Sitting of 18 July 1996

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

  INCOME TAX
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Argentina) Order 1996, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mongolia) Order 1996 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1996 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 July.

EXPORT OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT AND DUAL USE GOODS TO IRAQ
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Appendices to the Report of an Inquiry by The Right Honourable Sir Richard Scott into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions, which was laid before the House on 15th February.—[Mr. Nelson.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Object. Yes, without explanation, I certainly object.
Madam Speaker: There can be no possible opposition or objection on this type of motion.
Mr. Dalyell: Why do we have the motion then?

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Governments outside the European Union which have separate bans on British beef products to secure their removal. [36405]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I will continue to raise the matter with third countries and, indeed, I discussed the matter with the South African Agriculture Minister, Mr. Van Nierkerk, recently. South Africa is of course our largest export market outside the EU for beef and beef products.
    Mr. Dowd: Is not it the case that the United States introduced the ban in 1989 and 30 or more non-EU countries have introduced restrictions on British beef products in the intervening period? Can the Minister confirm that if enforcement action had been taken in 1989 and subsequently, the plight of British beef would not be as it is today, the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases would be sharply reduced, the EU ban would be lifted much more easily and the British beef industry would not be suffering as it is?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that BSE is in sharp decline. We have had about 160,000 confirmed cases. The peak was in 1992, when we had about 36,500 confirmed cases. Last year they were down to 15,000. Leaving aside any questions of cull, we would expect in the order of 8,000 confirmed cases this year, falling to 5,000 next year, falling to 2,800 or thereabouts in 1998, again, leaving aside questions of cull. So the trend is sharply downwards.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of disappointment on the Conservative Benches at the failure of the European Court of Justice to rule in our advantage on those matters. He will also be aware of the resentment continuing at the obstruction by Brussels to any form of export to countries outside Europe, although the main markets are of course inside Europe.
    Against the background of that lack of progress, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is growing resistance on the Conservative Benches to the cost and waste of the destruction of large numbers of animals, as indicated in early-day motion 1180 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which I have countersigned?
    Mr. Hogg: I understand the anxiety in the House and elsewhere. However, the measures that the Government have put in place, such as the 30-month rule and the consequential spending, were intended to reinforce public confidence in British beef and ensure that the vital links in the productive chain are kept going. Those purposes were good, and in my judgment people can eat British beef with complete confidence.
    Dr. Strang: Is not it the case that the Government still do not have in place all the elements of the selective

    1285
    slaughter scheme and that we shall not, therefore, be in a position to meet all the unsatisfactory conditions that the Prime Minister agreed at the Florence summit? May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, when the Prime Minister reported to the House on the Florence summit, he said that we would be in a position to take the first major steps in lifting the beef ban in October? Is not the Government's incompetence again jeopardising the beef industry, involving hundreds of thousands of jobs?
    Mr. Hogg: At the moment, the legislation has not been signed. There are two relevant orders, neither of which has yet been signed. It may help the House if I give an undertaking that there will be no mandatory killing of animals under the slaughter scheme unless and until the House has had an opportunity to debate the relevant orders. I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the generality of the issue before the House rises, so at that stage the orders will probably not have been signed. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a business statement shortly.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Budgen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the mechanisms for distributing payments made under the common agricultural policy to European Union farmers. [36406]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Payments under the various CAP schemes are distributed to eligible applicants in accordance with each member state's administrative procedures.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important distribution is between the European Union and member states? What proportion of the enormous payments that will be made to British farmers under the BSE eradication scheme will be met by the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Baldry: The European Community confirmed only recently that it will meet about 70 per cent. of market value under the selective cull scheme.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that, several weeks ago when a couple of statements in the House referred to the outbreak of BSE, I said that some casualties would probably not get compensation? Those include meat packers, lorry drivers in the meat distribution industry, and various others, many of whom have been made redundant during the past several weeks. Will he assure me that such people will be considered for compensation, just like the farmers? Is anything on offer for those people, many of whom are now in the dole queue?
    Mr. Baldry: We made it clear from the outset that we shall support parts of the market that are essential for keeping the beef market going, and the renderers and abattoirs have been given help where necessary. Inevitably, however, some people, including farmers, will have suffered losses as a consequence of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's announcements on
    1286
    20 March. It would never have been possible to compensate everyone for the consequences of what has happened to the beef market, and we have never disguised that fact.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent report about the CAP produced in the European Union, which says that 20 per cent. of farmers get 80 per cent. of the CAP budget? In terms of population, that translates into less than 1 per cent. of the population of the European Union picking up 40 per cent. of the £60 billion budget. Does he agree that never in the field of human subsidy has so much been given by so many to so few?
    Mr. Baldry: Farmers receive the payments for which they are eligible under the CAP. My hon. Friend's question suggests that more money should be directed towards smaller farmers, but that would hinder efficiency, distort competitiveness and discriminate against United Kingdom farmers. Generally, United Kingdom farmers have larger farms than farmers elsewhere in the European Union, and they benefit under these arrangements.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the lifting of the European Union ban on exports of United Kingdom beef and beef products. [36407]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have made excellent progress: some elements of the ban have already been lifted and we have agreed to a framework for its complete removal.
    Mr. Pickthall: I thank the Minister for his calm reply. Given the fact that new scientific evidence seems to cast doubt even on the lifting of the gelatine ban, given the crisis in carcase storage, given the uncertainties of the slaughter programme—which are compounded by the scandalous way that the work has been allocated to slaughterhouses—and given the disagreements of many people in the industry about levels of compensation, how can the Minister be confident that his Government can deliver a lifting of the ban on exports of British beef inside a time scale that will avoid a total catastrophe for the British beef industry?
    Mr. Hogg: It is important for hon. Members to bear it in mind that we have agreed to a framework: it requires certain things of us and it imposes certain obligations on others. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the judgments should be made on scientific and objective criteria. We know what steps we have to take, and the two outstanding steps are the legislation with respect to the selective cull and the issue of traceability. The passport systems are now up and running. I hope that in the autumn we can go to the European Commission and say that we have satisfied the necessary preconditions, and we then expect the Commission to come forward with some proposal for the relaxation of the ban.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in urging McDonald's to return to using British beef as soon as possible? I do not have an interest in this regard, but I think that it is about time that it started flying the flag.
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has made a sound point, and I hope that McDonald's responds to his invitation.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister recall the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House in which he set out the framework that had been agreed at the Florence summit and in which he referred to four stages that he anticipated would be completed by November? The Prime Minister then said that he expected that the export position for British beef would be restored to that which existed before 27 March—he said "would", not "could" or "should". Will the Minister now reinforce that promise to the House and to the beef industry?
    Mr. Hogg: The framework agreement is quite plain: it provides for a progressive lifting of the ban, in circumstances that are to he judged by the scientific and objective criteria that are spelt out. We are meeting our obligations and I expect the others to meet their obligations.
    Mr. Nicholls: Valuable though the lifting of the ban is, it need not be seen as a substitute for considering the introduction of a price deficiency mechanism. Until such time as we cart come up with some sort of mechanism that compensates or ensures that clean beef can be sold at its real market price, the domestic beef market is bound to remain depressed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least say that that has not been ruled out of his considerations?
    Mr. Hogg: I can understand why my hon. Friend has advanced this argument. It is true that producers are selling beef for consumption at a substantially lower price than they did this time last year, which is extremely worrying. The reason for that decline is the lack of consumer confidence in the United Kingdom domestic market and elsewhere—of course, we cannot export. However, our domestic market has collapsed less dramatically than that of Italy, Germany and France. We cannot directly restore consumer confidence, but we can describe the steps that we have taken that should ensure that consumers eat beef with confidence. We secured a package of measures at Luxembourg in early June that will provide some support. However, I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will come forward with a deficiency payments scheme.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that beef producers—particularly smaller producers—face increasing anguish? Does he accept also that, even if the incidence of the disease declines—as we hope and as he promised—his cohort proposals for the dairy industry could produce many more BSE cases than the Minister expects or wants?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about anguish. I have never tried to pretend other than that this is a crisis for British agriculture, and for beef producers in particular. I understand his points about the selective cull: it is a distressing business for those whose cattle may be part of the scheme. I assure the House that we will not pursue compulsory slaughtering under a selective cull scheme unless the House has an opportunity to discuss the relevant order.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's hopeful prognosis about the incidence of
    1288
    BSE, is it not a fact that the reaffirmation by the European Court of Justice of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the European Union with regard to British beef exports to third countries is an affront to our interest? Is it not a clear case of European subsidiarity in action: namely, that we are subsidiary to the European Union, particularly in matters of law?
    Mr. Hogg: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that our application for interim relief was not successful. We shall proceed with the legal action. We had hoped to secure relief in terms of exports to third countries that could not re-export to Europe and we thought that our arguments were good in law. Therefore, I am disappointed that the European Court did not take the same view.
    Dr. Strang: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier reply to me mean that there will be a general debate next week on the selective slaughter scheme but that the Government will not allow us to debate the legislation necessary to implement such a scheme? Does the Minister intend to embark on the selective slaughtering scheme during the summer without any mandatory killing? Is that not a recipe for a dog's breakfast of a selective slaughter scheme? Is it not clear that the same chaos and incompetence that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted on the radio this morning continues to dog the 30-month slaughter scheme and will surround the new selective slaughter scheme?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Lord President will make a business statement, so I do not want to go into too much detail before then. The sensible way forward might be to discuss the selective cull and compensation and related matters next week. The House should know about the draft orders because they will be published. However, they will not be signed at that stage. That will give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter in general terms and in an informed manner.
    During the recess, it is clearly helpful to have the ability to trace animals that ultimately might be slaughtered under the selective slaughter scheme. It might be necessary to have the power to place restriction orders upon them and, therefore, it might be necessary to sign those orders during the recess. However, I give a critical undertaking that no cattle will be compulsorily slaughtered under the selective slaughter scheme until the House has an opportunity to discuss the relevant order: the compensation order. The House will have the opportunity to discuss that order as a precondition of the compulsory slaughter of cattle under the scheme.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? Is it not an affront to the sovereignty and the integrity of Parliament that the European Commission should deny this country—with a national Government in the European Union—the right to export our beef to a third country that wishes to buy it? Is that not in breach of the general agreement on tariffs and trade international treaty? Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment about that and confirm whether he agrees with me that the European Court is a court of vested interests and injustice?
    Mr. Hogg: We all have our own ways of expressing our thoughts. I said earlier that I was disappointed by the European Court's decision on our application for interim relief. I have no reason to express my views in any different way. My hon. Friend can express himself as he pleases. I, by temperament, express myself in somewhat more moderate terms. But both of us are disappointed.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that for the selective accelerated cull to work, compensation must be at replacement value of culled cows? Is not that important not just for the farmers but for the rebuilding of the herds and, therefore, for the structure of farms and for the whole rural economy?
    Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that the Treasury opposes the payment of replacement value compensation? If that is true, will he tell the Treasury that if it continues with such resistance, and if it works, whatever residual support there is for the Conservative party among farmers will soon evaporate entirely?
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to look at our consultation paper, paragraph 12 of which is most relevant to the question that he has just asked. It deals with the valuation of the relevant beast and sets out the arguments for market value and replacement value. I understand the force of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has deployed. It is important to keep it in mind that the replacement value contains a degree of betterment. The question that all of us have to decide is the extent to which it is right to cast that additional cost on the taxpayer. That is a matter that has to be resolved. But I have already made the point that a mandatory slaughter policy will not be carried out until the House has had the opportunity to debate the order which, for procedural reasons, happens to be the compensation order.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the common agricultural policy. [36408]
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy. [36410]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As is well known, the Government consider that the CAP needs reforming to reduce its costs to consumers and taxpayers, cut bureaucracy and facilitate EU enlargement. I have frequently impressed that view on the Commission. The forthcoming Commission initiatives on reform of the beef and dairy regimes will provide important opportunities to press for changes along those lines.
    Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the fact that British farms tend to be larger and more efficient than their European counterparts, what reassurance has my right hon. and learned Friend sought from Commissioner Fischler to ensure that further proposals for the reform of the CAP will not adversely discriminate against British farmers as they have so often done in the past?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is in fact the same point that my hon. Friend the Minister
    1290
    of State made in response to the question from our hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). It is true that UK farms on average are larger and therefore, if I might use the jargon, the policies of modulation work against our interests. I have taken every opportunity to impress that proposition upon Commissioner Fischler and the Agriculture Council in general.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the CAP accounts for one of the largest parts of our contribution to Europe and that that net contribution each year is some £3,000 million, which every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom has to pay out to farmers on the continent of Europe? Should not we find a way of bringing that cost down? Should not we aim to bring that cost down to zero in the next five years?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that the overall cost of the common agricultural policy is too high and should be reduced. I think, too, that it has a number of other long-term and structural defects that justify its substantial reform. I think further that the negotiations that we are to have in the World Trade Organisation talks at the end of the century, with the policies of enlargement to which the Government are committed, will bring such pressures on the European common agricultural policy that it will have to be modified substantially.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the overwhelming feeling of déjà vu that I feel at the moment having sat on these Benches for 17 years, hearing the same moaning questions from the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches and the same tedious replies—not always as moderately expressed as they are by the present Minister—again and again? In fact, the common agricultural policy has not changed in the past 17 years. Is not the truth that the only way that we will get real change is with a change of Government?
    Mr. Hogg: Forgive me for saying so, but that is just a policy of slapstick, and I can play it as well as the hon. Gentleman if I must, but I choose not to. The truth is that we have seen substantial reform over time. The 1992 reforms are of real significance, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has never really had the credit that he deserves for having achieved them. We are now seeing important evidence of change, for example, in the fruit and vegetable regime. Perhaps most significant was the report that Commissioner Fischler made last December to the Madrid council, when he made it absolutely plain that, for a variety of reasons—I do not have time to go into them—the status quo was not sustainable. There is now pressure for change from within, and the external factors to which I have referred will drive that forward.
    Mrs. Golding: Will the Minister ask the Minister of State whether he remembers assuring European Standing Committee A on common agricultural policy compensation proposals that Britain was to have
    "a comprehensive system of animal passports"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 June 1996; c. 5.]
    by the end of this month? Was the Minister aware that the scheme was to apply only to cattle born since 1 July? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Minister of State why he thinks that this would have made a major contribution to the lifting of the ban on British beef?
    Mr. Hogg: It is a slightly rum procedure that I should be asked to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but no matter. Passports are important because we want to have a proper record. The position is that cattle born after 1 July must have passports. We started to issue passports for England and Wales on 15 July and will issue them for Scotland from 1 August. What that does not provide for, of course, is a computer-based record of movements. We are considering feasibility studies for that in the hope that we can have a comprehensive computer-based record of movements in place some time in the early part of next year.
    Mr. Gill: Given the substantial vested interest in the common agricultural policy by other countries that are diametrically opposed to the interests of the agricultural industry in this country, does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that it is a triumph of hope over experience to think that the common agricultural policy will be reformed in a radical and meaningful way, and would it not therefore be more honest to say to the House and to the British nation that one is either in the common agricultural policy, warts and all, or one is out? Would that not be a more intellectually honest approach?
    Mr. Hogg: I have never tried to conceal from the House that the process of reforming the common agricultural policy is extremely difficult. It is true that there is no appetite for change within the European Council, with the possible exception of the Government of Sweden.
    But—and there are two important buts—first, the Commission and, I think, the majority of its members—certainly, Commissioner Fischler—now understand, as perhaps they always did, the importance of change. Secondly, the external pressures to which I have already referred—the WTO talks, and the pressure for enlargement—will, in my view, inevitably drive the policy of reform forward. I concede all that has been said about there being no appetite for change, and about hard pounding, but I believe that reform will happen, although less fast than my hon. Friend and I would wish.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve the scheme for set-aside land. [36409]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Changes to the management rules for set-aside will come into effect next year to help protect wildlife in general and ground-nesting birds such as the skylark and lapwing in particular. The changes will restrict the periods in which cutting and cultivation of set-aside land can take place, while still enabling farmers to take action against weeds.
    Mr. Flynn: Why is the amount of long-term set-aside so pitifully small? We are not doing much to preserve lovely creatures such as the brown hare and the skylark. The number of skylarks has declined by 30 per cent. since 1969.
    1292
    Should we not concentrate on the skylark, so that we can continue to praise that beautiful bird along with the poet, saying:

