DLA and SDA are two of them. Those benefits have residence and presence conditions in any case which are designed to limit entitlement to those people whom the taxpayers would wish to support. Until February, if they were able to satisfy the residence and presence tests, there was no further restriction on them claiming non-contributory benefits. We do not believe that taxpayers should be asked to support everyone who chooses to come to this country, regardless of where they come from, how long they have been here and the basis on which they have come here. The February regulations did not change the residence and presence conditions; they introduced a barrier to those who quite wilfully manouevre themselves round the benefit system in this country. The amendment therefore has no justification at all.
The third amendment, Amendment No. 16, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke, is clearly intended to undermine the restoration of the February regulations. It will leave in place the benefits incentive for those economic migrants who come here and abuse the asylum process. The Court of Appeal spoke in dramatic terms about total destitution and so on.
1354
However, I have already explained that there is a simple way for people who wish to come here and claim asylum to obtain benefit. It is to apply at the port of entry.
I hate to keep saying that as it harks back to my days as a schoolmaster. But occasionally you have to keep saying things because the class does not quite seem to be paying sufficient attention no matter how many times you say them. People who apply at the port of entry can receive benefits. That message is loud and clear. The British taxpayer will help in that regard. So I really do not see any justification for us to go any further, as this amendment would have us do. It would require the Secretary of State to ensure that any arrangements he makes under the terms of the amendment will either not give rise to any extra cost for local authorities, or make provision by special grant if they do incur extra cost.
As the House knows, we made arrangements for a special grant to help local authorities with unavoidable extra costs arising as a result of benefit changes. If new arrangements of any sort are made, we will consider what sort of provision may be needed. As I indicated yesterday, their responsibilities under the Children Act, unaffected by this legislation, would be considered. However, it is not appropriate to specify a particular form of help for this one area and suggest expenditure on asylum seekers via the local authorities. I am sure the local authorities are very grateful to noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their concern about their expenditure. I am not entirely sure that the ordinary taxpayer would be so grateful. It is the ordinary taxpayer who would pick up the tab for any help that we were to give were we to replace the fundamental point, that people who come here illegally or under false pretences and say at the port of entry that they are coming for a limited period to visit or for business will not have any recourse to public funds. I do not believe that those people should be able to gain access to the benefits system a week, a month, six months, or more than a year in many cases, after they have entered the country on that principle. If they are genuine asylum seekers and are genuinely traumatised, the message from the parties opposite, along with mine, ought to be that they should apply at the port of entry, when they will be properly considered for benefit and properly helped.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we return to the basic point. The Minister has only one argument, and he repeated it endlessly. It is that the way through the problems for those who are vulnerable, traumatised, illiterate or unable to speak English is to apply at the port of entry. That is his only response, and he took quite a lot of time to repeat it.
Amendment No. 12, which deals with the vulnerable, refers to frail, elderly, disabled, sick and terminally ill people. They are the people the Minister expects to have the confidence, fitness and health to apply literally at the port of entry.
If the Minister cannot understand that if people are vulnerable, by definition that starts to incapacitate them from meeting our bureaucratic requirements, he shows

1355
a lack of imaginative understanding of the feelings of an asylum seeker when he confronts an immigration officer. It is a time of acute stress for him.
The Minister made the point that, if they do not do that, they are coming here illegally. They are coming "illegally" only in the sense that the law is what the Government, and therefore Parliament, have defined it to be. It is a distinction that no other country in Europe draws. No other country in Europe says that if you apply at the port of entry the application is legal, but if you apply in-country it is illegal. It is an act of government to make such an application illegal. It does not make it immoral or wrong. It simply says: if you do that, we shall not give you benefit. That is the whole point of it. That is the only reason for it. There is no moral or ethical basis for it. It happens to be an administratively convenient way for the Government, as they believe, to deter benefit applicants.
The UNHCR says that many genuine asylum seekers will need to lie and that, far from subverting their case, it is evidence of their case, because of the degree of their trauma. That is not my statement. The UNHCR have more experience in this area than, I suspect, do most noble Lords in this Chamber.
The Minister went on to say that we have belaboured him for being mean. He asked, if our benefits were so mean, why were people coming to this country? He said that showed that the benefits must be generous and therefore we must check them. On the contrary, the Minister makes my point for me. If our benefits are mean and people continue to come here, it shows that they come because they have a well-founded fear of persecution, not that they come to exploit a benefits system which even the Minister admits is less generous than that of most of our European neighbours.
The figures support that. Before last February I believe 67 per cent. of asylum seekers claimed asylum in-country. If the Minister is right and they sought to receive benefit, that was their reason for coming here and they were manipulating the system because they knew how to do it, as the Minister seems to suggest, since February we should have seen a sharp change in behaviour. We should have seen only 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. applying in-country because they knew that they would not get benefit and instead they would have applied at the port of entry. That is what would have happened if these manipulative, clever, cunning asylum seekers were operating in the way that the Minister suggests.
On the contrary, 67 per cent. of those seeking asylum applied in-country before February; and after February—when they should have changed their behaviour if the model of rationality that the Minister offered was valid—what was the figure, 50 per cent., 40 per cent., 30 per cent.? No, it was 64 per cent. In other words, even though they know that they will receive no money by so doing, they still seek asylum in-country in almost the same proportion as before, when they could receive money. Their motivation was very clearly not money as such because this country was more generous than elsewhere, but because they feared persecution and for well-founded reasons did not wish to return to their country of origin.
1356
I repeat: this amendment is not an open door. It is about people who are vulnerable. The notion of vulnerability, contrary to what the Minister said, is well understood in social security law. It is the basis on which those who are sanctioned and lose JSA payment will receive the payment back after two weeks if they are vulnerable. The Minister and his department have to apply that test day in, day out through every benefit office in the country. It is also at the core of the Housing Bill, as the Minister will know, because he has also been handling that Bill. Far from "vulnerable" being a nebulous term and opening floodgates, on the contrary, it is a well-established, well-defined, well judged and well tested criterion by which we accept that those who are necessitous are entitled under the basic laws of humanity to bare subsistence.
The Minister knows that. We know that. I shall not press Amendment No. 12, nor move Amendment No. 13. However, if the House agrees, I hope that we shall immediately go on to discuss Amendment No. 16. I encourage the noble Baroness to press her amendment at that stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 13 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) No day shall be named for section 11 and Schedule 1 to come into force until the Secretary of State has reported to both Houses of Parliament that he has put in place arrangements to secure that no person to whom that section and Schedule apply, nor any dependant of such a person, is left without the basic means of subsistence while pursuing his claim for asylum or while appealing against a refusal of asylum.
(3B) In putting into place arrangements under subsection (3A) above the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that either—

(a) no substantial extra costs will he incurred by any local authority in England, Scotland or Wales as a result of the arrangements; or

(b) if any extra costs will be incurred by any local authority in England, Scotland or Wales, they will be met by means of a special grant.").

The noble Baroness said: I shall seek the view of the House on this amendment, which I shall address very briefly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 16 has been spoken to.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I believe I have the right to respond, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, responded. I raised the issue at the beginning regarding the leave of the House to bring the matter forward. It is not a grouped amendment.

1357
I understand that it is quite clear that I am entitled to speak to it again if I wish to do so. I am simply responding to a debate in the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. My understanding was that the noble Baroness stood up and said that she would like to group her amendment with the amendments spoken to a moment ago. They were spoken to and wound up on. My understanding now is that Amendment No. 16 has been debated by the House and that the noble Baroness, if she wishes, should put it to the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is my understanding that when somebody wants to divide on one of the later amendments in a group, they retain the right of reply to the debate. I have exercised that myself in the past.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I add as a point of order that my understanding is that I did use the terminology that it might be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to my amendment. I did not move it. I am now moving it. It was entirely to save the time of the House. I apologise if I was in any sense out of order, but I understood that far from being out of order I was actually being helpful to the House. That was my intention. In any case, my remarks will be extremely brief.
Let me first draw the attention of the House to the extraordinarily minimal nature of the amendment that I am moving. It is an amendment—and I repeat the wording of it—about the basic means of subsistence. It is not an amendment about benefit. It is well below the level of benefit and it is that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, addressed when she gave example after example after example of how other countries were providing this kind of basic subsistence benefit—the lowest level possible to maintain life.
Secondly, we have heard in this House the eloquent testimony of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford repeating his own first-hand experience of visiting church hostels and giving us case after case after case of people that he had met who were in exactly the condition that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has described. He gave us examples. He spoke to them at first-hand. He had met them. He had visited the church. Therefore, it cannot be argued that what we are suggesting here is simply a fantasy. There is a great deal of evidence.
Thirdly, I find the point that the Minister made about the local authorities a strange one because my understanding is that, at least so far, the local authorities have received no money at all to enable them to sustain those people who have been dependent on them since February. I must ask the Minister to tell us, at least in correspondence after this debate, what steps are being taken to ensure that the local authorities are reimbursed. That is one reason for the wording of my amendment.
Finally, I simply want to say that again and again the noble Lord has referred to the British taxpayer. I have, I must say, a much more generous view of the British
1358
taxpayer than he has. I believe the British taxpayer does care about other people and has compassion that can be reached. I do not believe the British taxpayer thinks about nothing at all except the last halfpenny that he has to expend to help people much less well off than himself. Anybody who has worked on this Bill as we have done can attest to thousands upon thousands of ordinary British people—most of them, I assume, taxpayers—who have pleaded with us to fight this Bill with every power we have, and they are entitled to have their voice heard in this House also. I beg to move.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett,L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bridges, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carlisle, E.

McNally, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Methuen, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Desai, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Eatwell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sewel, L.

Geraint, L

Shepherd, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Blaker, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blatch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brentford, V.

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashboume, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Balfour, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Biddulph, L.

Bumham, L.

1359

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McConnell, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B. Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashrern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Colwyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Manton, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crathorne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cuckney, L.

Milverton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Dean of Harptree. L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norton, L.

Downshire, M.

O'Cathain, B.

Dudley, E.

Orkney, E.

Dundonald, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Erroll, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Feldman, L.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pym, L.

Finsberg, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Rather, B.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rodney, L.

Goschen, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Strange, B.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball. L.

Trumpington, B.

Kingsland, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakeham, L.

Leigh, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Lindsay, E.

Westbury, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wilcox, B.

Liverpool, E.

Wise, L.

Lucas, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Modifications of social security regulations]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill streamlines asylum procedures, strengthens immigration enforcement and restricts the social security and housing entitlement of those who have not established a long-term right to live in this country.
1360
Clauses 1 to 3 extend the existing accelerated appeal procedure to a wider range of cases, enable the Home Secretary to designate countries where there is in general no serious risk of persecution, and make the right of asylum seekers to appeal against removal to a European Union member state exercisable only after removal. These are sensible, balanced and fair measures which many of our neighbours have already introduced with beneficial results. They involve no departure from accepted asylum principles. Nor do they conflict with our international obligations. We shall not return asylum seekers to the country where they claim to fear persecution without giving them an opportunity to explain their fears fully and, if asylum is refused, to appeal to an independent adjudicator.
I find it extraordinary that so many of the Bill's opponents continue to reject the evidence of widespread abuse of the asylum procedures. If the Home Office were refusing large numbers of genuine refugees, we would be losing large numbers of appeals. But only 3 per cent. of appeals were repealed last year. I remind the House that adjudicators are qualified and experienced members of the legal profession and are appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Over three-quarters of applicants are refused both asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration by both the Home Office and the adjudicator. And yet our opponents continue to refer to asylum seekers and refugees as if they were equivalent terms.
Noble Lords opposite have suggested we should improve the performance of the asylum system rather than introduce stricter procedures. The truth is that we need to do both, and that is what we are doing.
I remind the House that we are investing £37 million over three years in additional caseworkers and adjudicators. We have increased asylum staff eightfold since 1988 from 100 to 800. We have increased productivity by 240 per cent. since the period immediately following the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act. Last year we introduced a short decision procedure which enables straightforward cases to be decided in weeks rather than months, despite strong opposition from some of those who complain most loudly about 'processing delays. We are embarking on a major computerisation programme which will further improve efficiency.
The number of decisions and appeals has increased dramatically. Appeal determinations have risen from 2,400 in 1994 to 7,000 last year to a projected 19,000 this year. Initial decisions by the Home Office have risen from 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 last year and we expect to take over 37,000 this year. But by last year the number of claims had already reached 44,000. That figure represents no less than a tenfold increase on the level of claims in 1988 and a doubling since as recently as 1993. That massive increase has come at a time when the level of claims across western Europe has actually halved. It is nonsense to suggest that application levels here reflect growing persecution around the world. What they do reflect is this country's relative generosity and therefore greater vulnerability to abusive asylum claims.

1361
As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said yesterday, we cannot go on swimming against the tide. Resources are not enough. We need to reduce the incentives which make it attractive to exploit the asylum system. That is why your Lordships were right to give approval to new Clause 11 which restores the power to impose strict benefit restrictions on asylum seekers. The previous benefit regulations, now reinstated by the Court of Appeal, are an open invitation to people from abroad to exploit the asylum system as a way of gaining access to benefit. The restoration of the restrictions will help to bring down backlogs and delays in the asylum system. That will be good news for genuine refugees. The House has inserted a three-day period of grace for those who fail to apply on arrival. We do not believe any leeway should be given to those who gain entry by deceiving the immigration authorities about their intentions. We shall therefore consider how to respond to the amendment when the Bill returns.
I should just like to put a thought in the minds of noble Lords about the three-day period of grace. Many of those entering this country do so by deception, some secreted away in vehicles. How is one to resolve disputes over from what time the three days' grace count, especially for those who continue the deception by claiming, following apprehension, to have entered the country within the previous three days? Where does the burden of proof lie? What does one say to someone who may have been here one month, two months, six months or a year, but on being apprehended claims to have arrived only in the past two or three days? That, I suggest, provides a considerable loophole for abuse. But it is not and never has been a concern of noble Lords opposite or those who supported the amendment.
Clauses 9 and 10 will enable entitlement to council housing, temporary accommodation and child benefit to be brought into line with equivalent social security entitlements. The case for alignment is very strong. It cannot be right that local authorities should continue to have a duty to accommodate people from abroad who are ineligible for income support and ineligible for housing benefit. The Bill is therefore good news also for housing authorities and council tax payers.
Clauses 4 to 7 introduce new offences, higher fines and additional powers of search and entry to combat the growing problem of immigration racketeering. Again, noble Lords opposite, who purport to support the Government's objective of clamping down on this evil, have tabled amendments to render our proposals ineffective or remove them altogether. On no occasion have they offered a proposal to deal with such racketeering.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has not been present in the Chamber throughout this Bill. In fact he has hardly been present throughout the dealings in this Chamber. Noble Lords have tabled amendments to eliminate the clause altogether. They have opposed the two offences that we created for racketeering in the Bill. They have not proposed any amendment for dealing with racketeering.
1362
On Clauses 4 and 5, for example, there have been attempts to remove the essential new offences of illegal entry by deception, facilitating the entry of an asylum claimant and obtaining leave to remain by deception. I am very glad that your Lordships resisted those amendments. But, again, I must put the question to noble Lords opposite: whose side are they on in these matters? Maybe we shall see the repeal of this Act in The Road to the Manifesto, I do not know—maybe not.
Illegal working takes away jobs which would otherwise be available to people with a right to work here, whatever community they come from. Most of our European neighbours already have measures in place. This country will remain vulnerable if we do not take comparable steps. But, again, noble Lords opposite throughout the Bill have not supported the Government. Indeed, they fought against the Government in seeking to address the growing problem of illegal working in this country. Over 10,000 people last year were found to be working illegally in this country—10,000 jobs which could have gone to those with a legal right both to live and work here. To continue to tolerate illegal working is, in our view, likely to damage good race relations. Our proposals in Clause 8 will be easy for employers to comply with. The Commission for Racial Equality has undertaken to help in preparing the guidance for employers; we are very grateful for that.
Whatever the difference of view between the Government and the Bill's critics, no one can deny that the Bill has received very close scrutiny during its passage though this House. I am most grateful to all your Lordships who have contributed to that process. It has been a productive process. We have listened to arguments and we have responded to concerns. Some significant changes have been made. We have made drafting changes to Clause 1 for greater clarity. We have accepted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the initial lists and designated countries of origin and designated safe third countries should require the affirmative approval of Parliament. We have agreed to retain an in-country right of appeal for asylum seekers whom we remove to a third country outside the European Union unless it has been designated by affirmative order. The Government have accepted your Lordships' wish to introduce a special safeguard for victims of torture, and I am especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and his colleagues, and others, for helping me to express that intention in a workable form in the Bill.
We have strengthened the safeguards in Clause 5 against prosecution of those providing bona fide legal advice on immigration matters, and we have changed the terminology in Clauses 8 to 12 to make it absolutely clear that they are not aimed at those who, although still subject to immigration control, have been settled in this country for many years. I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite, including my long-standing sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and his long-standing sparring partner, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; the noble Earl, Lord Russell; and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their courtesy. I recognise

1363
fully the assiduous and painstaking way in which they have pursued their case. I recognise also how strongly they hold to their views.
I particularly want to thank again my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who has done sterling work on this Bill, covering a very sensitive area. I believe he has handled it sensitively but with that realism that only people in government have to face and not those who are armchair critics from a distance.—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Wait!
Baroness Blatch: It is looking a bit dicey for you at the moment. I thank also my noble friend Lord Courtown, a marvellous Whip who has given great assistance and without whom I think my sanity might well have departed at times. I thank too my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton. My noble friend not only speaks with great knowledge of these matters but of course he is somewhat of a mentor for me; indeed, he stood in my shoes some years ago. I think he may well have experienced some sense of déjà vu about many of the matters we have discussed. I would also mention my noble friends Lady Rawlings, Lady Seccombe and Lady Gardner of Parkes. They, like me, saw the merits of the Bill and accepted the genuine attempt by the Government to address very real problems, some of which certainly impact very greatly on the taxpayer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, cited the Bill as one that impacts way beyond the confines of this House. I hope I never claim that any one Bill does that. I joined this House in 1987. I have not known a single Bill that does not resonate beyond the confines of this House. I sometimes think that we become rather too cosy in this place, without realising the impact of what we do here. I mention recent Bills. We had the Criminal Appeals Bill, which affects very important people outside this House. We have had education Bills, health Bills, the Family Law Bill, the Defamation Bill. There is not a single piece of legislation which is destined to impact only upon people within these hallowed walls.
The only other point I wish to mention in detail at this moment is addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who described race relations in this country as being on a knife edge. I believe that statement does a disservice to the many people in our communities—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl will have a proper opportunity to reply to what I am saying later. I am proposing that this Bill do now pass. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will have the opportunity to speak in due course. I think such statements do a disservice to the many people in the community who have worked assiduously for good race relations, underpinned, I might say, by an extremely effective piece of legislation, the 1976 Race Relations Act. Perhaps I may also say—because the noble Earl was rather selective in his comments about the CRE—that the Commission for Racial Equality made clear in its
1364
report that it thought race relations in this country compared favourably set against the levels of xenophobia in many neighbouring European countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, is not in his place at the moment, but I promised that I would refer to what might be described as his "Bill do now pass" speech made yesterday. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He reminded us that many established and valued communities arrived here as refugees and that this country has an honourable tradition of harbouring those at risk of persecution. We attach great importance to preserving that tradition. He reminded us also that this is an exceptionally densely populated country and that many plead persecution when what draws them here is economic advantage. All that I welcome. I agree with the noble Lord even though I naturally regret that he did not feel able to support us on benefit proposals. Nevertheless, I appreciate his contribution to our debate.
The Bill reflects this Government's long-standing view that firm immigration control is a necessary condition for preserving this country's good record on race relations. The Government remain wholly committed to fair asylum procedures and fair immigration procedures. We intend to continue to comply with our international obligations, and in particular with the 1951 convention on refugees. Indeed, we fully intend to preserve this country's long and honourable tradition of providing refuge to those genuinely at risk of persecution. The Bill is not only consistent with all those objectives; it is essential if the United Kingdom is to continue to achieve them. That is why I commend the measure to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol): My Lords, I have to inform the House that in the second Division the total for the Not-Contents should have been 144 and not 145, as was announced earlier.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister in the speech she has just made, sought to give the impression that this is somehow a coherent and principled response to the problems, which all acknowledge, of how to deal with asylum and asylum claimants and how to deal with immigration. Of course it is no such thing. This Bill is a ragbag of hurried, mostly ill-thought-out attempts to deal with the deficiencies of the legislation which the Government themselves passed in 1993 in the Asylum and Immigrations Appeals Act. Some of these attempts are trivial and will have very little effect. Some of them are more important and more dangerous; but all of them are objectionable in some way or another. This is a bad series of small measures put together to form what is inevitably a bad Bill.
The Minister referred to changes which have taken place in this House. There have indeed been quite a number of them. Changes on Divisions have seen to it that there will be no "fast tracking" of victims of torture from the so-called white list countries. Changes made

1365
yesterday will make sure that there is a three-day period of grace for asylum seekers in which to claim asylum after they have entered the country, without losing benefits. A further change made yesterday on a Division provides protection for abused domestic workers.
In addition to that, it is only right to acknowledge that a number of changes have taken place by concessions on the part of the Government rather than in Divisions and also through assurances which have been given in the course of debate. The thoroughly objectionable word "immigrant" has been removed from the face of the Bill, although the intention of what we objected to is still there in the phrase:
"a person subject to immigration control".
There have been minor improvements in relation to advisers, who could run a risk of prosecution for giving advice to asylum seekers. An assurance has been given that persecution other than by the state or agents of the state in other countries will be recognised as persecution within the terms of the legislation, as is already the case in the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. There is now a provision that the adjudicator can direct the Secretary of State to assist the return of a successful appellant who had been removed. There have also been changes with regard to affirmative resolution procedures.
However, there are still many grave defects in the Bill. It is still the case that what are called "fast-track procedures" will mean that some cases—inevitably, a substantial number of genuine cases—will not receive proper consideration and that appellants will not be present for their own appeals. It is widely agreed by those with experience of appeals that that reduces the likelihood of their appeals being properly heard or resulting in a proper conclusion.
As a result of the amendments introduced yesterday—I shall have to return briefly to this issue—many people will be left destitute and homeless, and inevitably, as even the Government admit, they will include genuine asylum seekers. Because of the provisions (not so much on immigration but particularly on employment) it will still be the case that black and Asian British citizens will have to prove their immigration status when they apply for jobs, housing, child benefit or any of the other benefits which are dealt with in Clause 11. I believe that there will inevitably be an increase in discrimination against black and Asian citizens, many of whom have been properly in this country for many years and who may be the descendants of those who came to this country over the centuries.
I am sorry to say that it is still the case that immigration offences will be ranked alongside murder, rape and armed robbery in seriousness and that powers of warrant will still apply to immigration offences as if they were as serious as the offences which I have just mentioned. The Government have failed to address the true level of the seriousness of immigration offences. They have also failed to address the issue of the registration of immigration advisers. I deny the Minister's allegation that we were somehow being lax on racketeering. On the contrary, we believe that the
1366
Government's proposals on racketeering are thoroughly inadequate. A number of our amendments were intended to improve the situation.
I have to say something about the new clause, now Clause 11, which was introduced yesterday. It was introduced in a very great hurry at the end of the proceedings in both Houses. It seeks to deal with the dilemma that was recognised by the Court of Appeal on 21st June when it said that legally the Government were in error in introducing changes to primary legislation by means of the regulations which came into force on 5th February. However, the judgment went very much further in its description of the effects of those regulations—now primary legislation. Let us acknowledge that the Government have rectified the legal problem identified by the Court of Appeal, but they have not recognised the true horror of having in this country significant numbers of people who are asylum claimants, who are here in order to be asylum claimants, who are recognised as asylum claimants but who are being left without any means of support and, as the Court of Appeal said, in a state of destitution. That cannot be a civilised way to treat people who are, if not our fellow citizens, at least our fellow inhabitants of the British Isles. This hasty attempt to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal will redound to the discredit of this Government as a government of a civilised country.
The way in which the Government have dealt with Parliament will also redound to their discredit. The time available to us for consideration of the new government amendments, which were not available until late on Thursday afternoon, was quite inadequate for proper consideration. Indeed, it was in the middle of that debate yesterday afternoon that we learned that further government amendments were being tabled to their own amendment—even as we were debating it. We now know that those government amendments were withdrawn. Were they justified or not? If they were justified, the Government should have persisted in them. If they were not justified, we can presume that the new government amendment is defective in ways that we do not know.
It is difficult to understand what the Minister said about the Government's reaction to the defeat that they suffered yesterday. I took down what the noble Baroness said. She said that the Government would consider how to respond to the amendment "when the Bill returns". What does that mean? Is the amendment to be accepted in the Commons or is it to be changed there? What does "returns" mean? Does it mean when the Bill "returns to this House" or when it "returns to the Commons"—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have to return the Bill to the House of Commons.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Their views will be given in the Commons.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Okay, but common language would assume that when one talks about "returns", one means when the Bill returns here. I suggest that the Minister could have said what she meant rather more clearly than was the case.

1367
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the need for the Bill to commence as soon as possible and said that the Government would seek the agreement of the Commons to the Bill. Let us hope that the Minister does that. Let us hope that he seeks the agreement of the Commons to that aspect of the Bill as it is sent there from this House.
Before I close, I must thank the many organisations, expert in this area, which have helped to brief us. I thank the Refugee Legal Centre; the Refugee Council; the Commission for Racial Equality; the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; the Immigration Law Practitioners Association; the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; the Child Poverty Action Group; the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux; Shelter and various Church organisations. I apologise if I have missed any. I thank particularly Clare Cozens, our researcher, who has been indefatigable in bringing together views and in helping us to decide how to approach the Bill in this House. I am also enormously grateful to my colleagues on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord Dubs. I hope that they will agree that we have been a happy and united team and that we have divided the work between us effectively. I acknowledge with thanks the usual courtesy and forbearance, sometimes, of the two Ministers and the Whip on the Government Front Bench. These would have been extremely unpleasant proceedings without that courtesy and forbearance—and we are grateful for it.
I am not happy that this Bill should pass but, of course, we shall not oppose the Motion in the Lobbies. I believe that this will be a Bill of short duration—not because anybody wants to say before an election that they will repeal this or that piece of legislation—politics does not work that way—but because the remedies which are sought to the problems which have often been wrongly identified in the Bill are inadequate, scrappy, hastily thought-out and are often very damaging indeed. It is a bad Bill.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, "at least they are still talking!" There are some contexts—this is one of them—in which that is an encouraging thing to say. I apologise to those concerned with the next business that that is so. We have been attempting to talk across a gulf so wide that parliamentary debate is almost impossible. In those circumstances, I warmly thank the professionalism and courtesy of the two Ministers involved in this Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
The first lesson I learned when I arrived here was that how much I liked people had nothing whatever to do with what I felt about their opinions. I have relearned that lesson during this Bill.
I should like to thank colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—whose experience of this subject is so long. As to my own Bench, I offer the warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Williams of
1368
Crosby. I can think of no one I would rather have beside me in a scrap late at night. I can think of no one who can combine replies in a scrap late at night with the highest statesmanship in the way she can. I have been proud to work with her.
I also offer thanks to Carolyn Rampton in our Whips' Office who, not at an easy time, has coped with this Bill with apparently total calm. I am sure she will tell me that appearances are deceptive, but they deceived me. I also join in the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to all those from the organisations which have advised us. They have done it with the greatest distinction. I have looked up many of their references and followed them up. It is the strongest academic test of advice, which they have passed with flying colours.
I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstood my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby when she said that the Bill had stirred the conscience of the country. We were not suggesting for a moment that other Bills do not interest the country. But the sense of shock which this Bill has created—I know many hundreds of people personally who share this view—is something that I have not experienced for a very long time. It exceeds that which we felt in relation to the poll tax—and by a very long way.
My father once said that love of England was very nearly the strongest emotion that one could possess. I agree with that. But this Bill has torn away one of the landmarks by which I have identified my Englishness. I grew up during the War in a house full of Germans, many but by no means all of whom were Jewish. There I gained the opinion, which I still hold, that Germans could be very nice people. I grew up in pride at the country's tradition of hospitality to the persecuted from abroad. That is not just a tradition of this century. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has referred to Huguenot influence in the 16th century. I was reminded of the reply of Queen Elizabeth I when she was faced with protests about their numbers. She said:
"They are all welcome. I at least will never fail them".
Perhaps that was why a proclamation drafted in 1601 to withdraw all parish support from what was described as blackamoors never saw the light of day. That was a more civilised time than this. The sense of shock which is felt is one that must be accepted on the other side of the House, just as we must accept on this side of the House that it is not shared there. It does not make debate easy. It does credit to Parliament as an institution that, however great the difficulty, we have risen to it.
I shall not be tempted into answering in detail all the arguments the Minister has just put forward. She can guess what my answers would be. But it is not often that 158 Members of this Chamber vote in favour of an opposition amendment. That indicated a stirring and movement of opinion going far beyond the ranks of those who normally oppose Government business. That welling up of opinion is something that any politically prudent government may be unwise to ignore.
What the noble Baroness has said about treating "asylum seekers" and "refugees" as if they are equivalent terms is plainly legally wrong. I have

1369
checked the point further since the debate yesterday and found that what I then said was correct. She can look it up. I will not take it any further now. The noble Baroness does not assist debate by taking me to task for expressing a view on race relations which quotes verbatim Mr. Herman Ouseley in the introduction to the annual report of the Commission on Racial Equality. Mr. Ouseley may or may not be mistaken, but he knows more about race relations than either the noble Baroness or myself. I quote him without apology. I think that the noble Baroness is most unwise to reproach me for doing so.
I was deeply distressed, since we had had exchanges about Clause 8, that the noble Baroness once again suggested that we on these Benches were doing anything whatever to support racketeers. It is difficult enough to conduct civilised debate on a Bill of this kind without inferences of that type. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has made a number of practical suggestions on the point, which I am sure she will be happy to repeat if the Minister does not remember them. We believe that the clause will do far more harm to race relations than to racketeers. The noble Baroness may not believe that opinion to be correct or even rational, but however misguided we may be in holding it I ask her to withdraw the remarks that she has just made. I will be very happy to give way if she rises to do so. If she does not, I regret that I must take the matter further.
It is also my belief—which I know is not shared by the noble Baroness—that the bulk of this Bill contradicts our international legal obligations. I believe that Clause 1 infringes Article 3 of the UN convention. I believe Clauses 2 and 3 infringe Article 33, and possibly Article 32. I believe that Clauses 4 and 5 infringe Article 31(1). I ask the House to be wary of Government attempts to redefine the word "lawful" to try to argue that those who enter to claim asylum are entering unlawfully. That would have the effect of attempting to disapply the UN convention for the majority of asylum seekers. I believe that such an attempt is prohibited by Article 31(1). I hope that the case will be argued in some judicial forum. I believe that Clause 6 does not infringe any legal obligation whatever, which is not to say that I like it. I believe that Clauses 7 and 8 will lead to many breaches of the Race Relations Act. I believe that Clause 9 infringes Articles 21 and 23 of the UN convention and Article 27(3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I believe that Clause 10 infringes Article 24 of the UN convention and Articles 27(1), 27(3) and 26 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I do not expect the noble Baroness to agree with that, but the record of the Home Office in predicting the reaction of the courts should not encourage it to have confidence.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first, I say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the tributes which he paid to my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did so too. I, in turn, should like to give credit to those Members of the Opposition Front Benches who, although with a great
1370
deal of opposition, have with sincerity and determination put forward their views on the Bill. My noble friends have defended what I believe to be a necessary Bill. They have done so with clarity, courtesy and determination.
Having sat all through yesterday and today without saying a word, but having taken a small part in some of the earlier stages of the Bill, perhaps I may say that the Bill seems to me to be a piece of history vividly repeating itself. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, this country was invaded by thousands of British overseas subjects who had a right to come here. We were proud of what was then the ancient tradition of allowing British subjects of all kinds, of all races, from all over the world, to come to live in this country if they wanted. They were of course mainly economic migrants. Many of them were sad people.
At that time, I had for three years responsibility for the Immigration Department of the Home Office. Just to give one example, I remember in 1961 that I went to Southampton to see the arrival of a large ship containing over 1,000 immigrants from the Caribbean. It was cold, and they were ill-clad. They were obviously sad people. They were people of both sexes and all ages. I was sorry for them. I wondered what we should be doing about that, but the problem was that in that year 100,000 such people came to this country. The government of the day could not let that go on. So we had to have the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 which I had some part in piloting through another place.
That Act was as passionately opposed as this Bill has been, both by the Socialist Party and by the Liberal Party of the day. The Socialist Party voted against the Bill 42 times and threatened that if it were returned to power it would repeal it. But of course it did not and could not repeal it. Indeed, it strengthened it, because while it was in power there was a large incursion of East African Asians. It felt quite rightly that something had to be done about that.
I say that in order to put the Bill into its proper context. I find this a somewhat nostalgic occasion. Of course we feel sorry for those millions of people in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and elsewhere who are being oppressed and even tortured in their own countries. Of course if vast numbers of them came here, we would have to change our honourable and humane principle of granting asylum to all such people. But the Bill does not do that. What it does is to ensure that the very considerable numbers who do come here and claim asylum are entitled to it—that, in sum, is what the Bill does—and do not use it merely as an excuse to stay here.
Of course we feel sorry in many cases, not just for the genuine asylum seekers but for the many others. The right reverend Prelates and both main opposition parties have a perfect right to pursue what they consider to be a very good cause. But they have no responsibility for the outcome of the various proposals that they make for changing the Bill.
Governments—I use the word particularly in the plural, because it would apply to any government of any party—have such broad and complete responsibilities in

1371
fairness to our own people that they just have to be selective about all the good causes which are put before them. Perhaps I may say in passing that for four years I was chairman of one of our biggest pressure groups (MENCAP); first, when there was a Labour Government and then for two years when there was a Conservative Government. I pressed its case as hard as I could, but I realised that the government of the day (first Labour and then Conservative) had the responsibility for taking decisions on the various proposals that we put forward. That is how a democracy must work.
I heard recently on the radio that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, for whom I have great respect and find so friendly, was making a plea to relieve child poverty, of which, by the way, we have much less than we had some years ago.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What!
Lord Renton: My Lords, we have much less than when I was young between the wars, and much less than in the late 1940s and early 1950s. But besides dealing with child poverty, governments have to deal with education problems, the health service, housing problems, drugs, terrorism, and unemployment. They have to find money—the people's money—by direct and indirect taxation for those and many other matters. It is taxpayers at all levels of society from whom the money has to be obtained to deal with those problems.
Governments have to have priorities. They cannot pour out money on every good cause, as I have said. I do not know whether any noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench can correct me, but I read in one of the Sunday newspapers that the Leader of the Opposition in another place is reported as saying that he would not, if there were a Labour Government, increase government expenditure. Let him tell that to those who want to cause the Government to increase the large sums already being spent on asylum seekers and other people trying to get in here, of whom, as has been said, there were 55,000 last year of whom only 5 per cent. were granted asylum on arrival. Of the many more who appealed, only 3 per cent. of the appeals were successful.
There has been a far greater increase in the number of people trying to come in and settle in this country than in any other European country. That is so, despite what the noble Baroness was saying earlier. The millions of pounds which the Government have been spending hearing the cases of those who want to come here and in maintaining them is something we have to bear in mind. The problems must be dealt with. Thank goodness we have a government who had the courage and determination to introduce the Bill and, I hope, get it through both Houses of Parliament in order to deal with these problems.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he wanted to put the Bill in its proper context. He did that by prefacing that section of his speech with a reference to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. We are concerned not with the people who are being
1372
tortured or extrajudicially executed, or who want to escape from such regimes and come to this country; we are talking about a device which the Government are using to limit immigration by the back door. By imposing serious financial penalties on people who may well have a perfectly legitimate claim to asylum, they are seeking to make it impossible for them to pursue a claim by starving them into submission.
The way in which the Bill has been handled is utterly unacceptable. To chop it up and then reconstitute it like a kedgeree, bringing it back in different sections, has been very confusing and created enormous difficulties for noble Lords who have attempted to take part in the proceedings. I am afraid that the Bill will leave this House with serious defects which no one has yet been able to identify; that those will lead to serious confusion and error in the administration of the Bill and defeats for the Government in the courts. I certainly hope that that will be the case because I believe that the Government have brought that on their own heads by rushing through this legislation in a totally unnecessary manner. The House could well have sat for another week in order to have given your Lordships adequate time to consider all the amendments that were tabled at a late stage on Thursday afternoon.
My principal reason for wanting to speak at this stage is that while your Lordships have been proceeding on the assumption that, as my noble friend Lord Russell said, the Bill must be judged in the light of its compatibility with our international obligations, the Foreign Secretary has been talking about material alterations in the convention in, of all places, Jeddah. The Foreign Secretary goes to a country which is renowned for indulging in public executions, endemic torture, detentions without trial and all the other evils which cause people to go into asylum and chooses that place of all places in the world to talk about amendments to the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Admittedly, he was speaking in the context of the world attack on terrorism following the Sharm el Sheikh summit and the G7 meeting at which President Clinton said that a new confrontation with terrorism was necessary. I do not disagree with that. I believe that the world must face up to terrorism which is instigated in certain countries. In that connection I speak particularly of Iran because we all know that that is the hotbed of world terrorism. It is no good concealing that fact from ourselves.
As an international community we need to take every possible measure to confront terrorism. However, if the Foreign Secretary is saying that we have to do that by limiting the rights which people have hitherto enjoyed under the United Nations convention it is an extremely sad day for this country. It is sad that Britain of all countries should be taking the lead in whittling down those rights, although it is of a piece with the remarks which the right honourable gentleman made on other occasions, in particular the interview he gave to the Arabic newspaper Al Hayyat immediately after he took office. He then made a blanket condemnation of Arab and Moslem dissidents coming to this country. If we are in the process of making radical alterations to the United Nations convention it would have been better if the

1373
Foreign Secretary had made a Statement in another place rather than doing so in Jeddah where human rights are violated on such an enormous scale—
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, we must be extremely careful about how we address the affairs of a sovereign state, especially a state which has a culture which it upholds.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is the opinion of the noble Viscount but I am entitled to express my opinion about the nature of the punishments which are inflicted on people in Saudi Arabia and the incongruity of the Foreign Secretary talking about amending the United Nations Convention on Refugees in such a location. If he had done so in Washington in response to an initiative of President Clinton I should have said that that was a suitable environment in which to discuss the action of the international community against terrorism and the possibility that changes might be effected in the United Nations Convention on Refugees with a particular view to combatting terrorism.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord's speech is in the tradition of this House where, on Third Reading, we speak about the Bill. It seems to me to have ranged rather wide. Those of us who would like to say something about the Bill would be very grateful if he could limit those remarks.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that what I am saying is appropriate to the Bill because we are talking about a measure which, as my noble friend Lord Russell remarked, may be considered to be in violation of some of the provisions of the United Nations convention. If we are talking about a convention which is likely to be altered by action prompted by the Foreign Secretary we are entitled to know what he has in mind and what effect that may have on the implications of this legislation. For him to go off to Jeddah and talk about these matters just at the moment when the Bill is before your Lordships in the last stages of its proceedings is highly incongruous and unacceptable.
We have come to the end of these proceedings. It would have been better had we been able to complete the Question that the Bill do now pass without the slur which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, inflicted on the so-called armchair critics. During its passage through this House we have done our best to try to amend the Bill as we see fit. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that if your Lordships are to work in amity and friendship across the Floor of the House, that kind of remark is best avoided. I believe that if we can maintain civilities between the two Front Benches that will help to smooth the passage of legislation which, as my noble friend remarked, is very difficult indeed.
The noble Baroness challenged us on this side of the House to say what alternatives we have to the proposals in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, made what some of us consider to be a very sensible proposal for limiting the rights of asylum
1374
of people who have been here for some length of time. That would have to be defined but he was referring particularly to those who have been commented upon by the noble Baroness; those who first enter as visitors or in some other capacity, remain here for six months, get an extension for six months and then suddenly wake up to the fact that it is possible to apply for asylum. They then remain for a further period while the appeal is being considered.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, also said that the right way to proceed was by having a sieve which limited access to the appeals system, although he did not go into the same kind of detail as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should have thought that with advice from two such distinguished experts in the law, at some point in the proceedings the noble Baroness would have responded to those initiatives.
The fact is that there are plenty of alternatives and they are not limited to the acceleration of the procedures about which my noble friend Lady Williams rightly commented at earlier stages of the Bill. There is plenty that could have been done to limit the amount of money that is being spent on benefits to asylum seekers. I believe that the provisions which we are now allowing to pass will have a very damaging effect on the most vulnerable sections in our community, including many who have a genuine claim for asylum.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the Third Reading of this Bill. I believe that the debate has been very intense on all sides because views are very sincerely held on all sides. The House must have a degree of understanding of that.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the invasion of people before the 1962 Act. I am one of the invaders. I was very sorry that my family and friends were excluded in the way in which many others have been since. But I understand the need for that in a country of this size. Therefore, I believe that the Government have done their best to try to be fair. That is why I support the Bill.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her measured handling of this most emotive of Bills during several late nights, or should I say early mornings?
The Bill has made me realise just how fortunate we are to live here. Like my noble friend Lady Gardner, I was not born here. But this is a country to which so many people aspire. They wish to come to live here. Perhaps we should remember that when we succumb to the temptation of criticising everything about the United Kingdom. Of course we should like to be the good Samaritans to all but, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, we must be selective in order to hold faith with the taxpayers.
My noble friend dealt with a great many complex issues centred on the asylum part of the Bill, but she still found time to listen to representations on the equally important but less emotionally charged immigration element of the Bill; and I thank her for that. I am very