    "Hail to thee, blithe Spirit!

    Bird thou never wert,

    That from Heaven, or near it,

    Pourest thy full heart

    In profuse strains of unpremeditated art"?

    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Boswell: I have the impression that we are approaching the end of term. I am not sure that I wish to match the hon. Gentleman's rendition of Shelley; what I will say to him, more practically, is that we do not regard set-aside as more than a short-term expedient alternative to radical reform of the common agricultural policy. We wish to use it to best effect: that is why we have modified the rules after consultation this year in the way that I described in my answer, and it is why we work continuously to improve our agri-environment programmes alongside set-aside.
    Hon. Members may be interested to learn that some studies have already shown that the wild bird population is 15 times as large on some of the land that has been set aside, or otherwise taken out of production, as it is on land that remains in full cropping.
    Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Although skylarks greatly like set-aside land, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the countryside stewardship scheme is now under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It is a very good scheme, because it pays farmers to do something to help the environment and improve conservation. That is much better than paying them for doing nothing.
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is a noted conservationist. I regularly pay tribute to his interest in birds and plants. He is entirely right: the long-term answer is to emphasise the positive. That is why we not only took on countryside stewardship, but are increasing its funding this year and next to provide more viable ways of supporting the wildlife population.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: As grain prices are very high internationally, and as intervention stocks of cereals are very low, is it not time to phase out the set-aside policy and use the cash saved either to cut the costs of the CAP or to deal with the BSE crisis?
    Mr. Boswell: As I have said, we would support a radical reform of the CAP. In particular, if set-aside were reduced to zero this year—which a number of member states have advocated—that reduction would be accompanied by a lowering of the high levels of arable payments. I should make it clear that that is for the coming crop year, not the present one. I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of our approach, which is based on a radical reform that will assist both the taxpayer and, we believe, the environment.

    Fishing Policy
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in encouraging greater consultation with the regions in respect of fishing policy. [36411]
    Mr. Baldry: At the April Fisheries Council, I proposed the creation of regional consultative committees to increase regional input into the common fisheries policy and to involve fishermen from member states active in particular fisheries. My initiative received a positive response from the Fisheries Commissioner, and I await developments on her suggestion for a pilot committee to test the idea.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he was as surprised as the fishermen of the south-west when, on Mrs. Bonino's visit there, the problem of quota hopping seemed to be news to her. Can he say what the Government intend to do about quota hopping and about hammering home the fact that much of our fishing quota is taken up by Spanish boats?
    Mr. Baldry: Quota hopping is an unacceptable form of fishing. We have national fishing quotas. If there is a UK fishing quota, it must make sense that UK fish must be for UK fishermen, and we will shortly table proposals at the intergovernmental conference to enable us to secure that objective.
    Dr. Godman: What recent consultations have taken place with east coast fishermen on the dangerously low level of the North sea herring stock? Does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the European Union to impose a North sea-wide ban on herring fishing? Should not such a ban also be imposed on industrial fishing throughout the North sea?
    Mr. Baldry: There has been much discussion with the industry on the east coast because the most recent scientific advice, which we received in mid-May, showed that unless herring catches were reduced sharply and swiftly, that fishery would have to be closed next year. We have accepted the need for serious remedial measures this year to avoid a complete closure next year and to ensure that the stock is rapidly rebuilt over the next two years. That will be of long-term benefit to the fishing industry, and I think that it recognises that. There is also widespread recognition that we must reconsider the practice of industrial fishing, especially its impact on species such as sand-eels. That is why I have advocated a precautionary quota for sand-eels.