1375
grateful for the sympathetic hearing that I received and for the concession which my noble friend made in accepting that, while ferry companies and airlines must understand their obligations to ensure that they bring to this country the people who have the right to be here, the Government share that responsibility.
The government amendment to restrict responsibility for detention costs to 14 days has been warmly welcomed by the transport industry. I hope that that sense of fair play and partnership will continue and that my noble friend will ensure that penalties are imposed equitably. There are anomalies in the law and I know that my noble friend is well aware of that. Ferry companies and airlines accept that they must do the right thing but believe that it is time that the anomalies should be removed and the law applied equally to all.
My noble friend has indicated a willingness to discuss further ways in which to develop the partnership between government and those in the transport industry who take their responsibilities seriously. I am sure that the industry will be most grateful for that.
Having said that, I agree with previous speakers that the courtesy and forbearance shown has been exemplary. It is that which makes this House so civilised and so markedly a beacon of the highest standards of behaviour.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Renton and others in congratulating the Minister on the Bill. Many points have been covered many times during many hours of debate on the Bill and I shall not repeat the arguments.
However, I have been most dismayed by the amendments tabled by the two parties opposite, many of which sought to withdraw entire clauses from the Bill. One can only conclude from that they do not agree with the principle of the Bill and that they would demolish the Bill and render it ineffective. They have produced wrecking and delaying procedures throughout.
We have heard from the Liberal Democrats that they will repeal the Bill, but when I posed the question yesterday to the party opposite, answer came there none. Therefore, I can only assume that it too would include the repeal of the Bill in its manifesto.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness was here to hear me say that you do not threaten to repeal Bills. Politics is not like that. You move on.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I wonder whether the party opposite has costed the three extra days provision and has taken into account the more than £200 million of benefit which is needed to pay illegal asylum seekers. Have they cleared that with the Shadow Chancellor in the other place?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could possibly withdraw the words "illegal", which was otiose to her argument.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the savings planned in this Bill will then not be made and all costs would
1376
fall on the taxpayers. I am sure that taxpayers in this country really wish to see genuine asylum seekers attain legitimate refugee status as quickly as possible and do not want thousands of illegal applicants clogging the system. I support the new procedures in Clause 1 and the rest of the Bill.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to dissociate myself from some of the rather more extreme partisan views which have just been expressed. Instead, I should like to concentrate on some practical measures which could be taken.
We understand that the number of people working within the Home Office and dealing with asylum seekers has increased from about 100 to 800. I am glad to hear that. But so far they have succeeded in making very little impression on the backlog of cases still outstanding, some of which date back to 1991. Therefore, I believe that there is scope both for increasing the numbers of staff and for improving their training and productivity.
While I am on that subject, perhaps I may point to the very great importance of having interpreters in a wide variety of languages to deal with asylum cases. In that regard also there is some scope for improving the understanding and sympathy with which interpreters deal with individual applicants.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this Bill has dealt with delicate and complex matters. In some ways, I am sad about how acrimonious some aspects have become but I recognise that there are emotive issues before us.
In my view the Government are to be commended for addressing the current situation. But it is clear that more needs to be done to reach the root cause of the problem. We have heard strong arguments on all sides. Procedures need to be overhauled but how do we devise a system which will stand the test of time and which does not abuse the United Kingdom's good intentions with early identification of genuine claims? I believe that we must find a just system which dispenses with the need—and I repeat the word "need"—for the right of appeal in the vast majority of cases.
I shall briefly flag the following for consideration in a spirit of "where do we go from here?" Thought might be given to introducing a system for countries other than the likes of Iran, Iraq and the Sudan, the claims being considered by a three-member adjudicating panel trained to handle regional specific claims. The panels might include one independent member, perhaps from UNHCR.
If the panel decided unanimously that the individual's case had no merit, there should be no right of appeal and immediate removal. On the other hand, there could be a right of appeal in most cases where there was a dissenting opinion. Similarly, where the panel considered unanimously that the applicant was a refugee, he would be granted status with no right of appeal by the Home Office. Applicants originating from a list of countries such as Iran, Iraq and the Sudan, drawn up by the Home Secretary in consultation with specialist bodies and Parliament, would have their

1377
applications handled using the fast-track procedure by one Home Office official only. That would take out of the system individuals most likely to have their claims accepted.
Marry all that with the three-day grace period decided on yesterday and we should have eliminated potentially two tiers of appeals process and the cause of so much uncertainty, cost and bureaucratic delay. Indeed, we might even find solutions in one shot and negate the problems surrounding benefits, leaving a system which is manifestly effective and fair.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but I feel obliged to do so in response to some of the remarks that have been made. I shall be brief. I repeat: I had no intention whatever of taking part in this discussion; indeed, I thought that we had had enough discussion. Nevertheless, I must respond to some of the things that have been said as I regard them as being quite unacceptable.
Perhaps I may, first, congratulate the noble Lords who put forward such constructive suggestions. I have in mind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, together with other Members on the Opposition Benches who, during the earlier stages, tried to put forward serious proposals for dealing with some of the problems. I should like to make reference to just one of those proposals; namely, the proposal for registering those who act as representatives for immigrants and who give them advice.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, proposed such a register. However, that was not acceptable to the other side. We were then accused of supporting racketeering. I regard that as an utterly disgraceful remark, and I am still waiting for the Minister to withdraw it because I believe that that is not a remark that anyone can be expected to accept in the light of the amendments that we moved.
I am disgusted by the way in which there has been an attempt to pave the way for what I can only describe as an election-type atmosphere. Quite apart from being accused of supporting racketeering, we have also been accused of wishing to introduce methods of immigration by deception. We have been accused of supporting those who are involved in assisting illegal immigrants knowing them to be illegal; and, in addition, we have been told many times that our proposals would waste taxpayers' money.
We restrain ourselves; indeed, we could go through a long litany from British Rail to building unnecessary ministries. I shall not do so. I understood that the atmosphere of this House was rather different from that. I find it extremely sad and disappointing that, during the last few minutes of the proceedings on this Bill where considerable restraint has been shown, we should see such an extraordinary deterioration to a level of electoral language that I, for one, did not expect to hear.
1378
I say again, I would not have intervened at this stage but I have been driven to do so by outrage. I simply had to make my position absolutely plain.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate that, normally, there would not be two speeches from the Labour Front Bench on this Motion. However, I have one particular reason for breaking with that convention. I came to this country as a refugee when a small child. I did not mention that fact during earlier debates because I thought that it would be seen as special pleading. Therefore, I left it alone. Nevertheless, I have some experiences which, clearly, have influenced me because I have memories of my childhood.
I should like to make a few brief comments. Having virtually got their Bill through, it is not clear to me whether the Government want every asylum seeker to claim asylum at the point of entry, thereby making no savings in the social security or any other budget, or whether they expect, for reasons that have been amply debated, that many asylum seekers will not make the claim at the point of entry, in which case there will be some savings but also some consequences.
According to the latest statistics, there are at present some 70,000 asylum cases waiting to be resolved. If, on average, an asylum case costs the public purse roughly £100 a week in income support, and so on, I calculate that that will cost about £350 million a year. I know that the Government have said—and, indeed, the Minister said it only a few minutes ago—that there are certain costs which they are trying to cut, and that they have increased the number of staff to deal with such matters. Nevertheless, we are still left with the cost of £350 million a year.
Bearing in mind the fact that it takes 18 months to two years to make an asylum claim—although, two days ago, I met a Ugandan woman who has been waiting for five years for her claim to be resolved—if we speeded up the process to, say, six months, we would probably save about £250 million to £270 million a year. That is where there could be a real saving—a real saving to the Exchequer, provided that we still operated a decent and fair system. I give way to the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is important for me to repeat the figures that I gave earlier. The number of determinations rose from 2,400 in 1994 to 7,000 last year; but the projected figure for this year is 19,000. That is an enormous improvement. Initial decisions by the Home Office rose from 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 last year. We expect that figure to rise to 37,000 this year. Therefore, the increases that the noble Lord, Lord is looking for—and, indeed, more—are well on the way to being achieved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I should not have embarked on the question of figures because this is not a stage of the Bill where one should be debating issues that have already been addressed and which are perhaps inappropriate now. I simply wanted to make this point. If there was a will, which the Government have not been showing over the years, I still believe there would be

1379
much greater savings. It is in that area that savings could be made which would be consistent with this country's tradition of being fair to people who seek asylum; indeed, a tradition from which I benefited. We could do so without going through some of the procedures that we have before us.
Having said that, I should like to thank my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench. I have not taken part in a debate before in this House that has reached such a stage. I should also like to thank those from the Liberal Democrat Party for the part that they played in the proceedings; and, indeed, I should like to thank the government Ministers for their unfailing courtesy.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Community Service by Offenders (Hours of Work) (Scotland) Order 1996
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, community service by offenders was introduced in Scotland by the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978, which was consolidated into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. At the moment, community service can be given for between 40 and 240 hours. The Government believe that now is the time to revise both the minimum and the maximum hours for which a community service order can be made. That is in order to reinforce the message to offenders, to sentencers and to the public that community service is a properly demanding sentence of the court.
In the White Paper Firm and Fair issued in June 1994 the Government set out their proposals for changes in the community service maximum number of hours and invited comments from interested parties. No contrary comments were received and the proposal to increase the maximum received strong support from those responding.
Since then, the Government have also reviewed the minimum, and our intention to change the provision was announced last autumn. Again, there have been no contrary representations.
The proposed changes in the number of hours contribute to our overall objective. In addition, a circular has recently been issued by the Scottish Office to local authorities requiring them to ensure that a sufficient number of physically challenging and demanding tasks are made available for community service offenders; and that the nature of the work and its product are brought much more to the attention of the public. That includes the marking of protective clothing where worn by those involved in a community service scheme.
A national community service environmental initiative has been launched which focuses on major projects, such as graffiti removal, footpath building,
1380
renovating public open spaces and waterway clearance. They are major projects of clear benefit to the community, but demanding of the offender. We are determined that there should be no misconception that community service participation is a soft option holiday camp; it is not. It is hard and useful work.
I believe that the changes we are making to community service hours are positive. They will assist in the disposal of its objectives and they deserve our shared support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that there is general agreement in the community that the whole question of community service for offenders has been a success. I was slightly concerned about the increase from 40 to 80 hours, but I am informed by people who are involved and those who are sympathetic to it that it will produce a better balance and a sharper understanding for those concerned.
However, I have a slight worry upon which I hope the Minister will be able to assist me. I do not like the idea of someone being specially dressed to indicate to the public that he is an offender. Do offenders turn up in the morning and change into these clothes and return to their communities at night in their own clothes? I hope that the Minister will clarify that small but I think psychologically important point. While we want to make someone aware that he has broken the law, has been a nuisance and has done things that are not socially acceptable, we do not want him to be constantly marked out. We are talking about community service. We want to enable people who have offended to be able to break out of that cycle as quickly as possible. The Minister may prefer to write to me on that point rather than reply now. I repeat that I think that is an important point.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome the noble Lord has given to the order. I can reassure him about the clothing he asked about. It is protective clothing; it is not a uniform as such. Each authority will make its own arrangements for marking protective clothing clearly and visibly. The clothing will not be worn on the way to and from work. It will be labelled quite clearly "Community Service Scheme". My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is keen to raise the profile of community service orders in the public domain. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the wearing of protective clothing will be guided by health and safety requirements. There will obviously be instances, such as working within residential care homes, where health and safety requirements will not require the wearing of protective clothing. This is not a universal obligation placed on all offenders, as the noble Lord may fear. If there is anything I can add by way of a letter to the noble Lord, I shall do so. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
7.52 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Enlistment or entry for local service]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("(3) Within 6 months of the coming into force of this section the Secretary of State shall, before proceeding to any further replacement of Ministry of Defence police, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report relating to the outcome of any pilot projects for alternative arrangements under subsection (1) for duties which have been undertaken by Ministry of Defence police.
(4) No proposal for alternative arrangements under subsection (1) for duties which have been undertaken by Ministry of Defence police shall have effect unless it is confirmed by order made by statutory instrument and subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Perhaps I could be forgiven for saying at the outset that I for one am a little concerned that the defence of the realm should be pushed down the agenda in this way and treated in such a cavalier fashion as it has been treated this evening.
This amendment concerns Clause 2, which is the enabling clause for the proposed military local service engagements and the military provost guard service. Its purpose is to make sure that pilot projects are pilot projects and that they are properly evaluated before Parliament decides whether or not to endorse the scheme for implementation. The Government tell us that before going fully ahead the pilot projects to which I have just referred will be evaluated. However, the suspicion remains that the pilot projects are in fact a formality, or even a ratchet to lock policy into what will become an irreversible change.
There are doubts about the real motivation and purpose. Questions have been raised about the design and cost-effectiveness of the pilot projects, if they are genuinely pilot projects at all. Has the Minister yet seen a paper prepared by members of the Defence Police Federation setting out, as they see it, a more cost-effective option for the pilot projects? What is his conclusion on what they recommend? If he has not seen the paper, will he undertake this evening to acquire it and study it before finally deciding to go ahead?
We debated all this fairly fully in Committee in the Moses Room. However, anxieties remain on which the Government have so far failed to reassure us. For example, on costs of the scheme, is it not true that the forecast pay bill has already escalated by as much as a third? Will the level of remuneration not have to be very attractive indeed if it is to bring in personnel of the right calibre to such monotonous and mostly boring work—guarding and guarding alone? What of the recruitment and training costs? Have the estimates fully taken into account the costs of recruiting and training sufficient civilians if, as many anticipate, the number of Army recruits proves low?
The Government say the intention is to replace the Ministry of Defence Police personnel on a one-to-one basis, but few outside government believe that will be a viable ratio. Indeed, in this context, what of the disturbing events at Chilwell which I raised in Committee, and about which we still have to have a satisfactory explanation? I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I briefly refer again to what I said in Committee when I drew on an interesting letter which was written by experienced and committed members of the Ministry of Defence Police at Chilwell. They wrote:
"As you know, the MPGS scheme proposes that Ministry of Defence policemen are to be replaced on a one-for-one basis by infantry-trained non-regular soldiers; where those policemen are employed solely on armed guarding duties. This is what the scheme's protagonists within the MoD and Government have been telling Parliament, but it is far from the truth. Hardly any MDP on stations without a nuclear association are employed solely as armed guards. At the three MDP manned stations chosen to pilot the scheme, Chilwell, Donnington and Wilton, the MDP complements are and have for years been employed on primary policing duties, with the added capability to provide an armed response if necessary".
As I pointed out to the Committee, the letter continues, significantly,
"On my own station, Chilwell, a complementing review scheduled for September 1996 was rushed forward to mid-April. This resulted in our being retrospectively relegated on paper only to the required status of armed guards; although our actual employment has not changed at all. This review also increased our complement, again on paper only, from our current total of 20 men to the 26 men which the MPGS would require. This represents a hidden increase in manning by the MPGS over our current true MDP numbers".
That is hardly a convincing start to a genuine experiment by a pilot project.
When will this scheme break even? Will it be this century or next century? If it has been properly costed the Minister must surely give us a firm estimated date. He will know that many informed people doubt whether it will ever break even. As regards the public purse as a whole, what of the cost which will fall on other budgets outside the Ministry of Defence as the civil, non-Ministry of Defence police are compelled to take on more of the duties which in the past were undertaken by MoD police?
This brings us to wider issues. MoD police are civilian police constables and police officers trained in the use of firearms. The firearms fall into the whole discipline, skill and professionalism of police work. That is a vital safeguard. The MoD police are subject to the Police Complaints Authority. None of this will be true of the MPGS. Do we see here, quite frankly, a potentially sinister—I do not use the word lightly—erosion (yet another under this Government) of civil society as we value it in a free democracy? What of the calibre of the weapons to be used by the MPGS, often in close proximity to civilian communities? How certain can we be that the MPGS will remain deployed exclusively on guarding duties as now described? What happens if and when they are drawn into other activities? Sooner or later will they not inevitably be expected to give assistance to the civil police in the same way as the MoD police have not infrequently been called upon in the past?
As we understand it, while Army personnel recruited to MPGS may not have had formal, dedicated training in guarding, civilian recruits will be required to take an MoD guard service foundation course in addition to their other training. Why is there that distinction? I gather the Government have said that they aim to have as the minimum standard of training for the MPGS the national vocational qualification guarding level 2. That indeed sounds wise. But if that objective is to be fulfilled, will it not be essential for recruits from the Army to receive the same quality of training as civilian recruits? Does not the Minister agree that just to have been allocated guard duties from time to time during an Army career does not begin to amount to such systematic training? If all MPGS personnel were to receive the necessary training, would it not significantly increase the cost of the scheme?
What of reserve commitments? We understand the intention is that the Army regulars joining the MPGS will not acquire any further additional reserve commitments. We also understand that it is proposed that any existing reserve commitments will run concurrently with MPGS service. Will the Minister confirm that? If that is to be the case, and if the Government manage to recruit, for example, 500 MPGS from former regular service personnel, and their reserve commitments are discharged concurrently with their MPGS service, what effect will that have on the reserve capability of the Armed Forces? And, incidentally, will civilians recruited to MPGS themselves acquire reserve commitments after their full-time service?
We learn that MPGS personnel will be members of the Armed Forces pensions schemes. I understand that those pensions are calculated on the basis of the highest pay in the last three years of service. If a serviceman leaves the regular services on, say, £16,000 a year and serves with MPGS on £11,000 a year, will his pension be calculated on the lower or the higher rate? We need to be clear about that. It obviously has big implications for recruitment.
Finally, how local can local service with MPGS be guaranteed to be? The Government appear to indicate that it is intended that MPGS personnel will not be required to serve overseas in peacetime. But will all potential recruits be informed before joining MPGS that they may be required to serve elsewhere including overseas for longer than normally required in regulations; and will they be told in exactly what circumstances that would happen?
With great respect, the Minister has a lot of convincing still to do. There is much anxiety about the genuine nature of the pilot projects. There is much anxiety about the scheme as a whole. We shall listen carefully to what he says tonight. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and myself. As regards the seriousness of the issue, I spoke to one of the Ministry of Defence policemen and was shocked to hear him say, "The writing's on the wall, isn't it?". That is very much the
1384
view within the Ministry of Defence Police: that whatever happens as regards the pilot schemes, it is the end of the Ministry of Defence's police commitments.
I wish to ask a number of questions. We have been given the impression that the main reason for the change between the MDP and the MPGS is cost. In the changeover period the cost expenditure is, I believe, £20 million. The break-even point given by the Minister during Committee stage of the Bill was 2002 to 2003. However, a number of items may have changed since that cost analysis. First, the cost of wages seems to have increased. I believe that the wage originally envisaged was unrealistic. I do not believe that recruitment will be possible at that level of remuneration. Will the Minister indicate the level of wages per year which will be acceptable for a member of the MPGS? Will the figure be under £10,000 or closer to £14,000?
The noble Lord referred to membership of the MPGS. If the numbers increase, that will significantly increase the expenditure. We are not talking about a small number of men. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the number to be recruited for the MPGS is 700. That figure is the size of a battalion; it is not a small figure. As regards replacement of the MoD police, the Minister assured us that it will be on a one-to-one basis. The Minister assured us at Committee stage that involuntary redundancy was unlikely. That might be so in the pilot schemes. Ministry of Defence police may be moved sideways to other postings. But will that be the case once the pilot schemes have concluded and other schemes are initiated? Will there be a redundancy cost that has not been calculated in the figures?
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised an issue close to my heart. The Ministry of Defence Police have a role outside the base that they defend. They are not just armed policemen on guard service. They take a large role in activities outside the base. Perhaps the Minister will give some indication as to whether that costing has been taken into account. Will the Home Office police seek remuneration for the added commitment that they will give to areas formerly covered by the Ministry of Defence Police? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if local chief constables have an added commitment they will have to obtain the money from somewhere. Will any of that money be sought from the Ministry of Defence? Or has the cost to the Home Office police been taken into account? That figure might easily have been omitted.
We are not happy about this issue. We cannot take the matter further at present. However, I ask the Minister for firm figures in order to put the minds of the members of the Ministry of Defence Police and ourselves at rest. Otherwise we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, raised some interesting points. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
However, the scheme is an experiment and it might work. But there is unnecessary concern about large numbers of redundant MoD policemen. The majority

1385
should be able to move to the Home Office police forces. But, again, the scheme might not work. The noble Lords have drawn attention to difficulties. One aspect that concerns me is the difficulty of arrest procedure. Servicemen have very limited powers of arrest even within MoD property, whereas an MoD policeman has extensive powers of arrest, in particular outside the base. The scheme is an interesting experiment. It might work. It might give us cost savings. However, again it might not, and it might be appropriate quietly to drop the proposal.
As regards the amendment, it might be better to adopt the negative procedure. If we find that the scheme is working well, we need not take action. However, if we find that it is not working well and we experience one or two disasters, we can bring the issue up at the appropriate time. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on their gallant persistence in pursuing matters. However, I am disappointed that the reassurances that I gave in Committee have apparently not met their concerns. A number of points have been made this evening on behalf of the Defence Police Federation and I shall be glad to cover as many as I can. Those which I do not manage to cover I shall respond to in writing, if that is acceptable.
I start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that in some way the writing is on the wall for the Ministry of Defence Police. I emphatically state that that is not the case. On current assumptions, the size of the MDP is expected to fall to between 2,500 and 3,000 personnel by the early years of the next century, probably stabilising closer to the upper than the lower end of the range. It is the Government's intention that the MDP will remain a substantial force, able to provide a civil policing service where that is required throughout the department. Ministers and the Chief Constable are confident that a force of 2,500 to 3,000, properly structured and resourced, will remain able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked whether I had seen the Defence Police Federation paper on the pilot project. I have not seen it but shall be happy to take it into account before going ahead with our proposals. I shall ensure that I see a copy before Third Reading. The noble Lord made the point that in his view MDP officers never function wholly and solely as armed guards. It would therefore be wrong to replace civilian police officers who might come into contact with ordinary members of the public with an armed military guard. The posts at the pilot scheme sites, where it is proposed to replace MDP by the MPGS, are complemented for guarding and general security duties. It is precisely because MDP officers are not just armed guards that it makes sense in those cases to replace them with military guards. There is no reason why service personnel should not undertake those tasks; they already do so at many service
1386
establishments throughout the United Kingdom. Where a civil policing requirement has been identified at the pilot scheme sites, the MDP will either be retained at the site for that purpose or, if the requirement is insufficient to warrant a permanent MDP presence, it will be met by MDP officers from a nearby establishment or by an MDP area policing team.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked that at the base ordnance depot in Donnington, which is one of the pilot sites, the civilian population outweighs the service population and that the MDP at Donnington do not carry out static armed guard duties. An armed guarding presence at Donnington is required to meet the threat to military personnel there. It is perfectly reasonable for MPGS soldiers to undertake the task. Civil policing requirements at Donnington will continue to be met by MDP officers complemented for those duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also mentioned Chilwell, where he felt that the complementing review had been rushed forward. The complementing reviews at the pilot scheme sites were brought forward to provide the Defence Police Federation with details of the numbers of posts which it is proposed should be filled by MPGS soldiers rather than MDP officers. However, there is no question of the reviews having been rushed. They have been conducted in a fully professional manner by the MoD's directorate of management and consultancy services, in consultation with the Army and the MDP and have included on-site reviews where necessary, including one of Chilwell. Using agreed complementing criteria, it has been possible to distinguish between guarding and policing tasks. I stress again that only armed guarding posts have been recommended for conversion to MPGS.
As for the suggestion that the Chilwell review increased the complement to cover a greater number of MPGS needed in comparison with the MDP—I believe the noble Lord mentioned the figure of 20 being increased to 26—it is simply untrue. The recommended complement at Chilwell is based on the identified guarding and general security requirements. All proposals for the replacement of MDP by MPGS are on a one-for-one basis. I stress that again.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about pay rates. No changes to pay rates have been assumed, subject to the Armed Forces Pay Review body agreement. An MLSE private would be paid £11,350, including 5 per cent. X factor, when the 1996–97 Armed Forces Pay Review award takes full effect in December this year. One more AFPRB award is expected before April 1997.
As regards costs which have been a concern on the Benches opposite, there have been some enhancements; for example, provision of accommodation where it is available, subject to normal payments. Recruiting and training costs have also been fully taken into account in the investment appraisal. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about pensions. Work is continuing to ensure that full engagement regulars re-engaging as MPGS guards will not be disadvantaged in their pension entitlements.

1387
On the suggestion that the Home Department police might bear the cost of replacing MoD police with the MPGS, the MDP will be replaced on guarding duties only. So there is no question of any extra burden on the Home Department police.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about training. A soldier who had had six years' service would normally have had considerable experience of guarding. There would, however, be exceptions to that, particularly as the MPGS would be open to personnel from all three services. But, like all soldiers, MPGS personnel would be required to re-qualify once a year in firearms training. That continuation training would be the responsibility of commanding officers. It is anticipated that MPGS soldiers would be required to fire their weapons as a matter of routine on a monthly basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about reserve liability. For civilians recruited to the MPGS, the question of reserve liability has yet to be decided. It will be a matter for regulations. I hope that that has covered most of the points, but I shall be glad to deal with the remainder in writing.
I turn briefly to the text of the amendment. In my view, there is no need for the proposed new subsection (3). My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has already undertaken to submit a report in 1999 to the Defence Select Committee in another place. It will report on the outcome of the pilot scheme and on the department's proposals for any further replacement of Ministry of Defence Police by military provost guard service soldiers. When we discussed the matter in Committee, I undertook to make a similar report to your Lordships' House. I repeat that undertaking today.
There are real practical objections to the amendment. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay a report on the outcome of the pilot scheme within six months of the coming into force of subsection (1). That would not make any kind of sense. I imagine that the clause as a whole will come into force around two months after Royal Assent. That is the way with such things. About six months after the clause comes into effect, the pilot scheme will get under way in April 1997. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, there would not, within the six-month period, have been any opportunity to conduct a pilot scheme, even less to assess its success or to give Parliament a report on it. As I indicated, the timescale envisaged for the report is much later than that, in 1999, not out of any recalcitrance on the part of the Government but because we need that amount of time to assess definitively whether the scheme will work.
Nor do we see what useful purpose would be served by the proposed subsection (4). I am not sure that I fully understand what is intended, but if it is to require regulations enabling local service engagements to be approved by affirmative resolution it will simply lead to further debate in the autumn and further uncertainty for MDP officers over their future, as well as further delay before the pilot scheme and, if approved, the main scheme can be introduced.
We believe that the principle of using military local service engagements for guarding is sound, but this proposition needs to be tested by means of the pilot
1388
scheme. I sensed from the debates in Committee that it seems to be common ground that there should be a pilot scheme and that the results should be reported to Parliament. We do not need this amendment to achieve that objective. Indeed, however helpfully it is intended, it will serve to frustrate the objective because it is unworkable.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as ever, for his courteous and full reply. Might I just say, in the best possible spirit, that he is rather over-egging it if he says that there is a consensus on the need for the pilot projects. There is a consensus that the pilot projects are going to take place. I am not at all sure that anyone on this side of the House would have begun to go down this road at all. The Minister must not make an assumption, much as I dislike having to deny him any joy from having built bridges across the Floor of the House.
I noted the Minister's remark about the practicality of our amendments. As I said in Committee, I am not one to die in a ditch on wording. I believe that the whole point of having a discussion of this kind is to listen reasonably to each other and, if I take the point that the Minister makes, I am prepared to look at how we might put forward an amendment to make our point in a more reasonable way that meets his own observations. That is something that we want to take seriously.
As I am sure the Minister will realise, our concern is simply that if the "pilot projects" genuinely are pilot projects and are to be evaluated, it is essential that this House and the other place should have an opportunity to carry out that evaluation before deciding to go down this road. With all due candour—the polite way, I believe, of putting it these days—it will not wash to say that it is frustrating for those who want to do it. We are talking about the responsibility of Parliament, and we must have sounder and more full information on which to base our decisions.
I noted some of the Minister's remarks. He is always very open with us, and we appreciate that. I am sure, therefore, that he will take the point when I try to emphasise some of the doubts that he has raised tonight. He said, for example, in relation to pensions that "work is continuing." I should have thought that if one was entering into a pilot project on a scheme, pensions and what was to be done about them would have been fully tied up and would be known before the project started.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I apologise if I did not make that clear. MLSE soldiers will also benefit from the Armed Forces pension scheme which, as the noble Lord knows, is non-contributory; but work is continuing on how precisely that will be implemented.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure it is very reassuring to know that they will benefit. But how long is a piece of string? The Minister has given no indication whatever as to how they will benefit. That must underline anxieties about how much detailed thinking and proper forecasting took place as to the basis for a sensible pilot project.

1389
The Minister also referred to the fact that the reserve liability of civilians recruited for the MPGS has yet to be decided. That again rather emphasises the uncertainties that surround the whole scheme.
I do not wish to detain the House at this time of night. However, another major issue is that, in reference to Chilwell, the MPGS will be brought in on a one-for-one basis. If the Minister accepts, as he appears to, that Ministry of Defence Police seldom do guarding duties exclusively, we need to know what is the formula by which it is decided what is one-for-one. How many part-times does it take to make a one of Ministry of Defence police? We need to see the detail to be certain.
I hope the Minister will forgive my remaining unconvinced, but for all those reasons we still are unconvinced. However, We are fair minded people. We shall go away and look very carefully at what he said tonight. But I must say that the more he discusses this issue with us, the more worried, frankly, we become about what seems to be a rather half-baked initiative. It is quite probable that we shall want to return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to push for Clause 2 to be deleted. My reason for tabling this amendment is to put forward the case that we are dealing with primary legislation. I understand that the Minister has found himself in a Catch-22 situation and without primary legislation he cannot initiate a pilot project. Nevertheless, we find ourselves in the Catch-22 situation that, without a pilot project, we cannot really understand what we are dealing with. I therefore wish to put the case that, although this is the right Bill in which to bring this measure forward, if it could have been introduced in a different way it would have been more helpful. I am not sure whether that would have been possible.
One issue concerns me. We have to look far ahead into the future because we have not had the results yet and a number of issues are still unresolved. What will happen to those bases if the pilot projects—so much money being involved—turn out not to be the success that the Minister and other Members of the House would wish. As the Minister said previously, members of the new force will simply not have their contracts renewed. Does that then mean that the Ministry of Defence police will be reinstated in their former positions? Exactly what will happen? Will primary legislation be required? Or will it simply be a case of, "Right, it hasn't been a success. Thank you very much. You can now go home?" How does the Minister see events taking place? That is the purpose of putting forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the "Catch-22 situation" that the Minister was in. I am not sure that that is
1390
completely correct. As I understand it, the Minister could have abused the Reserve Forces Bill by calling the MPGS volunteer reserves carrying out an additional voluntary duties commitment. I think we would have been rather disappointed had he done so. Some credit should go to the Minister for taking the primary legislation route.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for the remark he has just made. If one reflects on the role of the Territorial Army, it is undoubtedly the case that the TA is there to deploy as formed units to augment the regular Army in times of crisis and to bring the regular Army up to full strength for deployment. So to use the Territorial Army for guarding would very much detract from that. I do not believe that is a route we should go down. I do not believe it would be attractive to members of the TA, nor do I think it would be appropriate for other reasons.
I am disappointed, of course, that noble Lords opposite have yet to be convinced that the Government's proposals are worth pursuing. I am indeed disappointed that they have reservations about the pilot scheme because useful lessons will be learnt from that scheme. It is a genuine attempt to find out whether this will work. That is why we propose that it should be employed on a limited basis and why we want to take our time in looking at it. I acknowledge nevertheless that this is new ground and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would not be doing his job if he did not express some hesitation about something as novel as this. But we have given it a good deal of thought. The planning is at an advanced stage and I do not have any worries that loose ends will not be tied up once we embark upon the pilot scheme.
What Clause 2 essentially does is to give the Armed Forces the flexibility to recruit this new category of personnel in a specified locality rather than worldwide. That flexibility in itself is worth having. It is worth including it in primary legislation. It is an appropriate place for it to be. So for those broad reasons alone I urge noble Lords opposite to give the clause a welcome in general terms even if they cannot enthuse about the guarding proposal.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way but would he not agree that in his last words he underlined one of the strategic—if I can use that word—anxieties about this whole initiative.
He openly said that it gives the Government and the armed services greater flexibility to recruit those people. That is exactly what the anxiety is. This is not primarily about guarding establishments at all; this is about getting by the back door a cheap kind of "Dad's Army" which will be available to assist in a whole range of activities at a later stage.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that really is not fair, with all respect to the noble Lord. The services will only consider introducing local service where it makes sense to them to do so but it would be odd to have no statutory provision allowing them to do so. As it happens, there

1391
are no plans or proposals for the general introduction of local service schemes other than for guarding. Indeed, more than that, it is difficult to see where there is much scope for introducing local service simply because there is a requirement to be able to call on the bulk of men and women in the Armed Forces to serve wherever in the world they may be required.
The reasons for considering the use of local service personnel could vary according to the circumstances of the case, as could the specific conditions applying to any particular local service scheme. But, as I have already mentioned, your Lordships can take comfort from the fact that the services are most unlikely to promote the introduction of local service in any particular case unless it makes sense to them in operational, management and financial terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me again what would happen if the pilot scheme were to fail. I do not believe that I can usefully add anything to the comments I made in Committee. Quite clearly we would have to go back to the drawing board. We do not expect the scheme to fail. We believe that we have done our planning properly and that it is a sensible pilot scheme. But clearly the Ministry of Defence police would still be there to assist us and I have no doubt would be ready and willing to do so if that proved to be a cost-effective option in all the circumstances.
I say to the House that the powers under Clause 2 will be used sensibly and selectively. Our assessment is that there is little scope for local service in any Armed Forces which have the range of commitments of the British services. But to deny ourselves the option to recruit on a local service basis, even in a limited way, would be improvident.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister has gone further than he has before in saying that if the pilot scheme should fail for any reason, he would seek the services of the MDP again which was really my question from the outset. I think it will give some comfort because that option hopefully will still be open. The difficulty we have is that we do not wish the scheme to fail. Indeed, if it is cost-effective and produces the results that the Minster outlined, there would be a good deal of support for some of the objectives—as long as the benefits outweighed the disadvantages that we foresee could take place.
That being the case, and also realising that the Minister is of the view that there will not be any failure and that that might colour his judgment of the results of the pilot scheme, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Sex discrimination: Great Britain]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 15, leave out lines 30 to 45 and insert—
("(9B) A complaint to which subsection (9A) applies may be presented to an industrial tribunal under section 63(1).
(9C) Notwithstanding subsection (9B) of this section, a complaint to which subsection (9A) applies may be made to an officer under the service redress procedure applicable to the complainant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 18. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure a right to pursue a complaint either internally or straight to a tribunal and to ensure that the right to go to a tribunal is not dependent on first pursuing a complaint internally.
We recognise that in Clauses 21 to 27 the Government are endeavouring to achieve consistency. Indeed we applaud that. All our amendments are designed to fulfil that same purpose. It may be useful to outline the present position and the areas of agreement which exist between ourselves and the Government.
Perhaps we could concentrate on sex discrimination and race relations. It is our case that the other amendments dealing with equal pay, employment, industrial relations and Northern Ireland all seek to establish the same principles in each of those spheres. At the present time under the Race Relations Act there is a right only to complain through the internal procedures, and under the Sex Discrimination Act there is a right to complain to an industrial tribunal but the Act does not provide for complaints to he made under the internal procedures.
The Government's proposal is that any complaint under the Race Relations or the Sex Discrimination Acts must first be made through the internal procedures and, following that—I underline the word following—complaint may be made to an industrial tribunal. In other words, the internal procedure is a statutory precondition for application to an industrial tribunal.
As I have said, under our proposed amendments any complaint may in future be made direct to an industrial tribunal and may also be made through the internal procedures. I believe that we have a consensus in the House that servicemen and women should not be denied access to the industrial tribunal. We also have a consensus that servicemen and women should be able and indeed encouraged to make a complaint through the internal procedure. The issue at stake is solely whether it should be a mandatory pre-condition that for all discrimination complaints the internal procedure must first be utilised.
The Government hold that Clause 21 does not represent a diminution of rights under the Sex Discrimination Act. It is the case that the Sex Discrimination Act does not currently include reference to the separate service redress procedures under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Since those are statutory procedures, it may well be that primary legislation is required in order that the defence counsel can have jurisdiction to deal with sex discrimination complaints.
To the extent that Clause 21 provides an additional right, it is clearly to be welcomed. However, the clause also proposes to remove the existing right to complain directly to an industrial tribunal and that, I suggest, unquestionably constitutes a loss. Further, if at present a serviceman or woman can complain directly to an industrial tribunal, then to require that person to undergo

1393
the internal procedure, whether or not he (or she) would choose to do so, does restrict his (or her) right of access to an industrial tribunal.
As the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission both have argued, to go through any procedure on a complaint of discrimination can be extremely stressful. Where service personnel are either intimidated by or lack confidence in the internal procedure, to require that procedure as a pre-condition may obviously deter them from seeking redress altogether.
I suggest that there is no dispute between the Government and us concerning all the very positive arguments for use of an internal procedure in the Armed Forces, whether for the benefit of the complainants, whether to receive quick resolution of grievances or whether for the chain of command to be made aware of problems at an early date. We on these Benches certainly favour it as an indispensable means of internalising real commitment to the objectives that the Armed Forces themselves now commendably endorse. It is important to note that the CRE and the EOC strongly believe that the use of internal procedures should be encouraged.
What is not agreed between us is that the only effect of making the internal procedure a statutory pre-condition is a short delay. That is, if the Minister will allow me to use his own word from a previous debate, a "disappointingly" blinkered attitude by the Government. There are the effects on the complainant and on any other parties in an internal investigation, including fear of victimisation, further harassment or discrimination. There are also potential disadvantages to the complainant in terms of an ultimate complaint to the industrial tribunal, if that complainant has had to present and argue the case up through the chain of command when some of those involved will be witnesses for the service when the case is eventually heard by the industrial tribunal.
The Government have expressed concern about undermining loyalty or taking steps to lessen the effectiveness of internal procedures. For the debate in Committee on whether Clause 21 should stand part of the Bill, that may have been relevant. But in the amendments that we now propose, which would remove the compulsory nature of internal procedures and instead make them available on a voluntary basis, neither loyalty nor the effectiveness of internal procedures need be at risk. The task for the services will be to take whatever action is needed to ensure that servicemen and women feel confident that their complaints will be dealt with effectively and fairly under the internal procedures.
The government response in Committee to our arguments about a lack of right to an oral hearing in the internal procedure entirely missed the point. It is not that a complainant may want the opportunity to communicate orally but that that complainant should be entitled to hear the evidence against the case and to cross-examine witnesses. Many cases in the courts and tribunals are decided on the basis of which witnesses are most credible, particularly when any
1394
conflict in evidence is challenged by cross-examination. Without the right to request an oral hearing, the complainant is at a disadvantage in the internal procedure. In contrast the industrial tribunal hearings are always oral.
Perhaps I may be permitted one general observation. In Committee, the noble Earl spoke at some length about the value and importance of the internal complaints machinery, which he saw as threatened by our amendments. But the amendments positively seek to preserve the internal procedure—the importance of which we cannot over-emphasise—alongside the right to go to a tribunal.
Before concluding, I add a brief word on the amendments dealing with time limits. The relevant clauses as drafted establish a six-month time limit for applications to an industrial tribunal for serving members of the Armed Forces, because they are required to complain internally first. There is to be a three-month time limit for internal complaints. For service personnel and all other employees, who under the relevant sections can now complain to an industrial tribunal, the time limit is three months, although the tribunal has the discretion to accept a late application:
"if, in all the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is just and equitable to do so".
It has been argued that time limits for service personnel to file claims should be longer than those for civilians, because they might be unable to meet the three-month deadline if, for example, they were on active duty in a ship or submarine. But we believe that there is merit in treating equally all persons who may file proceedings and that situations such as those mentioned would very likely be grounds for a tribunal to allow an application to be filed out of time. In these matters, not least for reasons of service morale and effectiveness, unnecessary delay will never be helpful. These amendments therefore delete the subsections which give the longer time for serving members of the Armed Forces. The effect is that the same time limits will apply to service personnel as to all other employees. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I rise to support briefly the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There seems to be a common consensus in these amendments that there should be the ability for service personnel to take a complaint outside the chain of command. That could be very important in certain cases, considering that someone might not trust the viewpoint of the commanding officer. The noble Lord explained the matter in detail and I leave it at that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Clause 21 continues servicemen and women's existing access to industrial tribunals in sex discrimination cases, but introduces a requirement for them first to use the services' internal redress of complaint procedures. As a corollary of this, the clause extends the three-month time limit for making complaints to industrial tribunals to six months, in recognition of the requirement to use the internal procedures first.