    British Beef
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to support the promotion of British beef in the shops [36412]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I am leading an initiative to promote British beef in shops and other outlets. Forequarter cuts are currently being promoted and I am holding a series of meetings and seminars to help promote retail sales further.
    Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend. Does she agree that mince and tatties is a much-loved traditional Scottish
    1294
    dish, rich in taste and nutritional value? Does she further agree that British minced beef is a prime product and that Europeans are mugs to miss out?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of our regional dishes, which are well known throughout the country, use mince. The House will welcome the success of the Meat and Livestock Commission's quality mince campaign, which I understand is going very well.
    Mr. Morley: Those measures are welcome for reassuring the consumer, but is not the wider European and world market important for beef sales? Will the Minister confirm that the Europeans have kept their side of bargain by implementing orders under the Florence agreement and that the debate next week is only a smokescreen for the fact that the orders under the slaughter programme will not be in place until the autumn? What credibility does that give the Government in reassuring our European partners and the British consumer?
    Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has, in answer to several questions this afternoon, spelt out clearly the way in which we are taking forward that aspect of the Florence agreement. The hon. Gentleman will have heard him say that there will be further announcements in the business statement later this afternoon. I am sorry that, in the context of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), the hon. Gentleman did not feel it appropriate to support the campaigns to promote British sales at home. It is clear that beef products and sales, despite the fact that much work is needed on the forequarter cuts, are holding up well in the UK. I am pleased to report that the sale of steaks for grilling and frying has almost resumed the level that existed before the crisis started.
    Mr. Fabricant: If my hon. Friend is not doing anything this summer, will she come with me to Saltzburg where we can set up shop outside a Wienerwald restaurant—or maybe we can go to Paris and set up shop outside a Quick restaurant—and hand out free portions of British beef to show the Austrians, Germans and French exactly what they are missing? Is she as horrified as I am that the best that the Opposition can come up with is criticism of our policy on British beef instead of talking it up?
    Mrs. Browning: I share my hon. Friend's concern about Opposition Members not playing their part in promoting British beef, which is a first-class product. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am awfully sorry, but I am spring-cleaning my house this summer.

    Slaughter Policy
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the capacity of abattoirs to cope with the slaughter policy agreed in Florence. [36413]
    Mr. Baldry: We expect the existing backlog on the over-30-month scheme to be cleared by the autumn.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister look again at the two abattoirs in East Anglia registered under the BSE

    1295
    scheme, both of which have been operating considerably over capacity for the past few weeks? Is he aware that the difficulties caused to farmers by the low forage stocks and the backlog of animals waiting for slaughter are causing considerable concern?
    Mr. Baldry: Under the scheme, we have so far slaughtered more than 250,000 animals—a very large number. We are taking on extra cold storage and I estimate that the backlog will be cleared by mid-October. Farmers should know that any of their cattle that have not yet been slaughtered will be slaughtered in the very near future.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36435]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister explain why a Treasury document shows that, under this Government, the economy is set to decline to the level of those of Brazil, Thailand and Mexico? Is not that a telling indictment of the Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: One of the attractions of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that it looks forward to the possibility of what may happen 10 years ahead, whatever the policies followed and whoever the Government may be. I have no doubt that some of the matters in the document that the hon. Gentleman would consider barmy are policies that the Treasury considered might be adopted by a Government other than this one.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36436]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning today's postal strike, which is causing widespread disruption to my constituents and throughout the country, and costing businesses many thousands of pounds? Does he agree that any proposal to give new rights to trade unions would merely encourage the incidence of such strikes? Is not this yet further proof that new Labour brings new dangers to the British people?
    The Prime Minister: Today's strikes cannot and should not be justified, and I roundly condemn them. They are costing the country millions and causing great inconvenience to many people who are not part of the dispute.
    Mr. Skinner: Why?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why—he supports the strikes and I am pleased that he
    1296
    acknowledges it. I am happy for the instincts of the Labour party to be laid bare by the hon. Gentleman; the House will be pleased to hear what he has to say.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the education spokesman, I understand, for the Opposition, said that the strikers should go to arbitration, which self-evidently must be right. I hope that we shall hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the striking unions. I should also hope to hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. New Labour laws to make strikes easier are exactly what the country does not want—and the Government will ensure that it does not get them.
    Mr. Blair: Given that, as we speak, talks are taking place both here between the British and Irish Governments and in Belfast in respect of the peace process, after what, by common consent, must be judged the most damaging two weeks in the affairs of Northern Ireland since August 1994, does the Prime Minister agree that there are three essential foundation stones for rebuilding support for peace? The first is that the two Governments renew their relationship of trust, based firmly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the other negotiated agreements between them that remain intact and valid. Secondly, all sides must demonstrate their complete commitment to the rule of law and the Government their even-handedness in its application, whether in response to the threat of violence by those engaged in marches, or the evil punishment beatings that claimed their latest victim last night. Thirdly, all parties to the talks on Northern Ireland should move from matters of procedure to matters of substance as soon as is humanly possible, so that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that the constitutional path to peace has life in it, hope in it and, indeed, is the only sane route to the future.
    The Prime Minister: The past 14 days have certainly been extremely difficult for everyone in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall try to respond to his three points. During the past few years, the British and Irish Governments have worked very closely together. It is important for the success of the talks that that co-operation continues, and it is this Government's intention that that co-operation shall continue. The Irish Government and the British Government do not, of course, agree about every issue under discussion, but I believe that our relations are strong enough on Government-to-Government and personal levels for those talks to continue, even while we seek a solution to the disagreements before us. That is what we are seeking to do.
    Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law needs to prevail in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days—the violence, the intimidation and the aftermath of those scenes—are wholly unacceptable and should have no place in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
    As to the future and the talks, I entirely agree that progress so far has been inadequate. It is our intention to try to ensure that the talks move forward rapidly from talks about procedure to talks about substance.

    1297
    Our intention will be to try to turn the setbacks of the past couple of weeks into a positive advantage as the talks resume, and we will bring all our strength to bear to achieve that.
    Mr. Yeo: In view of the remarkable transformation of Britain's competitive position, which has been brought about by our opt-out from the European social chapter and the virtual elimination of strikes, does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that a political party that claims to be seeking office should not only boast about its intentions to burden British business with the European social chapter obligation but cannot even unite its Back Benchers in condemning today's strike on the London underground?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the United Kingdom's competitive position at the moment. It is very important that we remain competitive in the areas to which he has referred, as well as others.
    I think that I heard the deputy leader of the Labour party say a moment ago, "What about your social conscience?"—
    Mr. Prescott: His social contract.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem roundly to condemn today's strikes, which are damaging our competitiveness, as I believe he should. No doubt his relationship with his sponsors prohibits him from doing so.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36437]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: On the day when the Cabinet has apparently decided to start a new campaign to clamp down on public expenditure, beginning once again with freezing the pay of public sector workers, which it has no doubt done to try to pave the way for tax bribes for its supporters before the election, what does the Prime Minister say to parents in my borough who find that the secondary school that their children attend is having to go to the British American Tobacco company for sponsorship to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds? Is it acceptable that the Government have so underfunded public services to try to produce tax cuts that schooling has become dependent on profits from tobacco sales, when under-age smoking is at its highest level for 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making a silly point. He also knows about the growth in expenditure on, and provision for, education over recent years, the dramatic increase in spending per pupil and the improved educational opportunities that now exist. As for pay in the public sector, our view remains that set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor last September—that pay and price increases should be offset by efficiency savings. That has been our policy for some time, and we renewed it this morning.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what information Her Majesty's Government have
    1298
    received about the crash of the Trans World Airlines airliner last night? Will he take the opportunity to express the sympathy of the House to all involved, and to reaffirm that, if terrorism is involved, international co-operation must be accelerated and that this country will play a full part in that process?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's last point. As yet, we have received no solid information about the cause of the dreadful crash that occurred a few hours ago. A great deal of examination is taking place, and as soon as I have further information I shall ensure that the House is aware of it. I have of course conveyed the sympathy of the House to the American Government, and told them that if they feel that we can assist in any way, we shall be happy to do so.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36438]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainsworth: To return to the leaked Treasury document, is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)— I believe that he is the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend again—said this morning on the radio that some of the ideas in the leaked document would be included in the manifesto? Can the Prime Minister tell us which ideas—the privatisation of roads, cuts in post-16 education, the scrapping of old-age pensions, or the complete dismantling of the welfare state?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman stood up to ask that question immediately behind a shadow Chancellor who proposes to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds and take about £1,000 from every family with two children of that age who want to go into further education. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about manifesto pledges, he should worry about his own side's manifesto pledges, which would take child benefit away from people, raise extra taxes in Scotland and increase trade union rights so that there can be more strikes—and no doubt more sponsorship for the Labour party. Instead of talking drivel about policies that are not Government policies, he should concentrate on the drivel that is the policies of the Opposition.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36439]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's welcome news that unemployment has hit a five-year low—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Basildon?"]—is in part due to the Government's reforms to curb trade union policy? Is not new Labour's policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "For Basildon?"]—to give privileges to trade unions, which no previous Labour Government would have done, further proof that new phoney Labour—[Laughter.]—would destroy the economic success of this country with dangerous new policies for Basildon, Southend and the rest of the country?
    The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks for the country as well as for Basildon and Southend, West. There is no doubt that yesterday's news about jobs was extremely good. We are now into the fourth successive year of falling unemployment. There is also increasing growth in new inward investment.
    Mr. Janner: They are fiddled statistics.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member shouts about statistics. They are new jobs. He may regard them as statistics, but I see them as new jobs. I welcome inward investment and new jobs, even in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I welcome them in any constituency. How he can refer to them as statistics when they are people's hopes, livelihoods and futures, I cannot imagine. However, the policies to which my hon. Friend referred would damage the lives, opportunities and futures of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and everybody else's.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36440]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister say in public what the Foreign Secretary told the positive Europe group of Tory Members last Monday: that there will be no toughening of the Government's stance on Europe—the Prime Minister is shaking his head already—that there will be no ruling out of a single currency and that there will be no additional demands for the repatriation of powers from Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friends. He set out the policy in the public document that determines our negotiating posture for the intergovernmental conference—precisely and in detail. If the hon. Lady has not yet read it, I invite her to do so as she will find it a clear-cut and excellent document.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the fact that a group of Opposition Members
    1300
    should publicly support the striking tube train drivers who are grinding London to a halt and costing Londoners and London commerce millions of pounds? Does he agree that the public must be deeply angered by the irresponsible action of union members and the last-minute pussyfooting by the Leader of the Opposition in not condemning the strike?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen a great amount of support for opposition to the strike from Opposition Members. No doubt the opposition to the strike will be clearly expressed by every Front Bencher over the next few days. Not only will there be a request that the parties go to arbitration—which is surely self-evidently right—but there will be a clear-cut condemnation of a strike that is causing a great deal of difficulty for many innocent people and damaging the industries concerned. When will we get that condemnation from the Opposition?

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996

    Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Act 1996

    Security Service Act 1996

    Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996

    Noise Act 1996

    Energy Conservation Act 1996

    Civil Aviation (Amendment Act) 1996

    Party Wall etc. Act 1996

    Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996

    Railway Heritage Act 1996

    Education (Scotland) Act 1996

    Deer (Amendment) Scotland Act 1996

    City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Act 1996

    Henry Johnson, Sons & Co., Limited Act 1996

    Belfast Charitable Society Act 1996

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JULY—Opposition Day [20th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the future of the welfare state, followed by a debate on the role of the voluntary sector in British society. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which is the three-hour general debate that precedes a recess.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: Education Bill [Lords]; School Inspections Bill [Lords]; Deer (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Debate on the accelerated slaughter programme, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the draft code of conduct for Members.
Motion on the Central Railway Order.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that, on Tuesday 23 July, there will be a debate on documents relating to the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Wednesday 24 July, until Monday 14 October.
The provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER—There
will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1996 (Cm 3223).
WEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the Government have replied.
It will also be proposed that, on Tuesday 15 October, there will be a debate on the Merger Regulation in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the
Official Report. [Tuesday 23 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents: a) 7833/96; Common Fisheries Policy: Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV). b) Unnumbered; Common Fisheries Policy: Restructuring of the Community Fleet. c) Unnumbered; Conservation of
1302
Fishery Resources: Technical measures. d) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Mauritania. e) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Angola. f) Unnumbered; Fisheries Agreement: Sao Tomé e Principe. g) Unnumbered; Annual Report on Multiannual Guidance Programme for the Fishing Fleet at the end of 1995 (MAGP III). h) 7701/96; Common Fisheries Policy: Satellite-Based Vessel Monitoring System. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) to g) HC 51-xxv (1995–96). h) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96). Tuesday 15 October: European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: Unnumbered; The Merger Regulation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 51-xxvi (1995–96).]
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business in the period after the recess, the House will meet for prorogation on Thursday 17 October. The new session will be opened on Wednesday 23 October. As I have already announced, the Budget will be on Tuesday 26 November.
Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that response, including the long-term information that he has given? May I also thank him for finding time for a debate next Wednesday on the code of conduct, as that will be of assistance to the House?
The Leader of the House has announced that there will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday on BSE. Will he confirm that the Government intend that that should be a time-limited debate, and will he tell us whether that limit is an hour and a half? Will he ensure that the Minister opening the debate spells out at the beginning the implications for British farmers—and, in turn, for the European bank—of the failure on the part of the Government to lay the BSE orders on slaughter and compensation?
Many people, both inside and outside this House, will not think that a general debate of an hour and a half is an adequate substitute for the action that was promised. What has happened to the orders, as it was clear that they were to be laid and were to come into effect before the deadline agreed with the EU of 1 August this year?
It is always difficult to ask for extra debates so close to the recess, and I do not intend to do so. But it is right to ask for a clear statement about the decisions that may or may not have been made by the Government on MOD procurement. Can we have a statement on the progress of the £4 billion-worth of important defence procurement orders that are currently being considered by the Government?
There is very real concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House and among people throughout the country that those orders, which the Government have determined are vital to Britain's security, are being repeatedly postponed. Is that not jeopardising tens of thousands of British jobs in the defence interests, and damaging the interests of the armed forces? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to postpone defence orders until next year's public expenditure round? If so, will that not cause great uncertainty for the defence industry and for the services? This is an urgent matter, and Parliament should be told of the Government's intentions.
Finally, there is one issue of concern at the end of the Session that is uniting hon. Members as very few do. That issue is the future of the BBC World Service.