1395
The provisions of Clause 23 and Clauses 24 and 25 will introduce new rights for servicemen and women to take complaints covering, respectively, race discrimination and equal pay to an industrial tribunal, again, after first using the internal procedures and within a similar deadline. Clauses 26 and 27 make similar provision in respect of other matters on which servicemen and women may be able to make complaints to industrial tribunals. Thus, whatever the statutory basis for the complaint, the arrangements for access to tribunals will be on a consistent footing, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said.
The proposed amendments to Clauses 21 to 27 would maintain a consistency of footing but would remove the requirement for prior use of the internal service procedures.
At present, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly said, cases of sex discrimination alone can be taken directly to industrial tribunals without use of internal redress procedures first. This direct access derived from the MoD's acceptance in 1991 that the EC equal treatment directive applied for most purposes to service personnel. The MoD's amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 18 months ago brought the statute law up to date by removing from the Act the exemption for service personnel. As I made clear at Committee stage, it was always the intention that provisions in the Bill regarding the use of the internal procedures should be included in the Sex Discrimination Act. The Bill presents the first appropriate legislative opportunity to do so since the powers that were used last year to implement EU legislation, but removing the services exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act did not extend to making ancillary domestic changes.
The concept of the two-stage process is not entirely new. The requirement to use the service internal procedures was first set out in an amendment to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978—now the Employment Rights Act of 1996—which was included in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The 1993 amendment to the 1978 Act introduced a new section, Section 138A (now Section 192 of the 1996 Act), which required complaints by service personnel under that employment legislation to be submitted for consideration under the internal system before application could be made to an industrial tribunal. It also allowed a time limit for the submission of such complaints to industrial tribunals to be extended to six months, to allow for this. Although these provisions have not yet been brought into force, they serve to illustrate that the MoD's policy objective of requiring prior use of the internal redress system is of fairly longstanding.
I have reflected very carefully on the arguments put forward in Committee which questioned the need for service personnel to be treated differently from other employees in respect of access to industrial tribunals. However, I am sorry to tell the noble Lords opposite that I am unable to accept that it would be wise to bypass the services' own procedures for investigating complaints.
1396
I believe that we must acknowledge that service in the Armed Forces just cannot be compared with any other employment. There are therefore very valid reasons for having a slightly different system for dealing with employment matters. I use the word "slightly" deliberately, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with all respect to him, doth protest too much. Servicemen and women who believe they have been discriminated against on grounds of race or sex will have the same right as any other person to apply to an industrial tribunal for an independent adjudication on their complaint. The only difference in service cases will be the requirement, first, to submit the case for consideration under the internal procedures.
The practical effect of this will be a slight delay before referral to the tribunal: at the most three months. However, I do not accept that this will weaken in any way the benefit of the right to present a case to a tribunal. I have heard arguments that this two-stage process for dealing with service cases will cause unnecessary distress to complainants because of the strain of having to argue their case twice over. It is also claimed that complainants will be at a disadvantage when subsequently presenting their cases to a tribunal, because their cases will be fully known to the MoD and they will not have equivalent knowledge of the case against them.
However, I would say that both those concerns are misconceived. The services internal system is designed to ensure that complaints are dealt with quickly and in a non-confrontational way. Its objective is to establish the facts quickly and, where any fault lies, to take disciplinary action where necessary: that is to nip in the bud any manifestation of racism, sexism or any form of inequality or injustice. In other words, the services system is essentially an investigative procedure, in contrast to the more adversarial nature of proceedings at industrial tribunal hearings. It will investigate the complaint being made rather than adjudicate between the parties. I think the really telling point is that the service investigations can begin immediately the complaint is made and, importantly, when all the personnel involved are still in post. Dates for industrial tribunal hearings necessarily take time to be listed.
I do not want to detain the House for too long but I think I ought to make some rather important points, picking up some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. These relate to the procedure itself. The noble Lord said that procedure can be stressful and difficult for certain individuals. It might help if I ran through this very briefly and that will, I hope, indicate why we favour it as we do. Under the service system, personnel are encouraged to make their complaints orally initially, but if it proves impossible to solve the problem right away and there is a need to involve higher authority, then they are asked to make a written submission. Unless the complainant voluntarily withdraws a complaint or redress is granted at the first level of consideration, it is passed on through the chain of command and ultimately to the appropriate service board of the Defence Council, if necessary. The complainant is keep informed either orally or in writing of the progress of the complaint at each level of consideration. Before a complaint is considered by the service board, if it is necessary to take it that far,

1397
complainants receive copies of all the material which the board will see relating to their complaint, including covering advice to the board from the service and any recommendations which might be made. The obvious exception to that is legal advice.
The board must in every instance decide whether or not to convene an oral hearing and any request for such a hearing from a complainant would naturally be given very careful consideration. If an oral hearing is held, the board must provide the opportunity for witnesses to be called and to be cross-examined. If there is to be no oral hearing, complainants are asked to submit their comments on the submission to the board in writing. The board's final decision, with reasons, is always conveyed to the complainant in writing. So if a complaint is subsequently referred to an industrial tribunal the complainant will be fully aware of all the evidence on which the board's decision had been reached. Against that background I would argue that the services internal system provides a more likely means of resolving complaints, particularly those on such sensitive issues as race or sex discrimination; and it will do so swiftly and in a non-confrontational manner—more so than does the industrial tribunal process. Those are the central reasons why I ask the House to reject the proposed amendments to Clauses 21 to 27.
Lord Judd: My Lords, once more I express my appreciation to the Minister for dealing very fully with the points I made. We are trading this word "disappointment" across the House. I think I understand why, because on the great matters of defence and the kind of services we want to see I am sure it would be impossible to find any significant difference between the Minister and myself. Therefore, we naturally feel disappointed when we enter areas in which we do not have the same degree of common understanding, and so what I say now is very much in that spirit.
In his courteous and full summing up the Minister did not in fact deal very convincingly with the issue. If a complainant in the armed services follows the internal procedure, he or she has to argue the case up through the chain of command in the knowledge that any of those people with whom that complainant may be confronted may at a later stage, if that complainant decides to go to a tribunal, come to the tribunal as witnesses. That is a difficult situation.
Secondly, I suggest that the Minister did not convincingly deal with the issue that, under the service procedure, it is not possible for a complainant to hear the evidence against a complaint and to cross-examine witnesses. That is a substantial difference in approach.
The other significant point which I have not deployed so far this evening but which I mentioned in Committee is that research being undertaken by a lieutenant-colonel in the Army and being financed, very much to its credit, by the Ministry of Defence, has convincingly established that the internal procedure is not working. The lieutenant-colonel himself observed that a significant number of people with complaints to make do not make them. Therefore, I suggest that the
1398
Minister—I hate to say this because I have a great deal of respect for the noble Earl—is showing an unusual degree of complacency in his response.
9 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have one brief comment on the study to which he has referred. I am aware that Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford, a defence fellow at Glasgow University, has recently completed his thesis on race, ethnicity and the Army. That paper has not yet been seen by Ministers. It is still being considered within the department and we are looking at it carefully. Obviously, we shall consider the recommendations with equal care.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is very honest of the Minister to say that he has not yet seen the paper. Others have. I commend it to the noble Earl because it is absolutely uncompromising on the failure of the system and, as I think the Minister will agree when he has read it, rather takes the carpet from under his feet on the issue.
We commend the commitment of Ministers, the Ministry of Defence and the leaders of the armed services to this issue. We do not doubt that commitment at all. The Minister will recall that in Committee I quoted an admirable booklet produced by the Army, with its excellent uncompromising foreword by the Adjutant General, General Rose. We have no doubt that there is real endeavour to move forward in this area. Indeed, we hear that from the Commission for Racial Equality and from the Equal Opportunities Commission which want to help in every way. However, the view that remains—it is deeply held on this side of the House also—is that the Armed Forces are kicking into their own goal by resisting an opportunity of direct access to the outside tribunal. If the system were working really effectively but with that safety valve, people would be confident about using the internal system. They would know that such a system must be good because the external system was readily available as an alternative.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully what we have said tonight. I also encourage him to read Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford's report carefully. Having done so, I hope that he will be able to come back, albeit at the eleventh hour on Third Reading, with more helpful observations. Pending that moment, however, I think it sensible for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Sex discrimination: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Racial discrimination]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Equal treatment: Great Britain]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Equal treatment: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Other complaints: Great Britain]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Other complaints: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Greenwich Hospital]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 25, line 28, at beginning insert—
("Where he is satisfied that the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) will be fulfilled.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State—indeed, any Secretary of State way into the future—will have to take wider considerations than price alone into account in granting a lease of any of the land at the historic site of Greenwich.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the latest developments with regard to Greenwich are breathtaking. We now understand that the Government are nominating Greenwich as a UNESCO world heritage site. I find a certain irony in that situation. The Government are nominating Greenwich to UNESCO as a world heritage site. Yet the Government refuse to be a member of UNESCO because of their reservations about its adequacy. I therefore find the remarks of the Secretary of State for National Heritage delightful when she says,
"The area we have nominated focuses on the outstanding buildings associated with the town's royal and maritime history. I believe Greenwich meets the stringent criteria laid down by UNESCO and fully merits the national and international prestige it would bring in time for the millennium".
Those are strong words of commendation for UNESCO's status. I hope that the Secretary of State's colleagues in the Foreign Office and the ODA have read them and that they will take the logical action in terms of rejoining UNESCO as soon as possible. However, that is another debate.
Tonight we are concerned with Clause 30 in which we find the encouraging commitment on the part of the Government that, in deciding on a lease, the Secretary of State shall have regard to,
"(a) the importance of preserving for the benefit of the nation the historic buildings and monuments on the land and of maintaining the architectural integrity of the Royal Naval College site;
(b) the desirability of securing reasonable public access to the land (and in particular to the historic buildings and monuments on the land); and
(c) the desirability of preventing any use of the land appearing to him to be out of keeping with its unique character and history.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to grant a lease of any of the land to which this section applies, with its appurtenances, to any person appearing to him to be suitable for a term not exceeding 150 years".
All of the ideals are spelt out but there is absolutely no obligation on the Secretary of State to act in accordance with those ideals. If anything was a load of rhetoric this drafting of the Bill would be exactly that.
The amendment is designed to help the Government by guaranteeing that the action which the Secretary of State takes fulfils the good intentions spelt out in the Bill. There have been arguments about the precise wording. The Minister took us to task in Committee by suggesting that the wording was not ideal. We said that we would not die in a ditch for wording and we wanted to get the mechanism right. We have tried to find wording which we hope moves nearer to meeting the anxieties of the Minister. No doubt he will tell us that it is still not perfect. If that is so we will look at it again. But we want to ensure that the action taken by the Secretary of State is based upon the good intentions spelt out in the preceding part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Clause 30 is designed to allow the Secretary of State to grant a lease in respect of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, to a non-government body. The House will be aware that Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 restricts use of the college buildings to occupation by the Royal Navy, government departments or organisations associated with seafaring.
I stress that the Government always have been and remain committed to securing the best possible future for these historic buildings. Your Lordships will be aware that on 28th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced that he had accepted the central recommendation of the advisory group set up to advise him on the future of the Royal Naval College that, in the event of non-defence occupancy, an independent trust should be established to manage the site for the nation.
As a result of concerns expressed in the other place, the Government sought to emphasise its commitment to the buildings by tabling extensive amendments to the clause, including what is now subsection (2). These amendments were designed to ensure that in choosing a future occupant due regard would be had to a wide range of heritage concerns. These heritage concerns included the architectural integrity of the site and the desire to prevent occupation out of keeping with the character and history of the site. The Government's clear commitment to preserve the heritage of this site is fully reflected by this clause.
I recognise that noble Lords opposite have revised the wording of the previous amendment to Clause 30. I acknowledge their constructive approach to these matters. I regret to say that the new form of words does not overcome the concerns that I highlighted at Committee stage; nor do I consider it to be necessary in view of the earlier extensive amendments moved by the Government.
The clause is currently designed to permit a proper balance to be struck between the "private" interests of the charity and wider public interests. The new form of words seeks to turn the public interest considerations in subsection (2) into conditions which the Defence Secretary as trustee of Greenwich Hospital would have to see fulfilled. This could have the effect of requiring him to make a decision which disregarded the "private"

1401
interests of the charity. It might require him, unintentionally no doubt, to exclude other factors which may be relevant now, or become so in the future.
In considering the most appropriate form of words—I can assure your Lordships that that was a long and very involved process—our object was to ensure that the wider interests of heritage and access were properly taken into account in decisions on the future of these magnificent buildings, and not improperly to circumscribe the trustee's powers and responsibilities. The wording of the clause reflects the objectives shared by all sides of the House. The absence of an amendment to subsection (3), as suggested by this amendment, does not isolate the subsection from the other considerations of the clause. As I said in Committee, the Defence Secretary must have regard to the matters in subsection (2) before exercising his powers to grant a lease under subsection (3), and he would be in breach of his statutory duties if he failed to do so.
The new form of the amendment remains technically incompatible with the present subsection (2). Subsection (2) identifies various matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard. It does not contain any "purposes" which could be fulfilled. From the clause as currently drafted, it is clear that the Secretary of State will be required to carry out a balancing exercise, as I have said. We are legislating for generations to come. In certain circumstances the various considerations specified in subsection (2) might not be wholly consistent. To seek, as the amendment does, to make these considerations "purposes", each of which is to be fulfilled, could mean that in such circumstances the clause was not in practice capable of being applied, and whatever decision may be reached by the Secretary of State would be vulnerable to challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly stressed in Committee that it was not the matter of drafting, but the objectives behind them which mattered. He made that point again today. He asked that the Government look at the matter further in that light. We have looked at his suggestions with care. We remain of the view that the amendment would tilt the balance away from Greenwich Hospital since it would risk a Defence Secretary being obliged to disregard the interests of the charity. Furthermore, the amendment would in practice be unworkable for the reasons I have already stated. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Government cannot have it both ways on Clause 30. On the one hand, they argue that the way in which the Bill is drafted will mean that the Secretary of State has, in effect, to act in accordance with subsection (2). When we argue that that should be belt and braces underlined by appropriate wording in subsection (3), the Government argue that it is not an obligation in Clause 2, it is just something of which the Secretary of State has to take account. That does not add up, because the Government are arguing both ways at the same time. I suspect that the Minister, with his insight and objectivity and considerable intellect, which
1402
we all respect, knows that perfectly well. I am sure that the Government knew that perfectly well when they drafted the Bill.
If the Government are sincere that the Minister should act in accordance with the ideas—let us put it no more strongly than "the ideas"—expressed in subsection (2), I give this undertaking to the Minister. If between now and Third Reading the Government and the Opposition can get together and produce, for Clauses 2 and 3, some wording that makes it absolutely clear that the action has to be in line with ideas what would be the right thing to do—what is important, perhaps, in this situation—we on this side will fully co-operate with that process. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Energy Conservation Bill
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Wilcox.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elliott of Morpeth) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Home Energy Conservation Act 1995]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("1") and insert ("1(1)").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. Perhaps I may first apologise for the late tabling of these amendments. As a glance at the Marshalled List will suggest to the Committee, it is in fact Amendment No. 3 which is the substantive amendment of this group.
The Act requires local authorities to prepare, publish and submit an energy conservation report setting out measures which would lead to a significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in their area. It is the definition of residential accommodation that this Bill seeks to amend by widening it to include houses in multiple occupation and now, should these amendments be carried, houseboats.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are purely drafting amendments. The wording of Amendment No. 3 ensures that pleasure boats are excluded; there will be no question of authorities being required to look at boats which regularly move, or the sort of canal boat which is let for holidays on the waterways. In addition, we have followed for England, Wales and Northern Ireland the pattern of the definition of mobile home in the Act by requiring that it should also be a dwelling for the purposes of council tax or the equivalent in Northern Ireland. The same linkage cannot be made in Scotland because of differences in its council tax legislation.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential to the transitional provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill. It recognises the fact that there may need to be special arrangements for reports on houseboats as well as for houses in multiple occupation. In England, the first energy conservation reports are due at the end of November. Should this Bill become law, as I hope it will, there would be very little time for authorities to take account of the wider definition of residential accommodation in those reports, and it will be sensible to make some different arrangement for houses in multiple occupation and houseboats. Clause 2, with this amendment, permits that.
Measures of the kind which the Bill envisages, to encourage changes in behaviour and the use of appliances which are energy efficient, are as relevant to people who live in houseboats as to those in other kinds of accommodation. It seems right in principle that attention should be paid to the energy efficiency of boats which are people's homes as well as to the energy efficiency of more conventional homes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs").
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("(ab) a house-boat, that is, a boat or other floating decked structure—

(i) designed or adapted for use solely as a place of permanent habitation, and

(ii) not having means of, or capable of being readily adapted for, self-propulsion,

which, in the case of a house-boat in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, is a dwelling for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or as the case may be, the purposes of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, or".").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Citation and commencement]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 28, at end insert ("or house-boats").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996
9.22 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the draft Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 be not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations
1404
which take account of the costs of lone parenthood and leave future changes in benefits more clearly subject to parliamentary control.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, last November there appeared in the Guardian, I know not by what means, a memorandum from the Secretary of State to the Treasury. In that memorandum he set out the view that if his changes designed for the public expenditure round are put forward through primary legislation, he might face a serious risk of defeat in votes. He therefore proposed to introduce them so far as possible by regulation.
The Minister will understand that, in saying that, the Secretary of State has led me into temptation. For most of today the Minister has been dealing with the consequences of one of those attempts to produce change by legislation and I really must say to him after so short a time that we cannot go on meeting like this! In the circumstances, I believe that the Secretary of State might have been wiser to deal with this by means of primary legislation.
We are also continuing a debate, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was joining not long ago, about what appears to many of us to be a process of victimisation; a picking, in the course of a search for expenditure savings, on those least able to defend themselves and from whom, for the very same reason, often the smallest savings can be expected.
The Minister tends to join argument with us on the question of whether there should be savings. We join argument with him on the question of whether he is looking for those savings sensibly or in the right place. That is an argument which I hope will continue and to which I shall return later in my speech.
The effect of the regulations before us, which are manifold and as usual extremely technical and complicated to follow, is an amalgamation of benefits; to amalgamate single parent premium and one-parent benefit with the overall structure of benefits and especially with child benefit. The Government, in paragraph 7 of their reply to the Social Security Advisory Committee, admit frankly that they are doing this because they believe in what they perhaps euphemistically call a narrowing of the differential between benefits for single parents and benefits for others.
Be that as it may—and I do not agree with it and shall return to it in a few moments—that raises the possibility of a constitutional issue because, of course, once the benefits have been merged with each other, we shall no longer be able to take in separate regulations or as a separate issue any attempt to narrow the differential between single parents and other parents. That is a policy issue on which the House is entitled to an opinion. The matter will come before us only on the social security uprating statement.
I imagine that the Minister is familiar with paragraph 12 of the Social Security Advisory Committee's Report. However, our primary concern in that report is with the legal consequences of implementing the proposals. It would provide the Secretary of State with much better flexibility to adjust differential benefit provision for one