1303
Is the Leader of the House aware of the evidence that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning? That evidence clearly shows not only that the BBC has been at fault because it has not consulted properly on the matter, but that Ministers have allowed the situation to drift.
Does the Leader of the House agree that, although politicians should not interfere in the day-to-day operational decisions of the BBC, the question of the future of the World Service is no mere operational matter? As the Foreign Secretary will meet the chairman of the BBC governors next Wednesday, which may be too late for any statement to the House, will the Leader of the House assure us that Parliament will have an opportunity to have an input into that vital decision, and that no final decision on the future of the World Service will be taken until Parliament has had the chance to have a say, even if that is after the recess?
Mr. Newton: I shall take those points in reverse order. I certainly accept that the future of the World Service, which is held in such high regard not only in this country but around the world, is not simply an operational matter, although operational issues are also involved. For that reason, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the hon. Lady has already mentioned, intends to have discussions with the chairman of the BBC next week, and he has made it clear that he will want to be satisfied that any changes meet our concerns. I shall bring the hon. Lady's comments in the latter part of her question to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
On the subject of defence equipment contracts, a decision will be announced as soon as the assessment of the various bids has been completed. It is hoped that it will be possible to make announcements before too long, but the programmes are large and complex, and a wide range of factors must be considered.
I can confirm that I intend that the debate on the accelerated slaughter programme should last for one and a half hours. The purpose is to enable the Minister to report on the situation, as I think the House would expect, before the recess, but, if the hon. Lady followed the exchanges that took place during Agriculture questions, she will know my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture made it clear that compulsory slaughter will not take place until the House has had an opportunity to debate the order.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words about the debate that I have announced on the draft code of conduct for Members, and, once again, I thank her for the contribution that she has made to the preparation of that code. I also thank her for her kind words about the advance information I have been able to give about key dates for people's diaries.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the confusing and worrying statement by the American authorities yesterday about global warming has created a reaction in some of our constituencies that varies from panic to indifference, would it not be helpful if a Minister could make a statement next week about the exact nature of the problem of global warming and what can be done? That would help us all, because the issue worries many people.
Mr. Newton: My impression is that a wide variety of information is available on the subject, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has put much effort into those matters for a long time. I will bring my hon. Friend's specific query to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The announcement of forward business is welcome. It seems to me that we will nearly complete business before the summer, and perhaps the Leader of the House will soon be able to go a step further and give fixed dates for the start of the parliamentary year, instead of the nonsense of a three-day spillover, followed by a week off, after which we start all over again.
The Leader of the House has announced the general accelerated slaughter debate next Wednesday. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether we will definitely debate the order during the spillover, whether all the aspects of the scheme will be in the order and be debatable—including compensation—and whether the House will be able to make a decision on the matter, so that the ban can be lifted by the Government's self-imposed deadline of the beginning of November?
Mr. Newton: As I said, those matters were pretty extensively covered in Agriculture questions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I followed them from afar, although not very far afar. I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said or to what I said a moment or two ago, but the debate on Wednesday will provide an opportunity for the Minister to set things out more fully.
Sir Roger Sims: What form will the debate on the draft code of conduct take? Will it be on a motion under which the House is expected to approve the code in toto, or will there be an opportunity to table amendments?
Mr. Newton: The debate will take place on a motion inviting the House to approve the code and the guidelines, and, like other such motions, it will be open to amendment. Whether those amendments are selected is a matter for higher powers than me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that it was Sir Richard Scott's view, in paragraphs D4.40, D4.42, D6.69 and F4.68 of his report, that, if questions from me on the detail of Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes had been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events would have been very different? Therefore, I ask him, why on earth has he put on today's Order Paper "Notice of Motion for an Unopposed Return" in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, "Export of Defence Equipment and Dual Use Goods to Iraq"? Is that about cover for legal challenge, and if so, cover for legal challenge from whom?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman says, the motion was placed on the Order Paper by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and it certainly is connected with the fact that today, what I understand are about 20,000 pages of documentation following on from the Scott committee report are being published in CD-ROM form. I will bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May we have a debate on the planning system as it relates to the accelerated culling programme, and specifically the provision of incinerator plants, so that I can raise with the House the alarm, and despair in many cases, of thousands of my constituents at what are fortunately informal proposals at present to site such an incinerator plant in my constituency at Stourport? Last week, the proposals brought forth a public meeting, attended by 1,000 people, and there will be a further public meeting this weekend, attended by a similar number.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into commenting on a specific local planning controversy, but I will ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Today's amazing news is that, of the 1.5 million people who were robbed by the pensions industry by being missold personal pensions and being persuaded to leave their good-quality occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pension scheme, only 7,000 have been offered any recompense, because of the wicked obstructionist tactics by the pensions industry.
How can anyone propose to privatise more pensions when we know that the story is that private pensions provide very poor value, and that the pensions provided by the state earnings-related pension scheme and national insurance are well run and highly efficient, and provide splendid value?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about personal pensions, which is a wild generalisation, but I have no wish to enter into an altercation with him. The Government do support the Securities and Investments Board's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number—
Mr. Flynn: One and a half million.
Mr. Newton: Relatively small in comparison with the number of people who have personal pensions. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge.
The Government support the SIB's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number of people who stand to lose as a result of the misselling of personal pensions, and we and the regulators are working together to remove the difficulties. We certainly intend that anyone who is found to have lost financially because of misselling will get redress, and that anyone who wants their case reviewed can have it reviewed.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What opportunities will there be for a debate about the management of budgets by local authorities such as East Sussex, so that we can advise them how to live within their more than generous budgets?
Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately think of an opportunity for my hon. Friend, but if she were to appear on Wednesday morning, she might be able to put the point to me then. I shall then see whether I have a better answer than I have now.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House accept that two reasons in particular would justify recalling Parliament during the long summer recess: first, Northern Ireland, where certain developments could clearly take place; and, secondly, public spending cuts? Will he pledge that, in those circumstances, he would seriously consider a request for the House to return?
Mr. Newton: The Government have shown several times in recent years that, if we judge it necessary to recall the House, the House is recalled. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate about possible circumstances now. I find his reference to public expenditure a little odd, because the public expenditure round does not conclude until well after the House returns from the recess.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us whose constituencies have a substantial dairy industry are concerned that next week's debate on the selective cull is too short—just one and a half hours? Many of us want to tell the House how seriously our dairy farmers take the selective cull, and about the damaging impact that it will have on the rural economy for a long time.
On the question raised by the shadow Leader of the House on defence procurement, will my right hon. Friend assure me that those of us who are deeply interested in that matter—Avro International is on the periphery of my constituency—and concerned about the Nimrod 2000 package, will be advised as soon as a decision is made? I see that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is on the Front Bench.
Mr. Newton: I note both my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that his request to the Ministry of Defence has already been heard.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Ministry of Defence contracts, will the Leader of the House tell the Secretary of State for Defence that my constituents are extremely anxious about the replacement of the maritime patrol aircraft and the continuing delays? Will an announcement be made before the recess so that Members of Parliament concerned about that matter may have a chance to respond to those decisions?
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that it might be appropriate if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement took my place in answering those questions. At any rate, he has clearly heard the questions.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on Wednesday, I shall present a ten-minute Bill called the Union Flag Bill to promote the flying of the Union Jack. May we have time for a debate on devolution, as some of my hon. Friends say that, given Labour's devolution policies, under a Labour Government we would have no British flag left to fly?
Mr. Newton: As I have said before, that would be an excellent subject for debate. I merely note with interest that the Opposition have not considered the subject significant enough to use their Supply day next week to discuss it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I recognise that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot take the place of the Leader of the House, but may I again emphasise the importance of the decision that will be taken on defence procurement? Why have members of the media in this House been running round today saying that British Aerospace has been allocated a contract, and that a statement will be made this afternoon, yet, when hon. Members such as myself contacted the Ministry of Defence, we were told that no such information was available?
Exactly what is going on at the Ministry of Defence, and may we have a statement at least tomorrow to try to resolve that problem? The Leader of the House shares my interest in the defence procurement jobs that are available.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is right on her last point. I have already referred the general thrust of her question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for De fence Procurement. I am not in a position to explain the behaviour of the press.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon about the tragedy of the jumbo jet crash earlier today, does my right hon. Friend think that it is appropriate to announce an opportunity to discuss tourism, particularly the impact that aircraft safety has on tourism, as soon as possible—either during the short time that we are back or immediately thereafter?
The United Kingdom is the world leader in aircraft safety. For example, it has recently made enormous strides in developing blast-resistant and blast-absorbing material for cargo holds. Is my right hon. Friend aware that airports in the United Kingdom lead the world in providing facilities for the scrutiny of passengers' luggage, thereby ensuring their security? Does he think that it is appropriate for us to have a debate linked to aircraft security, bearing in mind how long it is since we last had a debate on tourism?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding hon. Members—and, I hope, a wider audience—of some very important points about this country's record on these matters. I think it is obvious that I would not be in a position to arrange such a debate in what I have announced so far. However, I do not spurn the idea, and I will bear it in mind in the new Session.
Mr. George Foulkes: I represent many of the workers at British Aerospace in Prestwick and I add my name to those who want an oral statement before the House rises.
This has been a fascinating afternoon—I am glad that I have been in the House. Given all the Royal Assents that were announced earlier by Madam Speaker, the fact that the business to the middle of next week has been announced and the fact that the business for the spillover includes no legislation, will the Leader of the House
1308
confirm that the Government have cleared the decks for an October election? Would it not be wise for the Government to say that there will be an early election, which would save Her Majesty and the country the time, the effort and the money of a farce of a Queen's Speech by a lame duck Government that will never be implemented?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the position on the first matter entirely clear several times. So far as the second point is concerned, while it would be improper for me to reveal to the hon. Gentleman—despite his charm—the content of the Queen's Speech, I assure him that it will be a substantial, worthwhile and important programme.
Dr. Robert Spink: Could we have a debate next week to explore the possibility of the non-sector fishing fleet, such as that which operates around the coast of Essex, retaining its track record on decommissioning as the producer organisations currently do? During that debate, we could also explore the possibility of phasing out quota hopping and giving quota exemptions to the smaller boats, particularly those under 8 m. I am delighted that the Government are now well disposed to all these ideas.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. While I cannot be absolutely certain that his points will be relevant, I draw his attention to the debate that will take place on documents relating to the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A on Tuesday 23 July. I remind the House that any hon. Member can take part in the debates if they wish, but they cannot vote, should that be necessary.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Has the Leader of the House had time to look at the Order Book? If so, has he had time to study early-day motion 1192?
[That this House expresses its concern that the forthcoming franchise specification for the West Coast Main Line may fail to provide for the operation of high speed trains; notes that the modernisation and renewal of the West Coast Main Line will only restore the line to 1970s standards and is already costed and included within the base line Core Programme funded through existing and future track access payments; expresses dismay at the current lack of information about the costs, sources of funding and specification for any upgrade to provide for both high speed passenger and piggy back freight operations; further notes that the tender specification for the franchise is due out in October 1996; and, therefore, urges the Chairman of Railtrack, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Secretary of State for Transport to use their individual and collective endeavours to deliver an upgraded, high speed West Coast Main Line capable of providing journey times between London and Liverpool/Manchester of two hours and between London and Glasgow of four hours.]
The early-day motion is signed by 67 hon. Members. It refers to the upgrading of the west coast main line. Will the Leader of the House allow us to debate this issue next Thursday—I see that Thursday is a clear day? This is important, because a decision will be taken before the House reconvenes in October.

1309
We need a high-speed and reliable line on the west coast, which competes with the line on the east coast. If public money is not put into the scheme, and if there is not a commitment from the Government, we will end up with a low-speed, reliable line, and the west coast of Britain will be disadvantaged. We need trains that will travel from Manchester to London in two hours, from Carlisle to London in three hours and from Glasgow to London in a maximum of four hours. Can we have a debate next Thursday?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to extend the sitting to a debate next Thursday on that matter, important though it is—I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised it. Our position is that Railtrack and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising are working closely together in order to determine the way forward, although quite a lot of work is still to be done. The coming months will be very important in developing the upgrade project to the point where the Government can take a decision. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arranging a debate on the selective cull to coincide with the shadow Cabinet elections. I ask him also to arrange for an early debate on early-day motion 1185.
[That this House expresses its full support for all those who are now engaged in re-establishing the right, in a free society, of withdrawing their labour in pursuit of their basic rights against unjust managements, and, in particular those postal workers, London tube drivers, Derbyshire firefighters, Merseyside dockers, Hillingdon hospital cleaners, and others; and calls for solidarity with them by all members of the public who depend on the services which working people provide.]
Then, on a day when a million Londoners are inconvenienced by the tube strike, I could point out that the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) have expressed their support for the strikers and their indifference to the suffering of their constituents.
Mr. Newton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on beginning with a very neat point and going on to make a vigorous one. It is properly made, and I hope that it will be registered outside, as well as inside, the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would it be a good idea for the relevant Minister to make a statement next week on pay for real workers, as opposed to Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers who have lined their pockets in the past seven days? Is it not squalid and hypocritical for hon. Members to talk, within seven days of their massive salary increases, about a pay freeze for the real workers, and about pensioners and others receiving not more than a 3 per cent. increase?
1310
Is it not hypocritical for Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), to condemn those people who are fighting to improve their wages and conditions, having carried out properly constituted ballots in accordance with Tory party law? Is it not high time that the Government showed a little decency and morality and told people, "If MPs and Ministers can get through the pay barrier, the same should apply to workers and to pensioners"?
Mr. Newton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that the Government, through me, recommended a rather different outcome last week: that the House should restrain itself to a 3 per cent. increase. I make the point that the hon. Gentleman appears to be directing his remarks to, among others, about 140 Labour Members.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the remarks he made during a debate on parliamentary procedure last Thursday night. He said that many people in the United Kingdom find Parliament very remote, and that it is valuable to take Parliament and parliamentary Committees and sessions to those people, so that Parliament is more alive and more accessible to them and to their needs. What proposals does he offer the north of England in that respect? If he has such proposals, I assure him that Union Jacks will be flying in Newcastle.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I think that he has paraphrased my remarks rather loosely, but I do not have the text before me. He will be aware that I was speaking about the position of the Grand Committees in relation to Scotland and Wales, and about enabling those Committees to conduct hearings in those countries. I think that that is rather different from the point he makes.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: In view of the risk of increased unemployment, higher taxes, the handing over of many of our remaining powers to Brussels, the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom and of a reduction in law and order, does my right hon. Friend agree that time should be found to debate the dangers of new Labour?
Mr. Newton: We may see some of those indirectly, and no doubt unintentionally, during the Opposition day on Tuesday 23 July. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend might come along and try to expose as many of those dangers as he can.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House to explain that, despite the employment legislation passed by the House, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that democratic ballots should be overturned at the whim of whichever political party happens to be in power at the time?
Mr. Newton: I have arranged for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to be here next Wednesday, and the hon. Lady might like to put that question to her.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his call for a debate on the increase in pay for Members of Parliament and Ministers, because it would be an opportunity to highlight the fact that Ministers voted neither for the vast increase in pay for Members of Parliament, nor for the increase in pay for Ministers, about which he carefully gave the opposite impression? Furthermore, when it came to which Lobbies were occupied, it could be highlighted that those in the Lobby for a large increase in pay were overwhelmingly Labour Members, and those in the Lobby against a large increase in pay were a vast majority of Conservative Members.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Bolsover(Mr. Skinner), not for the first time—he clearly does not mind—put himself in a rather dangerous position in relation to the people behind him.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I think that you have notice from Madam Speaker, which is also a point of curiosity. It refers to the notice of motion for an unopposed return.
It may be within the recollection of the House that Sir Richard Scott, in paragraphs D4.40 to 4.42, D6.69 and F4.68, came to the conclusion that, had detailed questions that I put on Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events in relation to the inquiry on arms exports to Iraq would have been somewhat different.
Therefore, forgive my curiosity in asking about this CD-ROM. Why is it that this notice of motion has appeared on the Order Paper at the very fag end of the Parliament, when it was laid on 15 February? Why was it not under the usual Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions? Doubtless there is some explanation, but the Chair will forgive us being suspicious that this suddenly appears when perhaps Parliament has its mind on rather different matters. Surely it could have appeared much earlier.
Technically, it is not all that difficult to produce a CD-ROM. If there had been any will to make all this available, surely we could have had it by April or May, rather than waiting until July.
Some of us are curious about the substance and content of the CD-ROM. We know that it is the technique of Governments to leave such things to points in time when they are least likely to be looked at. I have no idea what the substance is, but I think that there is justification for being rather suspicious about this extraordinary parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. The notice of motion is in the usual place on the Order Paper. With all his experience, the hon. Gentleman knows that the decision about when such motions appear is a matter for the Government.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, earlier today I applied to Madam Speaker under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on the problems on the London underground, which have inconvenienced a million Londoners and put at risk—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a failed application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Dalyell: Of course you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it would be a matter for the Government, but the Leader of the House has done us the courtesy of remaining. Perhaps he will explain the procedure and why it was left so late.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman on this point of order. I am not aware that the Leader of the House wishes to reply.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It might be helpful if I explained one factor, which the hon. Gentleman might wish to bear in mind. This is the first time that a proposal to publish in CD-ROM has been made, and it has entailed detailed consideration by various domestic Committees and the House of Commons Commission before the arrangements could be made.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it in order to ask the Leader of the House a further question? Which Committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is continuing his point of order—I assume he is—he should address it to me, not to the Leader of the House. The answer is the Administration Committee. I do not think that I can be of any further assistance to the hon. Gentleman on this point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This all appears to have happened by alchemy. Who are these Committees? Which Committees decided that this should happen? This is a very curious matter—it really is.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Committees are appointed by the House. In fact, there have also been written answers about it. I can go no further to help the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of the considerable difficulty that quite a number of hon. Members have found in getting to the House this afternoon owing to the extreme traffic congestion outside, which affects not only hon. Members but—more important—our constituents who have to come in to London to work. If we are not allowed to use Standing Order No. 20, what means do we have to raise this important matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is again questioning a failed Standing Order No. 20 application, on which I have ruled. It has not been brought to my notice that any hon. Members who wish to be in the House today have found it impossible to do so.

ESTIMATES DAY
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES, 1996–97

    British Forces (Bosnia)
    [Relevant documents: Fifth report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995–96, House of Commons Paper No. 423, on the British Forces in Bosnia and the Government reply thereto in the Sixth Special Report of Session 1995–96, House of Commons Paper No. 592, and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99—Ministry of Defence (Cm 3202).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum not exceeding £6,228,158,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on: personnel costs, etc of the armed forces and their reserves and cadet forces, etc; personnel costs, etc of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence; movements, certain stores, supplies and services; certain spares and maintenance; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; works services; certain contingent liabilities; certain services provided by other Government departments; some sundry services, subscriptions, grants and other payments, including those abroad, including assistance to foreign and Commonwealth governments for defence-related purposes; and set-up costs, loans and funding to trading funds.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank the House for the privilege of being invited to introduce this debate on British forces in Bosnia. It is certainly timely because of the elections that are due in that country in the middle of September. It is an appropriate subject for an estimates day, as class I, vote 1 is entirely related to defence expenditure, and we shall be asked to vote an extra £6.25 billion from the Consolidated Fund to meet additional defence costs.
    I was interested to hear the exchanges during business questions and noted the fact that many of them related to procurement matters. I was also interested to pick up from the Board a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which makes an announcement about LPDs—landing platform docks. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is to make an announcement today about replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, for which the House, and certainly the Select Committee on Defence, has lobbied for many months.
    I am told that the contract to build both LPDs is to be placed with GEC Marine at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. No doubt £450 million of what we shall be voting today will be used to assist the MOD's important purchase. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us a little more about the number of jobs that the order will provide, and about when the ships are likely to come into service; but I think that the House will applaud the Government's determination to ensure that our country retains an amphibious capability.

    1315
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his note telling us that he would be unable to stay until the end of the debate because of pressing engagements of an international nature. It is good to see that he is here for the beginning.
    The Defence Committee visited Bosnia between 22 and 24 April this year, just after the D-plus-120 Dayton deadline for withdrawal to military barracks had been largely met. Its report has been published as our fifth report for this Session, and the Government's reply, which the Committee received, has been published as the sixth report.
    Last October's ceasefire in Bosnia was described by the United States peace envoy Richard Holbrooke as
    "not peace, but a big step forward."
    The purpose of today's debate is to give the House an opportunity to review progress in the peace process, and in particular the continuing role of British forces in Bosnia, which is described in our report. Since the ceasefire, the Dayton peace plan has been signed by the countries involved, and by the warring parties in Paris on 14 December last year. The agreement maintains a single unitary Bosnian state within internationally recognised borders, with Sarajevo as capital, but divided into two semi-autonomous entities, the Muslim-Croat federation and Republica Srpska—the Serb Republic.
    The peace implementation conference held in London last December saw Carl Bildt appointed as high representative to take charge of the civil side of the peace agreement and co-ordination of the civil and military operations. On 20 December—the so-called D-day—authority was transferred from the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, to the NATO implementation force, known as IFOR, and Bosnia was divided into British, United States and French multinational military zones, known as MND—multinational division—north, MND south-west and MND south-east.
    I think that it was with relief that our British troops in UNPROFOR took off their blue berets and put on brown helmets. It then became clear to everyone that they meant business. This debate gives the House an opportunity to pay tribute to those forces. Anyone who has visited them—as the Defence Committee has done not just this year, but for the past four years—cannot fail to be impressed by the skill, professionalism and enthusiasm with which individuals and units carry out their tasks. The relative calm in Bosnia this year should not make us forget the real dangers that British forces have faced in the past, and the potential risks that they still face. The House will recall that, since 1992, 24 British soldiers and four aid workers have lost their lives while serving in the Bosnian theatre.
    When IFOR took over from UNPROFOR, British troops moved quickly to open up crossing points across the former confrontation lines, and to demonstrate the new mandate under the Dayton agreement. That decisive action set the tone for the completely new style of operations being undertaken by IFOR, with a clear set of military rules and a single politico-military chain of command. It did not have that under the UNPROFOR arrangements.
    The Committee was impressed with how soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars had deployed with their Challenger 1 tanks to a disused factory at Bosanski
    1316
    Petrovac, both to deter anyone tempted to resort to military force and to reassure people seeking to rebuild their homes and lives. That increased military capability is a key feature of IFOR—tread softly, but carry a big stick. A good example of soldiers getting job satisfaction was how the men and women of the Royal Engineers built bridges, restored power supplies and helped local people to clear minefields. They were putting into practice what they were trained to do and could see how the local population benefited.
    No tribute to the British forces in Bosnia would be complete without referring to our allies who work alongside them. In April, the Committee visited American, Dutch and Canadian forces. The close co-operation was striking, and the subtle differences between styles of operation and the emphasis placed on creature comforts were clear.
    Fifteen NATO countries are involved in the IFOR operation, but there are also 15 countries that do not belong to NATO. The operation in Bosnia has allowed countries such as those that are members of "Partnership for Peace", which have aspirations to join NATO, to demonstrate how well they can operate militarily under the NATO umbrella. Of the non-NATO countries, the Russians have the largest number of troops on the ground. It was quite something to meet a Russian colonel taking orders from an American general. That shows how far we have come since the iron curtain came down in 1989.
    We were given one clear example of the risks faced by soldiers serving with IFOR. On the day that we visited the Dutch battalion at Novi Travnik and its medical facilities—which, I regret to say, were at that time, although not now, rather better than ours—a soldier from that unit lost a leg in an explosion in a minefield. Between 3 million and 6 million mines are estimated to have been laid in Bosnia. They will have to be cleared. That is a major job with the funding of which European Union countries can help. It may be too late to speed up the operation this year, but a fully supported effort next spring is badly needed. It was also clear that without the repair work and support of our forces, especially the Royal Engineers, the £332 million humanitarian aid effort could not have been delivered.
    What has been the effect of the Bosnian operation on the Army? IFOR shows how British armed forces may operate in future. The UK contingent is tailor-made for the task, drawing together a wide variety of front-line and support units to meet the specific needs of peacekeeping in Bosnia. That means that we must plan for a much wider range of possibilities than in the past and we need the flexible command systems that enable the right combinations of forces to be put together for a particular mission at short notice.
    We were struck by the effectiveness of the headquarters in Sarajevo of the so-called ARRC, the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, under the command of a British general, Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker. Its multinational NATO headquarters, based in Germany, is led by Britain and 60 per cent. of its general staff are British. The bulk of them are engaged in communications. Quite apart from the contribution of British forces on the ground, the provision of a significant British element amounting to a high proportion of ARRC's communications facilities is a major part of the UK's participation in IFOR. While such a varied operation, involving a wide range of units, must be good for training,