1405
and two-parent families. The freezing of one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium in the uprating order for 1996–97 demonstrates that some flexibility already exists and some respondents have suggested to us that that provides an adequate answer since, over time, the differential could be reduced.
Therefore, in effect the Secretary of State is taking power to let the benefit advantage existing for single parents wither on the vine. That is a pattern with which child benefit has made us familiar. While it may be argued in theory that some possibility of parliamentary control still exists, the Motion to resolve may be a very flexible instrument. However, it really is not practical to use that against the social security uprating statement. If the Motion to resolve is to have any teeth at all, it must be in the words that the regulations be not proceeded with and the Government lay amended regulations which specify the savings.
If we were to move that the social security uprating regulations be not proceeded with, we should be taking money out of so many people's pockets and food out of so many people's mouths that, in effect, it would be politically impossible. Therefore, the Secretary of State is taking any attempt at a further reduction of the differential between single and other parents out of the range of parliamentary control. It is that which I regard as a constitutional issue, and I make no apology for using that phrase.
I do not believe the facts of the Secretary of State's argument to be correct. I have a great sheaf of evidence here and the House may be relieved to hear that I shall not go through it all. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find plenty more. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently found, looking at the family expenditure survey, that the costs of a child aged 11 in a one-parent family are typically 30 per cent. of those of a single adult but, in a two-parent family, they are around 20 per cent. of those of a single adult. For children aged 11 to 18, it was found that the costs of a child for a lone parent are about 50 per cent. of those for a single adult compared with less than 30 per cent. for a two-parent family.
That seems to me to accord with common sense because many of the costs fall on one parent just as they would on two. For example, the costs of heating and electricity and much of the basic maintenance such as the replacing of a fridge, if one is lucky enough to be able to do that, are not doubled by the presence of the extra parent.
It is also the perennial problem of fox, goose and cabbage. While my wife was doing work for publication, I have taken charge of the children and attempted to do some juggling. People may say that I do not know very much but at least my ignorance is not total. I found that I always had to be in two places at once and therefore the travel costs were always higher than they would otherwise have been. That is a problem which many people face and it is a substantial part of why single parents are worse off than other parents.
The level on which that is happening is a very low one. If the Minister would look at Nutrition and Diet in Lone Parent Families in London by Elizabeth Fowler
1406
and Claire Calvert, he will find a good deal of support for that view. Indeed, he will find, for example, that 35 per cent. of lone parents on low income do not have adequate bedding for all the members of their household. He will also find that 31 per cent. of them lack hot water and that 38 per cent. have a problem with damp. Problems with damp tend to lead to illness. The Minister will talk about saving money. I shall suggest to him that he is simply exporting his costs and landing them on his noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It is not fair to her, to the Exchequer or, indeed, to lone parents.
I am sure that the Minister will run through all the arguments about the taxpayer that he has made before. I believe that the Minister's economies are false economies. I would advise him to look carefully at the research carried out by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, and others, on The Employment of Lone Parents—A comparison of policies in 20 countries. It is the comparative evidence which really explains why we have so big a problem with paying benefits to lone parents. I will agree with the Minister in that there is a problem.
In the 1960s, only 10 per cent. of single parents were on national assistance. The figure is now nearly 70 per cent., whereas the figure in Germany is still very much what it was in the 1960s; namely, about 10 per cent. That differential must be addressed. I strongly support the right of parents, especially those with young children, to stay at home and not work. I make no suggestions as regards any change in the availability rules. However, when single parents want to work it is a wanton waste of public money to prevent them from so doing. It is cruel to them and it is often unfair to the children, because a happy parent is easier to live with than a frustrated one. Moreover, it deprives the Exchequer of a great deal of revenue.
Therefore, if the Minister starts invoking the interest of taxpayers I shall reply to him, "I am a taxpayer as well as you". There is more to it. A great deal of it seems to result from the cost of childcare. One of the key findings of the comparative study is that we have one of the lowest proportions of single parents working in any of the 20 countries studied. I believe that we come 19th out of 20. We also have one of the most striking differentials between the number of married parents working and the number of single parents at work. Indeed, in many countries there are actually more single parents who work than is the case with married parents. The situation is very much the reverse in this country.
One needs to look at what is actually going on. Professor Bradshaw found that the United Kingdom has the most expensive childcare of any of the countries in his study. The average figure that he found was £347 per month, or 28 per cent. of average earnings. The Minister knows that I have welcomed many times the disregard introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do so again tonight. However, it comes nowhere near that figure. Once again, the Minister will have to face the possibility that he might actually save money by spending a little. Indeed, that is something that every household has to face and perhaps the Minister will also be able to do so.
The next finding in the study was that disregards are much lower in all the other countries reviewed. It was found that housing benefit tapers, or the equivalent, are a great deal steeper in other countries. The rise in housing costs as people begin to work is exceptionally steep in this country, and the interaction between housing costs and childcare costs produces the poverty trap.
If the Minister wants to save money on lone parents—as I accept he does, and as he legitimately may—it is far better, both for the Exchequer and for them, to set them free to do what they want than to introduce niggling little measures of this sort. He may be interested to know that Professor Bradshaw and his colleagues have also reported that in all the 20 countries they have studied, maintenance is not the answer to the problems they have been studying. They also draw attention to the exceptionally poor leave provisions in the United Kingdom—in particular the lack of any parental leave in which the father can join. In many of these families there was once a father; in many of the others one hopes that in future there may be a father or a step-father.
In general, the way in which the problem of childcare must be resolved is in more and more involvement of both parents. The Equal Opportunities Commission is now taking up as many cases on behalf of men as on behalf of women. The rights of men to take part in childcare will be one of the big issues of equality for which to argue in the future. Before single parents can even meet the men, they have to be able to go out into the world of work. For a woman who has been at home with children that is often her only social life. There are a great many reasons why I think the Minister has taken quite the wrong approach, and why I think what he is doing is not at all in the interests of the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 be not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations which take account of the costs of lone parenthood and leave future changes in benefits more clearly subject to Parliamentary control.—(Earl Russell.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as we know, most lone parents are divorced, separated or have come out of a longstanding relationship—an event likely to traumatise their children. However, I appreciate that the Minister forbids us to use that word. Essentially, therefore, the Government are freezing, and therefore reducing, benefits for lone parents, presumably in the belief that people are lone parents because the benefits are so generous. That tends to be the argument the Government use whether it is a case of asylum seekers or anyone else. In the Government's view people behave inappropriately because the system is so generous.
Yet at the same time the Government acknowledge that lone parents live in deep poverty. Three-quarters of lone parents and their children were living on or below the poverty line in 1992, compared with fewer than one in five children of two-parent families. To put it another
1408
way, 40 per cent. of lone parents have an income below f100 a week compared with only 4 per cent. of those living in two-parent families. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the Joseph Rowntree research and the implications of poverty. I am sure we would all agree—I think we would not disagree with the Minister—that the only long-term way out of poverty is to re-enter the labour market. Benefits can never produce an adequate standard of living by comparison with what the labour market should be able to provide, particularly if it is buttressed by a minimum wage.
However, as the noble Earl rightly said, these people are unable to re-enter the labour market because childcare costs are not met, even with the latest uprating of the childcare allowance, which in any case is of no value at all to anyone on full family credit. I am not at all convinced that it is right for a lone parent of a young child to be pressed against his will, or by extreme poverty, into the labour market.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the Bradshaw figures which compared Britain with the rest of Europe in terms of the proportion of lone parents who are not in work. He is right, but I suspect that if one looks back at the earlier Bradshaw research, one will find that is because lone parents in Britain tend to be younger than most lone parents in Europe. They therefore have younger children and the deciding factor both for lone parents and for women in a longstanding relationship as to whether or not they go out to work is the age of their child and not their marital status. I think I am right in saying that about 65 per cent. of all women parents are in full or part-time work once their child passes the age of 11, whereas only about 26 per cent. of those whose youngest child is below the age of five are in such work.
Therefore in a sense we are not exactly comparing like with like once we accept that in Britain, for various reasons, lone parents on the whole tend to be younger than their European counterparts, are more likely to have younger children and are therefore less likely to be in work. I understand that two-thirds of lone parents have children under five years. That would seem to give support to that evidence.
I believe that there is no disagreement—the Bradshaw research and subsequent revisiting of the issue by various studies by Katherine Keirnan and others have indicated—that lone parents want to work. It is striking that once the youngest child is over five years the majority of those lone parents work either full-time or part-time.
The latest research on lone parents and work—I believe that it was commissioned by the DSS—indicates the factors that stop lone parents from entering the labour market. They may become lone parents quite late in life. A divorced woman in her late 40s or early 50s may lack the skills to re-enter the labour market. Alternatively, they may be extremely poorly educated without GCSE qualifications. I am sure we all agree that JET-type programmes or GAIN programmes suitably tailored for the UK are the right way forward.
There is a growing problem about which I was not aware until I read the more recent research. Increasingly something like one lone parent in six is prohibited from

1409
re-entering the labour market either because the lone parent or his or her child has a disability or a serious health problem. As we know, disability can break up a marriage. The costs when either that lone parent or the child is disabled are extremely high. Will the Government consider mitigating the worst effect of these regulations on lone parents where there is a disabled member of the family by raising the level of the disabled child's premium, or the disability premium, to cover the moneys lost by freezing rates to lone parents?
I realise that the Minister may not wish to respond to that point tonight, but I shall be grateful if he will at least consider the matter. All the research now seems to suggest that while most lone parents churn through (if I may use that rather ugly phrase) income support—the median time on income support is only about two-and-a-half years; the labour market, family credit, perhaps a full-time job, and back to income support—those who stay on income support for the longest period are those who enter lone parenthood in their 40s, have low educational background qualifications or a disabled child. As we know, where there is disability there are huge additional costs as well as stresses. If the Minister will consider that point, we shall be grateful.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell stated—I am sure he is right—the purpose of the regulations: that the Government seek to avoid the legal challenges experienced in recent weeks by incorporating one-parent benefit into child benefit and lone-parent premium into income support and family premiums. Whether it is legal for government to do that is not entirely clear. Section 145(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 states that,
"No rate prescribed in place of a rate previously in force shall be lower than the rate it replaces".
I believe that I have the correct phrase. Hence the Government are clearly unable to do what they would like to do; that is, to cut the benefit. Instead they seek to restructure the benefit by incorporating single-parent benefits into two-parent benefits, thus freeing them from Section 145 which would prohibit a lone-parent benefit, as it stands, from being reduced. In other words, the Government are using restructuring to cover freezing and ultimate cuts.
We regret the loss of one-parent benefit. Although it is incorporated in income support, it is disregarded for purposes of family credit. It is, therefore, a valuable passport from welfare into work, which we all want. It is not tapered; it is not means-tested; it is not a disincentive to move into work; it is not cut as earnings rise. Over half a million lone parents gain from that. They will not do so in future. Frankly, I believe that the Government are making a great mistake.
We are unhappy about these changes. However, having said that, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moved a Motion which, if we were to support it, let alone if he were to win it, would turn out to be fatal. The elected House has already voted these regulations through. I may regret that; I may deplore it; but they have done so. If an unelected, appointed and largely hereditary House should effectively vote the regulations down, we
1410
should be challenging the hegemony of the Commons because, unlike an amendment to a Bill, the Commons could not overturn our vote. We should not merely be asking the Commons to think again, which is perfectly proper; we should be overturning a Commons decision which the Commons could not rescind. By any democratic test, that would be offensive and improper. As a result, although I entirely support the substance of what the noble Earl said, if he were to pursue the matter to a vote we would abstain. In my view, it would be improper for us to seek to overturn what the elected House determined.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, as I expected, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness have made a number of effective and detailed remarks about the Government's proposals. I intend to make two more widely focused comments which I hope the Minister will be prepared to bear in mind when making the decisions which the Government clearly intend to make as a result of passing the regulations.
I recognise that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma on the issue of single parent benefits. I wish to make two points which should inform the Government in any decision they make. The first is that the committed two-parent family, supporting and caring for its own children, often with the support of the extended family, is generally agreed on average to be the family structure which gives children the best chance of growing up with the love, support and care that they need. I do not say that it is the only structure, nor that it always succeeds, but that it is the most likely to. It is also the family structure which secures the children's upbringing at the least cost to the state and taxpayer. Thus any government who produce tax benefit structures which discourage parents from bringing up their children in a family of two committed parents living together are no friend of children nor of the taxpayer.
The second point is very different. It relates to encouraging lone parents to take employment. There is substantial evidence, both in this country and the United States, that for the healthy emotional development of a young child under the age of two or three, it is critically important that the child should be looked after consistently by one or at most two adults to whom he or she can learn to relate and with whom he or she feels secure. The converse is that a very young child who suffers constant changes in its care and the person who looks after it will tend to become confused and insecure. To provide a consistent, one-person, high quality care, unless it is provided by the mother or a member of the child's family, is possible but very expensive.
I suggest, therefore, that in framing their tax benefits policy, the Government should have in mind two governing principles. The first is not to do anything which will discourage parents from forming long-term stable partnerships, preferably in marriage. The second is not to do anything which will discourage those mothers who want to from caring full-time for their own child during the first two years of its life.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wish to respond to the Motion put by the noble Earl. In doing so it might be for the convenience of the House if I explain the purpose of the regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper which were laid before the House on 5th June.
We are all agreed that this is a difficult problem. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the ideal situation for bringing up a child is undoubtedly in a two-parent family. I may he old-fashioned, as perhaps the noble Lord is, but we probably all agree with the proposition that that is the best possible situation for bringing up children. Unfortunately, over the past few years in this country the growth in the numbers of lone parents has been quite dramatic. I believe I am right in saying that it has been faster than in most other countries around the world, certainly in Europe.
The proportion of one-parent families increased from 12 per cent. of all families with children in 1980 to 23 per cent. in 1994. Of that group, the number of single lone mothers—unmarried mothers, as perhaps my politically incorrect explanation would have it—has almost doubled in the past five years. Single mothers between the ages of 20 and 29 are the fastest growing group of lone parents.
Undoubtedly this is a serious problem. It is certainly not good for the children and it is not good for the mothers themselves. I have no intention of launching into any kind of homily on the subject, but it is something that we ought to note, and we ought to be prepared to say loudly and clearly to young girls that being a lone parent is not a sensible course of action on which to set out. It is not good for the girl herself; nor is it good for the child. I hope we are all agreed on that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister would accept this but, given that his words will be read in Hansard, I am sure he will want to be the first to say that the figure for teenage mothers, that is, under 20 year-olds—he is talking about "girls" so I assume he is referring essentially to teenagers—is less than 8 per cent. It is falling and is among the lowest in Europe. The average age for someone to become a lone parent is in the later twenties. For the most part it is at the end of the break-up of a stable relationship. Three-quarters of all children born to lone parents have two parents on the birth certificate. I assure the Minister that my information comes from the Rowntree Trust and from well-established research at the University of York.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have little doubt that every child has two parents. That is a biological fact. The problem is that not all of them have two parents from birth. I said that about one-third are single lone mothers, and I emphasised the word "single". My point is that the number of single lone mothers almost doubled in the five years to 1994. I pointed out that the fastest growing group was of mothers between 20 and 29. If I use the word "girls" it is perhaps because in Scotland it has a different
1412
connotation from that which the noble Baroness puts on it, and there is not considered to be much of an age differential when one refers to ladies as "girls". So perhaps I ought simply to say "ladies" of 20 to 29—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is getting worse!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is because the noble Baroness, from the South of England and these cultured shores, is not used to the terminology of Scotland. But let us not argue. The fact is that these ladies, if she wishes me to call them ladies instead of girls—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They are "women".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These ladies between 20 and 29 certainly seem to be the fastest growing group of single, mothers resulting in lone parent families.
These regulations will incorporate the lone parent premium which has been paid in income-related benefits into the family premium, and it will also incorporate one-parent benefit into the main child benefit rates.
The aim is to provide a more flexible framework within which the Secretary of State can, at each uprating, review the appropriate level of special support for lone parents. He will of course, as he is obliged to do, consider all relevant factors and, when they permit, these regulations will allow him to narrow the gap between the level of both family premium and child benefit received by lone parents and couples. We have chosen this approach because the pace of change will be gradual. So people will be given plenty of time to adjust and there will be no cash losers.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned about the degree of parliamentary control which the new arrangements will bring about. Not counting his Motion this evening, this will be the sixth occasion here and in another place on which Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss our intentions. So the basic principle has received a fair amount of parliamentary attention.
In terms of progress towards narrowing the benefit gap, our intention is to take decisions year by year in the context of the uprating. The uprating announcement is the subject of a Statement in both Houses and of an affirmative order debated in both Houses. Although by convention the order is not opposed, there is still an opportunity to bring concerns to the attention of Parliament. Noble Lords here and honourable Members in the other place will have four occasions a year to raise this issue, as well as all the other opportunities provided by the rules of both Houses for discussing issues of concern, including this one.
The noble Earl and the noble Baroness argue that lone parents are a poor group and should have extra help within the benefits system. They are a poor group, largely because the majority rely on income support which is designed to provide an adequate but not a lavish lifestyle. Lone parents will never be well off unless they can earn their way out of income support.