    1317
    the disadvantage of having so many soldiers involved in peacekeeping missions is that training for their essential war role of high-intensity combat can suffer.
    The Committee has seen no evidence to show that it is wise or practical to train our armed forces solely for peacekeeping roles. Not only have we had to deploy tanks and major artillery to Bosnia to ensure peace enforcement and the protection of our soldiers, but the discipline, organisation and command required to carry out high-intensity operations are still needed for a mission such as IFOR. As the Committee's report notes in its opening paragraph, 10,500 British troops are serving on the ground in Bosnia—more than one tenth of the trained strength of our Army.
    The Territorial Army volunteers and reserves made a significant contribution to the British presence in Bosnia. Between 500 and 600 soldiers have filled a variety of posts to bring Regular units up to full operational strength. They include sappers, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel, signallers, military police, logistics personnel, catering and pay staff. We applauded the valuable work done by those volunteers, their employers' tolerance in releasing them and the way in which the Ministry of Defence has adjusted its arrangements for call-up and bounty in the light of experience in Bosnia. The enactment of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 will help still further.
    With further commitments overseas and other units preparing for, or recovering from, service in IFOR, more than one third of our Army is committed to operations worldwide. As we saw from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", we now have deployments in more than 33 countries. As a consequence, for many units, tour intervals between deployments have dropped well below the target level of 24 months, training for other missions has suffered and a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom's communications facilities are unavailable for other tasks. Our report concludes that in the wide range of post-cold-war scenarios in which our armed forces might be needed, either a prolonged peacekeeping mission such as IFOR is too large a task, or the Army is too small.
    Are there any weaknesses to be identified in the Bosnian operation? While the logistics operation to support British forces in Bosnia is impressive, during its April visit, our Committee identified and reported some weaknesses. As a result, the Government decided to purchase two containerised operating theatres, to fund the provision of bottled water for British troops, to improve access to welfare telephones and to enhance the capability of logistics communications. Those small areas of difficulty highlight a shortage of UK campaign stores.
    We saw that the American and Dutch forces had better accommodation and facilities than those of the British soldiers. For those reasons we concluded that, if the UK is to be involved in peacekeeping missions in future, the Ministry of Defence clearly has to acquire and maintain a greater quantity of campaign stores to meet a variety of eventualities. We also suggested that the Ministry of Defence needed to show a faster response to meeting unforeseen needs for supporting soldiers in the field—including access to welfare telephones.
    All armies march on their stomachs—ours certainly does. We noted that while American troops were dependent for the first three months of deployment on
    1318
    their famous MRE—meals ready to eat—which members of the Committee had brought back home and tried, with mixed results, British forces were being served three hot meals a day from the start of the operation. It was clear that other countries serving in Bosnia were envious of the quality of food being supplied to our forces.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I think that other hon. Members want to thank the members of the Committee for the work that they have done. Often, colleagues remain absolutely unpraised for having worked very hard on the House's behalf. Armies may march on their stomachs, but they also march on their feet. To speak anecdotally, I have been told by a constituent that the British footwear is nothing like as good as that of the Americans. Did the Committee see any evidence of that? Should there be an improvement in footwear for such operations?
    Mr. Colvin: That is a useful intervention. I can confirm that the Defence Committee has expressed concern about footwear for very many years and has noted in earlier visits to Bosnia that British soldiers were buying other countries' military footwear—often Canadian footwear, which is a good design. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that, as I have been told, something has now been done about footwear. I believe that the Army has at last agreed on a new design of boot. I see that my hon. Friend is itching to get to his feet—no doubt not wearing the new footwear. Perhaps he can enlighten the House.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I endorse what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the hard work of the Select Committee, which has clearly produced a very valuable report. What he said about footwear was certainly true in the past, but it is now very much untrue. The new design of footwear for the Army is, by common consent, as my hon. Friend would agree, by far the best that it has ever been. Indeed—I am sure that he will want to comment on this later—this generation of soldiers are the first who have worn with pleasure on operations the kit with which they have been issued.
    Mr. Colvin: I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to confirm what I said. I thank him and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for their kind remarks about the Defence Committee. Not only do we go out to find what is happening on the ground, but I have a feeling that we have a reputation for producing more constructive reports than any other Select Committee.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he said that other contingents were envious of the food served to the British Army. Is that also true of the French contingent?
    Mr. Colvin: It was indeed true. We did not have an opportunity to sample the French food. Had we had such an opportunity, we probably would not have been able to take advantage of it, because we had fed so well with the British troops. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
    This debate is about estimates, so it is appropriate to ask who pays for the IFOR operation in Bosnia. The latest estimates of the additional cost of British forces serving

    1319
    with IFOR is £85 million for 1995–96 and £120 million for 1996–97. This is a debate on expenditure, so it is appropriate to ask where that money will come from. In previous years, under UNPROFOR, the additional cost was borne by the Foreign Office and eventually reimbursed by the United Nations. The cost of IFOR is currently being borne by the Ministry of Defence. Although that may make sense in the short term, it could have serious implications for defence spending on other projects.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on 12 June that he would seek reimbursement from the contingency reserve only if the cost of IFOR took defence spending this year over the planned level. That means that if non-IFOR expenditure by the MOD falls short of the planned target for the year—often the result of delayed equipment purchases—the MOD will bear the full cost of IFOR. The result of that must be that permission to carry over any underspending from this year to next year will be affected. Thus, the cost of Bosnia will almost certainly be at the expense of other defence spending—probably on equipment, and as was mentioned in business questions, we are awaiting announcements on a number of major procurement decisions. When we were visiting Washington, we noted that the United States had introduced a contingency element in the Pentagon's budget for such peacekeeping operations, and I believe that the United Kingdom should do the same.
    A debate on Bosnia at this time would not be complete without some reference to war criminals. Some have questioned whether the British forces in IFOR should actively seek to arrest them. It is only fair to put on record the difficulty for force commanders of actively seeking out indicted men such as Messrs Karadzic and Mladic. In so far as their whereabouts are known, those two individuals are heavily protected, and any attempt to arrest them would inevitably involve the IFOR soldiers in fighting in which injuries and loss of life might occur. Judging by past experience of arresting Bosnian Serb generals, such an incident could pose a serious threat to stability, which would affect not only the personal safety of the soldiers but the path through the precarious elections now due, through to eventual peace in Bosnia.
    We therefore concluded that it would be reasonable in the short term for IFOR to afford a higher priority to maintaining peace in Bosnia than to the active pursuit of war criminals, but that people suspected of such crimes would not be able to hide for ever.
    Mr. David Winnick: I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the British forces in IFOR. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept a viewpoint different from the one that he has expressed, which is in the Committee's report? That viewpoint is that there will be and can be no lasting peace in former Yugoslavia unless the war criminals are brought to justice. Bearing in mind the fact that the crimes and atrocities that those people have committed are some of the worst since the Nazis committed their crimes, also in Yugoslavia, as well as elsewhere, should not a different instruction be given, despite all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—an instruction that those notorious war criminals should be brought to justice?
    Mr. Colvin: There is every difficulty in doing so at the moment, but the House would wish that those people could be brought to justice before the deadline date for elections on 14 September, because their presence at that time could have a disruptive effect on the elections. From a personal point of view, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that their being brought to justice is essential for the long-term prospects for peace in Bosnia.
    What about the future? It is almost certain that, before the House returns after the summer recess, Bosnia is bound to have featured heavily in the news. We should not be deluded by the relative peace so far into thinking that the British forces serving there are safe. In two months' time, the elections are due to be held in Bosnia, and the sheer mechanics of running them will place added strain on the peacekeeping forces and pose greater risks for them.
    In a country in which four fifths of the population no longer live in the place where they were registered to vote in 1991, soldiers are bound to become involved in potential clashes as people try to return to areas where they are unwelcome. If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will bring us up to date with the arrangements being set up by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the elections.
    In the early stages, it was thought that people would have the right only to go back and vote in their original towns, but it is now proposed that they have an alternative—to vote where they currently live. That will present all sorts of difficulties for the 1 million or so Bosnians now living overseas, and the House would welcome the opportunity to be told about the election arrangements.
    Whatever the results of the elections, it is clear that IFOR will not be able to withdraw completely by the end of its mission on 20 December. Judgments will have to be made after the elections on the scale and pace of the reduction in the peacekeeping forces. That makes some successor force almost inevitable. We believe that it should continue to be a NATO-led force and that it should involve the participation—at least on an equal basis—of the principal countries involved in IFOR.
    Precipitative withdrawal before a lasting peace was established would be disastrous for Bosnia. That is why, even if our armed forces are overstretched without commitment, they must continue—perhaps on a smaller scale.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend asked who ultimately would meet the cost of the British contribution to IFOR in Bosnia. Will he continue to ask questions about the cost of an on-going presence in Bosnia? Will he join me in speculating as to whether the costs that we have to meet from the defence budget might be holding up other decisions such as that in respect of the requirement by the RAF of a replacement maritime patrol aircraft, which is particularly important to British Aerospace? The project would create thousands of jobs and benefit hundreds of firms in the north-west. Does he feel that current costs may prejudice the taking of such an urgent decision?
    Mr. Colvin: No. I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting in yet another plug about a procurement decision of considerable interest to his constituency, which will affect jobs in his region.