1413
That is why we have concentrated all our efforts on providing pathways out of income support. So the key issue is not whether lone parents on income support are badly off but whether they have greater needs than couples with children on income support.
If we look at work, the Bradshaw Report was mentioned by the noble Earl. The proportion of lone parents in work did indeed fall in the 1980s in line with the increase in the number of single, never married, lone parents with very young children. Obviously, single, never-married lone parents who become lone parents at day one, so to speak, of the child's existence are going to be quite a big percentage of the group with under five year-old children. Our work incentive measures have started to reverse this trend in the 1990s. The proportion in work had risen from a low point of 39 per cent. to 43 per cent. by 1993, reflecting, I believe, the success of the improvement in family credit.
But of course there is a difficulty of deciding whether lone parents should go to work or whether they should stay at home and look after the children, which is the second point the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made. That is a difficult one. It is a difficult dilemma for lone parents because undoubtedly, as I said, they are not going to find themselves well off on benefit. That would be a serious behavioural consequence. If we put up benefits significantly they would have relatively no incentive to go to work.
Equally, they have to decide whether, given their talents, they would be better off in work in the same way as many two-parent families decide whether or not both parents should work. Indeed, an increasing number of families in this country, for a number of reasons, including correct changes in the way we look at women's participation in the labour market, have two wage earners, partly because they like the advantage of two wages but also because increasingly women have every right to careers on their own account. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees with me absolutely on that. These two-parent families with wages coming in also have problems with childcare, so they are in the same position as lone parents. But there is a problem getting lone parents into the labour market.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not want to keep intervening but again that statement is not supported by the evidence. The evidence is that three-fifths of households are now two-income families, one-fifth are unemployed and one-fifth have one earner. The reason why only women can afford to work if their partner is in work is two-fold. First, you do not have the poverty trap created by the benefits system. Secondly, two parents mean two sets of in-laws and two sets of opportunities for informal Box and Cox childcare. All the research shows that that is why the wives in a two-party relationship where the husband is in work are able to work. Those opportunities are denied to the single parent.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not want to continue the debate on this line but I think there
1414
is more to it than the simple economic factors that the noble Baroness has given. I strongly suspect there is a lot of evidence that people who are in work are more likely to marry partners who are also in work. Therefore, I think there are other aspects, although I do not deny that the points the noble Baroness has made play a part. It is not a complete picture by any manner of means.
I turn to the problem of getting lone parents into the labour market. I accept that lone parents have difficulty getting into the labour market. One of the problems, is that many lone parents, especially single unmarrieds, do not have a high educational achievement and therefore their skills are rather limited and their ability to find jobs is that much more limited. I accept that. I also accept that there is evidence of higher than usual incidence of ill health and disability among the children. But the major pilot scheme that we announced last December alongside the proposed changes that I am making will give direct job focused assistance to get lone parents into work. That, we believe, will be more effective in raising lone parents' living standards than, for example, the JET-type schemes in Australia which focus on training.
The evidence from GAIN in America, especially the county in which it has been most successful, is that the most important thing for lone parents is to get them jobs—not so much to get them training as to get them jobs. That is where the real advantage comes. Therefore the pilot that we are doing, directed at getting lone parents into employment, is very important.
I believe that there is no solid evidence to back up the assumption that lone parents need proportionately more money than do couples. The noble Earl tells me that a lone parent with one child has two mouths to feed and a couple with one child has three mouths to feed. When I battled away on another of the Rowntree reports, which figured something called the Gini coefficient, it divided income by the number of mouths to feed in the household. But when I come to look at lone parents, somehow or other the Gini coefficient is set aside and we do not look at that. I do not think that it is necessarily true that lone parents have so much higher costs than a family couple with the same number of children. In fact, other than childcare costs for lone parents, the research by Professor Bradshaw showed that, relative to budget standards, lone parents on income support are slightly better off than couples. Certainly, at certain levels of income from work, lone parents can be better off than couples with the same income from work with the same number of children—one child each, for example. So I do not believe that the case has been properly made out that lone parents have such significantly higher costs—a two parent one child family, let us say, as against a one parent one child family—that we should have the differential in child benefit proposed.
I have outlined some of the reasons why we have decided to have these regulations. I have instanced the increase in the number of lone parent families—three-quarters of a million in 1975; one and a half million in 1994. Their dependence on social security benefits has also increased: 40 per cent. relied on supplementary benefit in 1971; 65 per cent. relied on income support by 1994. Although our work incentive

1415
measures have begun to reverse that trend, there is still a substantial extra cost to the taxpayer. I am sorry to mention the poor old taxpayer but he, after all, pays the bill. Benefit expenditure on lone parents is estimated to be £9.5 billion in 1995–96.
We believe quite firmly that lone parents should have neither preferential nor adverse treatment. We want a system that helps and encourages people to support themselves and their families and which minimises the burden on taxpayers generally. Our strategy has three elements. The first is to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their children and that maintenance is properly paid. Maintenance provides an incentive for lone parents to improve their standard of living by seeking work. Over 83,000 working lone parents receive family credit and they also receive maintenance. It is that other parent who I believe has a responsibility before the taxpayer to maintain his child, even though he may no longer live—indeed may never have lived—with the mother and the child.
Our second objective is to encourage lone parents to take up work. Although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about under five year-olds, I think one could argue the point about under five year-olds both ways. It rather depends on the economic advantage that the lone parent can gain by going into work. In order to ensure that lone parents are better off in work, we have reformed the structure of family credit. We have provided extra help with child care costs of up to £60 a week. I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, welcomed that.
If we compare ourselves with other countries, very few other countries take the same view as we do about lone parents and their obligation to seek work. As I recall, we take the view that under 16 years they do not have an obligation. Many of our friends in Europe, for example, have cut-off points at 11 and at five, after which they expect lone parents to look for work. Since 1992 over 200,000 lone parents have moved from income support into work, supported by family credit, and they have gained an average of £30 a week. New measures to help them further include the faster processing of family credit claims, with 90 per cent. of the claims being dealt with in five days. This improvement removes the financial uncertainty by ensuring that there is no gap in income between leaving income support and receiving their first wages.
The pilots I have mentioned should provide opportunities for up to 30,000 lone parents in the pilot phase. That will be coupled with an increase of 18,000 over three years in the 50,000 after-school child care places already made available. None of these measures will force a lone parent to take up work if she prefers to be a full-time parent, but all of them are geared to trying to make sure that if a lone parent wishes to take work then the opportunities are there.
The third objective, as I have already mentioned, is to ensure even-handed treatment of couples and lone parents. That is the guiding principle behind these regulations.
On one-parent benefit, it is important to remember that in 1976 this was originally a temporary advance payment of child benefit for lone parents, because the
1416
main child benefit scheme was delayed. Mr. Frank Field, chairman of the Social Security Select Committee in another place, has pointed out that it was, and I quote,
"never part of any strategy; merely an attempt at a quick fix to appease furious voters".
He wrote that in the Daily Mirror on 5th September, 1995. The then Secretary of State—now the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn—said in another place when the Child Benefit Bill was introduced:
"So there is to be an interim benefit of £1.50 a week for the one-parent family for a year from April 1976 until the child benefit scheme comes into effect … the benefit is purely a temporary one".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/76; cols. 337 and 339.]
Improvements in help for people in work means that the situation is now very different. Instead of being financially disadvantaged, a lone-parent in work will have more net income than a couple at the same level of gross earnings. The same argument occurs in the lone-parent premium. The single rate is 64 per cent. of the couple rate. A lone-parent will receive at least 73 per cent. of what an equivalent couple family receive before adding the lone-parent premium. It is clearly unfair that this modest differential should further be eroded by a special payment to lone parents.
Finally, perhaps I can say a word about the jobseeker's allowance and the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations, which were laid before the House on 10th June. This amendment is merely to correct the omission which crept into the original regulations when the Maidstone B office was omitted. I am sure your Lordships will be perfectly happy about that.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said I should try not to tempt him into dividing. Perhaps I may suggest that the right reverend Prelate reminds him that one should yield not to temptation. I hope that today, as on other days, I have explained what we are about—not about penalising lone parents but simply putting lone parents and married couples on exactly the same footing when it comes to receiving child benefit and the family premium. We believe that is a right and proper way in which to proceed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, after this afternoon it has been a real pleasure to return to discussing a subject about which we merely disagree. We do disagree quite considerably, mostly about questions which are reducible to evidence and therefore about questions we can usefully go on discussing. I did promise myself this afternoon that if the Minister were once again to invoke the interests of the taxpayer—this mythical single being—I would tell him the story of Mrs. Clare Booth Luce and the Pope. Mrs. Clare Booth Luce, as one or two of your Lordships may remember, was a very doughty figure, a daughter of the American Revolution, U.S. ambassador to the Vatican under President Eisenhower, and a person with whom it was not generally wise to argue. She had an audience with the Pope at 11 o'clock. Another audience was fixed for 12. The next person was there at 12, but there was no sign of the Pope. At 12.15 the secretary knocked. There was no answer. At 12.30 the secretary knocked very loudly indeed. There was no answer. At a quarter to one the

1417
secretary took his courage in both hands and went in—and found the Pope cowering in the corner saying, "But my dear Mrs. Luce, I am a Catholic". I am a taxpayer—and I hope that the Minister will not again forget it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says that two parents are generally better than one, I give him instant and total consent. If he had left out the word "generally", it would have been quite another matter.
The Minister suggested that I give advice to young girls. I advise him that I am not in the business of preaching ways of life to young girls. I think that a lot of them are better qualified to make decisions on that than I am. I agree with John Stuart Mill that if the behaviour complained of is as detrimental as alleged, the example must be rather a salutary warning than otherwise.
I shall not again go into the whole question of the costs on single parents. It seems to me that the Minister is on weak ground there and that most people's ordinary experience, as well as the bulk of research, is against him. Commonsense is not something conclusive on which to rely, but where commonsense and research both say the same thing, I am at least tempted to believe them and I want some fairly good evidence before I do anything else.
The Minister admits that the basic intention is to narrow the gap. I grant him that Parliament may discuss things, but discussing and controlling are not the same thing. Ministers listen with a certain care when they expect votes which they do not always bring to every occasion. However, everybody is human, so I say no more. I have no moral objection to what the Minister said about the other parent, but I think that he should study Professor Bradshaw's findings in all his 20 countries that that arrangement simply does not yield results. It does not in any sufficient quantity bring in the bacon. That may be a pity, but it appears to be a fact. Attempts in this country to change it have not yet led to any success.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about the figures on disability. On her point about age, yes, Professor Bradshaw did say that it was a significant point and that it accounted for part of the differential. He also said that it did not account for all of it. I imagine that there is no argument between us on that.
I was also extremely interested in what the noble Baroness said about Section 145 of the 1992 Act. The possibility of a challenge by the courts is interesting, but I also listened carefully to her noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on 5th June and I have read the article on his public lecture on the relationship between the Executive and the judges. The noble Lord argued that a great deal of the tension between the Executive and the judiciary is because of a defect of democratic control; because we are leaving things to be done by the judges which we ought to be doing ourselves. I agree. This is the second such example in one day's parliamentary business. We are leaving too much to the judges.
1418
I heard what the noble Baroness said about another place. One must, of course, give due weight to the will of another place, but I do not feel such entire reverence towards it as the elected Chamber as the noble Baroness appears to feel. That is because I am by no means convinced that another place represents the people any better than we do—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Oh!
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is not just a matter for our own party. It is also because the other place contains no Cross Benches—and a place that contains no Cross Benches cannot represent the people adequately. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, shakes his head. I should be most eager to give way to him if he could explain why he does so. I am quite prepared to listen. I do not have an iconoclastic reverence for another place.
I believe that the Motion to Resolve is a very sensible compromise. But it takes two to compromise. The noble Baroness and her party have chosen on this occasion not to join in this compromise, so the Motion to Resolve does not serve its declared purpose. I am not prepared to leave the whole work of challenging regulations to the judiciary. We have spent a good deal of today dealing with the mess that that creates. I believe that Parliament ought to shoulder its own responsibilities. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
10.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 10.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Burnham, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Downshire, M.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Dundonald. E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

1419

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Gisborough. L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Goschen, V.

Mountevans, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Munster, E.

Henley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Hogg,B.

Northesk, E.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kingsland, L.

Reay, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renton, L.

Lucas, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Seccombe,B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Ogmore, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon. L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
10.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this regulation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
10.26 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (64) as first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 'pay' and insert 'make'.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to
1420
move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
While there has not always been complete agreement on all the detail, this Bill has in general had the support of both sides of your Lordships' House. One issue on which we are of one mind is that local authorities should not treat people who receive direct payments differently than they would treat them under their charging policies if they were receiving the equivalent services. These amendments bring us even closer together on that point, and I hope that your Lordships will welcome them.
The point of disagreement when your Lordships first considered this Bill was over how to achieve the level playing field which everyone wanted. The Government never intended that local authorities should be required to seek a financial contribution from people to whom they make direct payments, nor that they should be required to means test. We do not believe that the Bill as originally drafted had either of those effects. However, there were some in this House who felt that it would be better to mirror more closely the wording in existing legislation on charging for non-residential services. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), both tabled amendments seeking to ensure that the tests which apply to charging for services would also be applied in the case of direct payments.
As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said then, we did not think that such amendment was necessary. Without the amendments before us today, the Bill does not require local authorities to treat differently under their charging policies people who receive direct payments and people who receive services.
However, since this Bill was first considered by your Lordships, we have had the benefit of nearly 400 responses to our consultation exercise. Among those, we received the following comment from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan authorities:
"It would appear that charging will require means testing and hence a new layer of bureaucracy".
Further soundings confirmed that there was indeed some uncertainty about the meaning of the Bill on this point.
The Government listened to these concerns, particularly against the background of your Lordships' three debates on this issue. Out of an abundance of caution, we decided to put the matter beyond doubt and gave a commitment in another place to amend the Bill so as to clarify this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said at Committee stage, to make it transparently clear that there is a level playing field.
The amendments now before us amend subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 1 to match more closely the wording used in Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. The local authority is not required to means test. If the authority proposes a financial contribution, and the person receiving direct payments satisfies it that he or she cannot reasonably afford that amount, then the authority must reduce the amount to a level which it considers he or she can afford.

1421
Local authorities may not require people to contribute more than it appears to the authority to be reasonably practicable for them to contribute. That is equivalent to the law in relation to charging for non-residential services. Both leave local authorities discretion over whether and, if so, how much to charge and whether to set a flat rate charge, or a scale of charges. It is important that there is a level playing field. As amended, the wording of this Bill will be similar to that of the existing law on charging, but both allow the local authority discretion. That discretion is subject to similar constraints in both cases. However, there is no guarantee that local authorities will exercise their discretion with respect to people who receive direct payments in the same way as for people who receive services.
We said previously that we would issue firm policy guidance emphasising that local authorities should treat people who receive direct payments and people who receive services fairly and in the same way. We still intend to issue that guidance.
These amendments bring about what the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), were pressing for on previous occasions. I hope that your Lordships will give these amendments the welcome which they deserve. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that the Minister was speaking to Amendment No. 1 and all the subsequent amendments. We are happy to see this Bill return to this House and we are even happier that some of the amendments which we initially failed to persuade the Government to accept have now been taken up, reinforced by the formal evidence of the local authority associations which were briefing us at that time.
It is absolutely right—and I am delighted that the Minister has made it clear—that there should be an equivalence between those receiving direct payments and those receiving services and that no means-test should be smuggled in by the back door while, as the Minister was right to say, protecting the discretion of local authorities to ensure that similar cases are treated in similar ways, whether by direct payments or service provision. We are pleased about that.
The Minister will not expect me not to make a few further points. We are very sorry that the amendment for which we fought that direct payments should not be confined to those under 65 was won in Committee in another place and then overturned by the Government on the Floor of the House. We all accept that not all authorities are ready, willing and able to extend their powers in that way. However, it was a useful discretion for those which could and would have welcomed such a provision; in other words, those which have already been running DP schemes and which are ready to take on a broader-based clientele.
1422
We accept that local authorities which are new to direct payments will wish to phase in their schemes. I believe that the Government have made a profound mistake in that regard and are foolish to believe that the discretion of the Secretary of State should overrule the discretion of the local authorities which know what is the situation on the ground.
The Government are saying that the over-65s are not competent to manage their own affairs. That did not stop a sizeable number of Members of another place and many noble Lords, probably two-thirds of whom are over 65, determining that other 65 year-olds are not able to operate their own affairs.
However, the Government have agreed to review the situation after a year. There is no doubt that we all wish to see local authority schemes which are as broadly-based as possible. However, we are arguing about the speed at which that should progress. I should like confirmation or a reaffirmation from the Minister that the scheme will be reviewed after a year, not just for those with learning difficulties, who have been included, but also as to whether those local authorities which wish to do so should be able to include in the scheme those aged over 65.
In the meantime—and there was a trace of this in the debate in another place although the Government's position on it was somewhat equivocal—will the Government consider pilot schemes to encourage the existing voluntary schemes or the laundered schemes through third-party trusts, which is the experience of many local authorities?
The second point that I should like to make is that we are very sorry that another amendment which was pursued in this House has not been followed through by the Government; that is, to whom direct payments may be paid. The Government accept that they may be able to include the over-65s in the scheme in due course. Nobody on this side of the House has any wish to turn existing informal family care into a paid employer/employee relationship and we accept that, if all relatives could be turned into employees, there could be pressures on either side in that direction which we wish to avoid. It may be that a reluctant relative is press-ganged by a disabled person or a disabled person would prefer the formality of a more distant relationship and not wish to feel beholden to an immediate member of the family.
However, to avoid that lesser evil—namely, where both parties may be pressed into a situation that they do not want—the Government are committing a much greater evil. In my view, they are arbitrarily excluding relatives who are not especially close, and not necessarily living in the same household, from becoming employed. Indeed, that suggests that even someone who moves into the same household as a lodger and who strikes up a friendship with the person needing care cannot be employed to attend to that person's personal care needs because that would still be forbidden under the Bill or under Section 7 guidance. It is extremely unwise of the Government.
The Government have accepted that in rural areas and in extraordinary circumstances where there may be a scarcity of suitable people to provide care or where there

1423
may be, say, an HIV situation, discretion may be exercised. However, the Government would have been wise to accept an amendment that we pressed—or, indeed, introduce such an amendment in the other place—whereby if a social worker is satisfied that the employment of a relative is appropriate under the circumstances, that would be sufficient. Again, we do not need the Secretary of State double guessing local authorities and professionally trained social workers in the kind of delicate and sensitive jobs that they undertake all the time. Many disabled people, especially those requiring help with quite intimate, physical bodily functions, would much prefer the care of a relative to the uncaring, casual and sometimes off-hand and unreliable care that comes from a paid agency employee. I believe that the Government are also being stupid in that respect.
There is a middle course; namely, to require that social workers satisfy themselves on a professional basis that what is suggested is the right way forward. I would back the judgment of a professionally trained social worker who is accustomed to abuse cases and similar situations over that of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, of his staff—at any time. However, the regulation-making powers are there. I am confident that they will be extended by the next Minister for the disabled to cover that category of need.
Much of the effectiveness of the Bill will depend on guidance issued by the department, especially as regards support arrangements for managing direct payments by individuals in their new role as employers. Much of that guidance, in turn, will be informed by the technical advisory group which I know has been of great help to the Minister. Will the Minister be retaining that group as an expert body to examine progress on direct payments and to inform future guidance?
I welcome the amendment that we originally put forward which has been belatedly accepted. I regret that the Government are not progressing faster towards improving the situation of those over 65 years of age, especially as regards allowing local authority discretion. I also sincerely regret—and I believe this to be both perverse and very silly—that social workers will not be allowed to assess the propriety of a relative such as, for example, a niece or the partner of a nephew, to be employed in a caring relationship. Finally, we would like some information about the future of the technical advisory group.
Having said that, we welcome the Bill. It enshrines the principle that the disabled person is at the centre of his care network and not merely a dependant upon it. The disabled person is the one best placed to determine how his care needs are to be met, by whom and in what ways. We sincerely hope that the Bill will bring freedom, spontaneity and independence to disabled people so as to allow them to live their lives as they see fit and not as we judge fit for them. I very much hope that local authorities will be encouraged by the Minister to adopt such schemes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we agreed from the start that we want to see a level playing field between people who receive direct payments and those
1424
who receive services when it comes to the contribution that they are asked to make to the cost of their care. I am pleased that your Lordships welcome the extra clarity that the amendments bring.
Perhaps I may briefly respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am sure she will agree with me that the matters to which she referred are not directly related to the amendments now before the House. However, I am pleased to respond to them briefly. I thank the noble Baroness for the courtesy of giving me advance notice of the issues.
The noble Baroness wished to know why people over 65 were not considered in the beginning, especially as many of them work. We thought it right that those who first campaigned for the Bill—disabled people of working age—should go first and people over 65 should follow. I can confirm that the Government are committed to reviewing the eligible group when direct payments have been available for one year, with a view to extending it to people over 65. We believe that it is only sensible that we should wait until we know the outcome of that review, in particular whether any serious problems have emerged in the first year of operation of direct payments, before coming to a decision about extending eligibility.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the restriction on paying relatives and friends to provide a service. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege agreed to look carefully at the restrictions on paying relatives and friends. The Government reviewed their proposals in this area in the light of responses to the consultation. Our reasons for these restrictions were widely accepted. We have no specific plans to review these restrictions when direct payments are available, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be comforted by the knowledge that we shall of course monitor the implementation of this legislation and will consider whether any changes to the framework we are laying down are necessary in the light of experience.
I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we believe that the technical advisory group's advice has been helpful. I am sure that it will continue to be so. We are committed to consulting the group in the preparation of the guidance on direct payments. As I have already explained, these amendments do not change the effect of the Bill but I hope they remove any doubt about the Government's intention. They respond to concerns raised in this House and elsewhere by introducing wording which matches more closely the wording of existing legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from 'him' to second `of' in line 14 and insert `, in respect'.
3 Page 1, line 15, at end insert `, a payment of such amount as, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, they think fit.'
4 Page 1, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert—
'(2) If—

(a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and

1425

(b) the payee satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,

the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.
(3) In the case of a service which, apart from this Act, would be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care), an authority shall not pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service.'.
5 Clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out 'pay' and insert 'make'.
6 Page 3, line 15, leave out from 'him' to second 'of' in line 16 and insert ', in respect'.
7 Page 3, line 17, at end insert a payment of such amount as, subject to subsection (2) below, they think fit.'.
8 Page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'(2) If—

(a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and

(b) the person to whom the payment is made satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,

the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.'.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 8.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Bill
10.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Burnham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Alternatives for prescribed declaration and words of contract]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("building)") insert—
("(a) after the words "and each of them shall say to the other" the following words shall be inserted—
1426
"I (name) have carefully considered the promises I am making here today and I understand that I am entering into a marriage partnership with you (name) under which each of us is making a commitment to support and care for the other and for any children of the marriage for as long as we live. I acknowledge that even if this marriage should end in irretrievable breakdown I shall continue to have a responsibility to love and contribute to the support of any child or children of the marriage and"; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: I say immediately that I entirely support the main thrust of this Bill. It is not my intention in any way to damage that thrust. This is a probing amendment. If it had arisen earlier in the evening, I had rather hoped it might lead to an interesting and important debate. I daresay at this hour it will not.
There is a need to encourage young couples who are contemplating marriage to consider carefully the nature of the engagement they are entering into. One may ask, do they not already do so? Surprisingly, many do not.
During the debates on the Family Law Bill many noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor repeatedly referred to the importance of the beginning of marriage, and to the fact that when the question of divorce arose it was much too late in a marriage to be able to do anything effective to put it together again in most cases. Professor Father Jack Dominian, who is possibly one of the greatest experts in this country on the subject of marriage, said that,
"The only way to reduce marriage breakdown is preparation for marriage".
A marriage guidance counsellor to whom I spoke recently talked about people coming for counselling advice being asked, "Are you communicating with one another?" He said that some of them never seem to have communicated—although there must have been some body language somewhere.
An intelligent young Roman Catholic priest from Australia who deals regularly with marriage preparation told me that many of the couples say to him, "Father, we know all about it. We know you have to do this but it's only a formality, isn't it?" His attitude is, "Yes, it's only a formality but I have to do something about it. Would you mind filling in this questionnaire? You go over there; and you go over there". In many cases, even on the simplest question the couple's answers are completely different.
There is probably consensus that if couples were clearer about the nature of the commitments they were making, they would have a better chance of the success and happiness both for themselves and their children which some of us have been fortunate enough to enjoy in our marriage and would like to see others enjoy.
I have put down a clear, unequivocal, easily understood promise which is made by each to the other in front of friends and family. I believe that it might help. The words which I propose look simple but they are designed to cover several important issues. First, they emphasise that marriage is a very serious promise made by each partner to the other. Secondly, it emphasises that marriage is not just about a relationship. It is also about a partnership to do a specific job: to

1427
care for one another, and to care for the children of the marriage. My words define what that job is. Finally, in the first sentence, the parties agree that the partnership is intended to last for life.
The second sentence of the amendment may cause a certain number of raised eyebrows. Having promised that the partnership is for life, why are we talking about irretrievable breakdown? We have just passed the Family Law Bill which accepts irretrievable breakdown as a possibility. If we were to accept a provision of this kind in this Bill, or draft it in some future legislation, we would have to bring couples face to face with the fact that if they are too selfish, too greedy, too demanding, or if they take too much out of the marriage and put too little in, they may end up joining the 30 per cent. who now face irretrievable breakdown with the great suffering to themselves and the children which that involves.
Divorce is the single greatest threat to children in our society today. It also causes untold misery to their parents. I wonder whether a promise along the lines of the amendment could make a contribution to reducing the number of adults and children who suffer the trauma of divorce. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was so courteous as to give me advance notice of the wording of his amendment. Therefore I have been able carefully to consider it. I have also had the opportunity to ascertain that the Labour Party has not yet finalised its policy position on this matter. So I am empowered to say that I find myself very much in sympathy with the impulse which underlies the amendment and with the desire of the noble Lord to make the seriousness and lifelong responsibilities of civil marriage as clear and as binding on the parties as it is possible to be. In many ways that is what the amendment does.
It is especially true so far as concerns the children of the marriage. His amendment sets out absolutely unambiguously what those responsibilities are. But the difference between religious and civil marriage is such that one cannot, in making laws about civil marriage, avail oneself of the understandings and assumptions which belong appropriately to a religious understanding of marriage as a sacrament. In a religious context, one can easily and well talk about "a responsibility to love", which is the wording of the amendment. It means something in the context of the vocabulary of theology or ecclesiology or liturgy, but within the context of a secular jurisprudence or among the arcane attics of the parliamentary draftsmen, it is very difficult to ascribe to a phrase like "a responsibility to love" any precise or enforceable meaning. It is difficult to see how a responsibility to love could be established or denied in the courts.
Given that difficulty, it is not easy for us on these Benches to give our unreserved support to the noble Lord's amendment. But if the Minister could find it in his heart to take the amendment away and consider it
1428
and return at a later stage with a more easily enforceable form of words, it could perhaps improve not only the morality but also the euphony of the Bill to its and our inestimable advantage.
The Earl of Courtown: Noble Lords will recall that I made clear during the Second Reading debate that the purpose of this Bill is to introduce greater choice for people who are getting married by allowing the use of more modern language in the marriage ceremony for those couples who want it. As I explained, the 1990 White Paper, Registration: Proposals for Change, recognised that there was a case for providing modern-day language alternatives which had substantially the same effect as the contracting and declaratory words prescribed in the Marriage Act 1949. The proposals in this Bill have broadly the same purpose.
In seeking to provide an alternative form of contracting words which would set out the responsibilities of marriage, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, goes beyond the recommendation of the White Paper. Moreover, the reference to the possible irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be inappropriate at the time of the marriage ceremony when the presumption, and certainly the hope, must be that the marriage will be for life.
This is not, of course, to say that the Government do not recognise the importance of these issues. As the Committee is aware—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—the Family Law Bill which recently completed its passage through Parliament sets out the principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported. Under the new system, couples will have to reflect on their marriage breakdown, consider their responsibilities and decide arrangements for the future before a divorce order is granted. They will receive information about the availability of marriage guidance counselling and other sources of help and will be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save their marriage. The Bill places public funding for a marriage support service on a statutory basis. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the Government are therefore unable to support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I am grateful that so many noble Lords have remained for this debate and to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for their contributions. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for the gracious manner in which he introduced his amendment. I understand and share many of the concerns of which the amendment speaks, but I do not believe that the Bill is the right place for them to be expressed. In his quotation from Jack Dominian, the noble Lord hinted that marriage preparation classes before the ceremony are the right place for those matters to be raised.
The proposals of the Bill do not affect the marriage services of the Church of England. I am therefore speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. The text contained in the Bill has been agreed by the Roman Catholic and Free Churches as being

1429
appropriate to the forms of their liturgies. The proposed texts are in the first case an update on the wording that has already existed and in the second case in a form that is totally consistent with the marriage liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, though graciously introduced, would be completely inappropriate in the liturgical context. A marriage ceremony is not the occasion for such a declaration to be made. It would not be supported or even considered for use in the marriage service of the Church of England. Therefore I cannot support it for inclusion in the service of any other Church.
If carried, the amendment would create serious problems with regard to the Church's teaching on marriage. To enshrine in its liturgy even a suggestion of irretrievable breakdown goes against the teaching of the Church that marriage is a life-long commitment "till death us do part".
It may be that some other, more appropriate way outside the Bill can be found to raise the issues contained in the amendment. The noble Lord may therefore feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful for the kind remarks of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. As noble Lords may imagine, it is not my intention to press the amendment. In so far as it has been spoken to, it has received an encouraging measure of support. I shall pursue the argument about the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, at a later date. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of section 41) Order 1996
10.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue for a further five years the power of the Building Societies Commission, conferred by Section 41 of the Building Societies Act 1986, to require a building society to apply for renewal of its authorisation under certain circumstances. The power was originally intended to be transitional, to allow the commission to review the deemed authorisations which had been given under the 1986 Act. That is why Section 41 has effect for only five years at a time, and requires to be renewed after that.
A Section 41 power is useful and necessary in circumstances where, and over a period of time, the commission has a number of grounds for doubt about the adequacy of the way in which a building society is conducting its business and where the society is not responding sufficiently to the commission's prudential concerns. The society has up to six months to put its house in order, if that is necessary, before it seeks to satisfy the commission that it is fit to continue to be authorised.
The power under Section 41 has so far been used only once, which suggests that it is a useful discipline. The draft building societies Bill, on which we have just completed public consultation, would make the power permanent. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
11 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's introduction of this draft order which seems to me to be an entirely sensible and appropriate measure. I have a number of brief questions for him which may, I hope, carry the matter further.
First, he said that the power in Section 41 has been used only once, which suggests it is a useful discipline. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a non sequitur. It may be that it has only been used once because it has been inadequately enforced. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could assure us that the Section 41 disciplines have been appropriately enforced over the period of this order.
Secondly, as the noble Lord pointed out, this was introduced as a transitional arrangement. I understand that in the building societies Bill, which is to be placed before your Lordships' House some time in the near future, this order will be made permanent. On this side we support making this order permanent. It is an obvious security measure to ensure that building societies are conducting their business in an appropriate manner. I would simply be interested to hear the thinking of the Government as to why a transitional order now is to be made permanent. Although, as I say, this is entirely appropriate, it would be nice to know their reasoning.
Finally, the building societies Bill is a measure which we have been anticipating for some time in your Lordships' House. We have heard a number of discussions on various measures and orders associated with building societies during which we have often been told by the Government that we should wait for the building societies Bill, when the reasoning behind particular orders and their full ramifications will be made clear. Now that the consultation has been completed, can the Minister say when we can expect the building societies Bill to be placed before your Lordships' House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very grateful for the response from the noble Lord, and I am grateful for his welcome for the Bill. He raised three questions, the first

1431
of which was the fact that the power has only been used once and therefore he suggested that possibly it is not necessary and is inadequate. I would suggest that the reverse is the case. The mere fact that it has only been used once suggests that that power was appropriate and has allowed the Building Societies Commission to act in the appropriate manner.
The second question the noble Lord asked was as to why this power was transitional. As the noble Lord will be fully aware, when the 1986 Bill was originally brought forward, it was brought forward merely as a transitional power. As I have explained in answer to the first question we then decided that, because this power was useful, we would extend it. As we still do not have the building societies Bill, it is obviously, therefore, essential to extend it even further.
That brings me on to the third question: when will the Bill come forward. As the noble Lord will be fully aware, we have just completed a wide-ranging consultation process. That consultation process ended the middle of last month. We are still awaiting responses from one or two of those from whom we would like to receive responses. We will then, in due course, bring forward the Bill. But as the noble Lord will also be fully aware, I cannot pre-empt what might or might not be in the Queen's Speech. But I can say, following the usual rubric, that it will be brought forward as soon as is convenient. I am very grateful for what I imagine I heard from the noble Lord, that this is something which will receive a degree of support from all sides of the House. I hope that when we bring forward this Bill, the noble Lord and others will give Her Majesty's Government as much assistance as possible. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, just to make myself clear, I cannot guarantee to support the measures in the building societies Bill that the noble Lord brings forward. But I certainly support this order, which is entirely sensible.
Lord Henley: Obviously, my Lords, I was not expecting total and utter support from the noble Lord on every aspect of the Bill, but I think that the general thrust of the Bill is something to which the noble Lord would give a degree of support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Still-Birth and Death Registration) Order 1996
11.5 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved. The draft order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is concerned with removing the burden imposed on the recently bereaved from having to travel to give information for the registration of deaths and still-births.
1432
This particular order has now, with the exception of these particular proceedings, completed all the appropriate stages in both Houses. Its purpose is to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which I understand follows from legislation going back as far as the 1830s. That particular Act was designed to provide for the registration of deaths and still-births by means of a declaration of the particulars to be registered. Currently, relatives and others are obliged to attend before the registrar of births and deaths where—I stress the word "where" in terms of place—the death occurred to give information for the registration of a death or a still-birth. The proposed change would allow them to choose to travel to the district where the event occurred—as they must at present—or to visit their local or other registrar.
We are satisfied that the measure will not reduce the necessary protection. Deaths and still-births will continue to be registered in the district where they occurred so that they remain traceable for many years to come. I believe that this is a minor and sensible piece of deregulation and will, as I said earlier, significantly reduce the burden on some of those recently bereaved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.]—(Lord Henley).
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this enormously sensible measure. Indeed, it is so sensible and worth while that the one major criticism that one could make of the Government is to ask why they have not brought it forward earlier. The problem is, of course, that from these Benches I could ask why the Labour Government did not bring it forward earlier and why successive Conservative Governments did not bring it forward earlier either.
I should like to refer to two points which the Deregulation Committee asked about this measure. The first concerns the new form—the medical certificate of the cause of death—which doctors will now be required to fill in, which apparently will give information more appropriate for the new system of registration which no longer requires relatives to travel to the place of death, which is entirely sensible. The Government told the Deregulation Committee that the revised guidance notes for doctors were being prepared. I wonder whether the noble Lord could assure us that those revised notes are now available and will be available to doctors when this order comes into force.
Secondly, the Deregulation Committee asked that information about the cause of death could now be copied from the medical certificate—the new form of certificate which doctors are being asked to produce—and this will require amendments to secondary legislation. Could the noble Lord tell us whether those amendments will come before this House and, if so, when?
Lord Henley: On the first point raised by the noble Lord, relating to the number of different governments that have been before us, not just since 1953 but

1433
sometime in the 1830s, it is not Conservative Governments nor Labour Governments, nor even Liberal Governments, but possibly goes back to Whig governments and others—all of them have failed to address this matter and we all stand to blame.
The noble Lord also asked when guidance would be available on the concerns raised by the Deregulation Committee in another place. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that that guidance will be available in due course and certainly at the appropriate moment.
He also asked whether amendments to secondary legislation would have to come before this House in due course. My understanding at the moment is that, if the amendments are needed, those amendments would not require the affirmative resolution procedure and would be matters for negative resolution. But I shall take advice on that particular point and, if I am wrong, write to the noble Lord. I hope that, having said that, I have addressed all the points which the noble Lord raised. If I have failed to do so, as I say, I will write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
11.10 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 12th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, a draft of which was laid before the House on 12th June 1996, be approved.
The principal purpose of this short order is to amend the regulation-making power in Section 3(1) of the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, so as to provide greater flexibility in the making of fireworks regulations. This change would be effected by Article 3.
The result will provide the Secretary of State with the same powers to make fireworks regulations as he currently has to make explosives regulations in general. At present, Section 3 of the Act restricts the Secretary of State's regulation-making power to matters covering the sale and use of fireworks. The reform proposals published in January this year—which have been generally well received—require a more flexible power. Hence the need to amend the 1970 Act.
The only other significant change is effected by Article 4. This amends the Explosives Act 1875 to make it an offence to sell fireworks to any child apparently under the age of 16 years, and brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th June 1996 be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a sensible order and I therefore support it, particularly in so far as it gives extra protection to children.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this is a late hour, a gloomy hour, and particularly well suited to discussing such matters as deaths registration and explosives, For me, it had a brief shaft of light a few moments ago when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to past Liberal and Whig governments.
I feel that the order is probably long overdue; it is certainly accepted on these Benches. But I should like to take this opportunity to say one other thing briefly. I am well aware that the noble Baroness, with her heavy departmental responsibilities, will be aware of what I am about to say. It is this. I am using the rubric of explosives just to say something about the current situation.
I should like to congratulate the Irish Government and the Garda on their discovery of that large cache of explosives recently, and I should like to say how important it is. I trust that the Government agree—particularly at this juncture when the Provisional IRA have turned their backs so conclusively on the course of peace—how vital it is that the two governments continue to work closely together on the issue of security and indeed on the general thrust of the peace process, which must be continued with all possible vigour. I hope the noble Baroness does not mind my intruding those thoughts into the discussion of this amendment order, which I am glad to support.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support and I would confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that it continues to be inexplicable that anyone should think that violence has any part in the building of peace in Northern Ireland. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Government and all others who reject violence utterly and totally. This order will bring a little more sensibility into this issue. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
11.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (127) as first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause page 2. line 5, at end insert 'or providing'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
I begin by putting on record my deep gratitude for the contribution made to the Bill by Lord Justice Neill. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a very worthwhile Bill and for that Lord Justice Neill should take a great share of the credit not only for chairing the committee which gave rise to many of the proposals, but also for the help he has generously given throughout the progress of the Bill to my officials and myself in considering how we should react to the various propositions put to us.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 are small technical amendments to subsection (3)(c). Subsection (3) sets out categories of defendants who will not be regarded as authors, editors and publishers for the purposes of this clause so that the new statutory defence may be available to them provided, of course, they can satisfy the other conditions set out earlier in the clause. It reflects the existence of new technologies not contemplated when the common law defence of innocent dissemination was developed. The amendments together spell out that those who are only providing systems or services making material available in electronic form are within the subsection.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am on the verge of achieving one of life's ambitions, which is to wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a happy birthday. It is a very narrow squeak because the efforts of noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House earlier have just enabled me to speak before midnight. It is on occasions like this that one remembers what a pleasure it is to have a jury in defamation cases because one has at least a guaranteed audience of 13, which is rather more than one has at this hour in your Lordships' House.
I join the noble and learned Lord in what he said about Lord Justice Neill. He has been pre-eminent as a judge, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, in this arcane area of defamation, but much more than that—he has been a constant source of inquiry and suggestions for reform. He is a judge who is universally regarded with affection, respect and esteem.
Other than that, I have nothing to say to Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his good wishes and the timeliness with which he was able to express them. I join him in expressing admiration for Lord Justice Neill not only in relation to this field of law in which he is, indeed, pre-eminent but also for the great service he has given to the law in all sorts of other spheres. I commend Commons Amendment No. 1 to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after 'equipment' insert `, system or service'.
3 Page 2, line 7, leave out 'or distributed' and insert ', distributed or made available in electronic form'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Leave out Clause 13.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 14.
The Government reflected deeply and carefully before deciding to accept Amendment No. 4 when it was moved in the other place. An amendment to similar effect was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when your Lordships were debating the clause. We had some discussion of it. The clause would have reversed the rule known as the rule in Scott v. Sampson, which prevents defendants from pleading and proving specific acts or omissions of the plaintiff, which might be thought discreditable, for the purpose of reducing the level of damages.
That rule can, on occasion, cause injustice. The intention underlying what was Clause 13 is right. But the concern is that the reversal of the rule could cause other injustices and encourage some defendants to use tactics to intimidate those they may have defamed. We have acknowledged the difficulty inherent in framing an alternative rule which takes care of those concerns and provides a better balance.
In the result, having regard to the balance of opinion in the Standing Committee in the other place, the Government decided that Clause 13 should properly be deleted. Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 are consequential. In the meantime, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I was concerned that the Bill might have the defects and vices to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. My proposal was that, if it be introduced at all, it should be specifically limited to a stage in the trial following a finding on liability. It is possible that reform along those lines can be achieved. In its former incarnation the provision appeared to offer more mischief than benefit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 15, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
'(4) In section 8(6) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and in Article 9(6) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (defamation actions: reports of court proceedings), for "section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888" substitute "section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996".'.
6 Clause 17, page 12, leave out lines 28 to 30.
7 Clause 19, page 13, leave out line 13.
8 Page 13, leave out lines 16 and 17.
9 Page 13, leave out lines 31 and 32.
10 Page 14, leave out line 5.
11 Page 14, leave out lines 8 and 9.
12 Clause 20, page 14, leave out line 25.
13 Page 14, line 27, leave out from 'the' to `so' and insert `repeals in Schedule 3,'.
14 Leave out Schedule 2.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 inclusive. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 14.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we too on this side of the House wish the noble and learned Lord many happy returns.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
  Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
  BBC World Service
  BBC World Service
  Contaminated Land: Capital Grants to Local Authorities
  Contaminated Land: Capital Grants to Local Authorities
  Residential Provision for People with Learning Disabilities
  Residential Provision for People with Learning Disabilities
  CJD in Young People
  CJD in Young People
  Legal Aid System Reform Proposals
  Legal Aid System Reform Proposals
  Cancer Incidence in the Farming Community
  Cancer Incidence in the Farming Community
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Targets
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Targets
  BSE: Scientific Consensus
  BSE: Scientific Consensus
  BSE Agent
  BSE Agent
  Compound Animal Foodstuffs: Ingredient Listing
  Compound Animal Foodstuffs: Ingredient Listing
  Civil Protection Council, 23rd May
  Civil Protection Council, 23rd May
  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. John Callaghan
  Mr. John Callaghan
  Lottery Proceeds: Distribution Policy
  Lottery Proceeds: Distribution Policy
  MoD Property Disposals
  MoD Property Disposals
  G7 Summit, 27th-29th June
  G7 Summit, 27th-29th June