    1321
    However, other factors are far more significant for the defence budget. For example, the rumours—and they may be no more than that—of cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million, which may have exercised the minds of members of the Cabinet who were discussing the matter this morning, are more relevant.
    The House should note with some disapproval that only six months after the House debated last year's defence estimates and approved the expenditure for the year, the Government lopped some £600 million off that budget. I very much hope that if and when the House approves this year's defence estimates—immediately after the summer recess—the Government do not then cut the figure still further. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address that if he is called to speak.
    In conclusion, the House will want to see the Dayton process bear peaceful fruit. Our forces in Bosnia are second to none in their contribution to that end. They have earned the respect of other nations in IFOR and they deserve and are receiving the wholehearted acclaim and support of the House and the nation.
    4.42 pm
    Dr. David Clark: First, let me associate myself with the concluding remarks by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the excellent report by the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman. On behalf of the Opposition, I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on that Committee.
    It is appropriate that the House should debate Bosnia when so many British troops are participating in IFOR and we are just over half way through the Dayton peace process. Indeed, today's debate is particularly relevant at this critical stage in the preparations by various groups in Bosnia for elections there in October. Only last month, I had the opportunity to visit Bosnia for the fifth time to assess whether any changes had been made since the Select Committee published its report.
    I join the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside in saying that no visitor to Bosnia can fail to be impressed by the calibre and the professionalism of our forces. They are simply world class and their value as peacekeepers and enforcers is now universally recognised. I refer not only to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force but to the men and women of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary who take our stores out to Bosnia and who are now stationed in Split harbour. They are often forgotten and they deserve our thanks.
    It was also impressive to see the NATO integrated command structures, which have been honed and practised for almost 50 years, working so effectively and harmoniously. In the south-west region, the Canadian and Dutch troops operating under the command of a British general—General Mike Jackson—could be British in every military sense, such is their integration and their understanding of the command and control structure. Even the troops of non-NATO countries, such as the Czechs—who aspire to NATO membership—and the Malaysians, have no difficulty in adapting to the NATO structure. That bodes well for the future. It is certainly encouraging that our taxpayers' money has not been
    1322
    wasted—deterring aggression from the east in the past and now attempting to bring peace to various parts of the world.
    I was also impressed by the change in rules. Those of us who saw the operation of British troops under UNPROFOR were at times unhappy. There was a feeling that they did not have the necessary rules of engagement or equipment, but that has now changed. The more robust rules of engagement, backed up by the larger numbers, and the different mission objective, supported by a heavier deployment of weaponry, have meant that the IFOR operation has been much more effective in its peace enforcing role.
    To put it bluntly, the presence of a large, imposing Challenger tank sitting on the roadside sends a significant message, especially to people who have become almost blasé about the use and presence of force. They understand force; unfortunately, they have had to live with it for four years—but the projection of power remains important. That is one lesson that we have all learnt from our experiences in Bosnia.
    The Select Committee referred to a number of shortcomings, especially in the provision of certain basic utilities such as water, welfare facilities such as telephone provision and the medical facilities available to our troops. I am pleased to report that when I was in Bosnia just last month, I thought that considerable improvements had been made. Obviously, there are still difficulties, and I shall return to them in a moment.
    At the main camp at Banja Luka there are problems with the water supply, but it must be appreciated that the water supply also serves the civilian communities. At times of peak demand, problems are created by an extra 5,000 people using that water. Our troops have said quite rightly that, if there is any difficulty in supplying both the hospital and the troops, priority will go to the civilian hospital. That is right and we all understand it. We appreciate that there are problems and our soldiers accept that.
    Having said that, I believe that there is one aspect on which there is a slight difference between the two sides of the House although, by and large, we have a consensual approach to the operation in Bosnia. The Government's "Front Line first" policy is one of the reasons why we are having difficulty in supplying basic utensils in Bosnia. The supplies that are needed for a small, static war are very different from those required for a large, mobile war. If Ministers read the historical records and reports on the subject at the turn of the century by Sir Charles Calwell, they will find that that problem was understood then. Troops based in the same position—even in a small war—for perhaps 12 months will obviously require more support and supplies than troops moving on every two weeks and becoming used to a more challenging life. I hope that Ministers will take that lesson on board.
    Another factor alluded to by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and by the Select Committee was overstretch, and there is no doubt that that exists. If one keeps going back to Bosnia, one cannot help but see the same regiments and detachments, and that is a matter of concern. That overstretch has been manifested in two ways. First, there are worries about the reserves, a large number of whom are doing vital work. By and large, they are enjoying their work and they feel proud of what they are doing. I gather that there are about 600 reserves with our forces in Bosnia—a lot of troops.

    1323
    The reserves were still unconvinced that the Reserve Forces Act 1996 will guarantee that a job is available to them when they return to civilian life. I hope that their fears are wrong and that the Act will provide that guarantee. I hope that Ministers will continue to monitor the matter, which has been raised with me time and again. I will be surprised if members of the Select Committee have not heard about it as well.
    The second manifestation of overstretch, as outlined in the report, was that certain personnel—especially specialised personnel—were being sent back to Bosnia repeatedly. I met a reservist—a linguist—who had been back to Bosnia every six months for four years, and heavy demands are being made on other specialised personnel. If a person is being sent back to Bosnia regularly, it gives him insufficient time for training and recuperation, Or time with his family. That is vital for the morale of the forces.
    For example, there appears to be a particular problem with the availability of armed recce regiments, such as the Light Dragoons, whom I met when I visited Bosnia previously. It has been suggested to me—I recognise the delicacy of the situation—that only two regiments with an armoured recce capability can be deployed to Bosnia. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will look at the matter. I am not asking for a reply this afternoon, but the situation needs to be monitored. The Royal Engineers are suffering similar problems, and the Select Committee singled out them and the Royal Signals as corps that are beginning to find that they are being sent back time and again. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will monitor that.
    As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the military objectives of Dayton have been concluded—largely successfully. We are now into the next stage of trying to rebuild civilian society, and that is much more difficult. We want to resettle areas and get it across to people that peace offers a better life than war. We have had to change some of our military thinking, and we have reintroduced psychological operations. I have no problem with that, but it was a form of operation that the British Army lost its ability to conduct after Malaysia. It needs to be done, as we must get the message across to the civilian population.
    What I find encouraging about the operation in Bosnia is the liaison between G5, the military-civilian role of the Army, and the Overseas Development Administration as they try to bring normality back to civilian life and the infrastructure. Our troops are doing a brilliant job in that respect, and they are getting a great deal of satisfaction from helping people to get their lives back to normal. I talked to people where the forces had brought together those who laid mines on either side and had worked with them to de-mine their own minefields. That is a positive long-term activity.
    The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the efforts to reconnect water and electricity supplies, and the repairing of roads and the rebuilding of bridges—all of which are vital. Nevertheless, the small things that make civilian life worth while are also important. In this field, first-class arrangements are being developed in Bosnia between the ODA and the military.
    I must pay tribute to the skilled work of the ODA's permanent representative, Dr. Gilbert Greenall, and I shall refer to the system that is so important to the military, to the ODA and to the people who benefit from it. The ODA
    1324
    and the forces have arrived at a system that is simple and speedy in delivery. If Army personnel come across a particular problem, they can make an approach to Dr. Greenall, who will visit the site and make an assessment of the problem. If the ODA's criteria are met, he has the facility to release money immediately to tackle the problem and action can be achieved in weeks, if not days. What might cost £20,000 in two months' time can be done for £2,000 sooner.
    For example, I was shown the town of Mrkonjic Grad—I know Select Committee members visited it. In the town, a hospital was completely gutted and had had all its facilities removed. It is now being put back into civilian use. The Croats had driven out the Serbs—not a single Serb was in the town—but, under Dayton, it was given back to the Serb community, and 10,000 Serbs moved back. When they did so, they found that the Croat troops had looted the town and chopped everything up.
    As the Serbs moved back, a public health risk was created because refuse was piling up and no facilities were available to deal with it. When the local mayor was approached by the Army and asked why they did not do something about it, he said that the refuse wagon needed to collect the refuse had had its tyres shot out and its battery removed. Our Army was able to alert the ODA, and Dr. Greenall was able to visit the area. Within days, money was given for tyres and a battery and the refuse wagon was on the road again. The Serbs were able to begin to look after their own affairs. That is the sort of urgent action that I thought was good not only for the recipients, but for our soldiers. They were seen as facilitators in trying to restore a civilian way of life.
    I hope that the major indicted war criminals—Karadzic and Mladic—will be apprehended soon. It is not a question of if they will be apprehended but when, and I should have thought it would be in his own best interests for Karadzic to hand himself over to the authorities. That may sound strange, but it is only a matter of time before he is apprehended. He would do himself the world of good if he gave himself up.
    I shall conclude by giving the same message as the Chairman of the Select Committee. So far, this mission has been a success, but the peace is fragile. Indeed, it may become more fragile in the light of the news that the United States has given authority to start training Bosnian Government troops and Croatian troops. If we walk away in December, there is every chance that the war will begin again. There must be some form of IFOR 2. I hope that our United States allies will stay in Bosnia. We shall use our best endeavours, as will the Government, to persuade the Americans that they must remain.
    In the worst scenario of the Americans refusing to stay, I hope that, as long as the European nations of NATO feel that they should stay, our Government will contribute to the European NATO force. I accept that the current strength of the force cannot be maintained—the divisional-size force of 10,500 is too many—but we might be able to find sufficient troops for a brigade-size force of 7,000. I hope that we shall participate.
    We cannot abrogate our responsibility. Too much blood has been shed. If we walk away in December, all that blood will have been shed in vain. We shall have to go the extra 12 months for peace. I am delighted that that point is supported by paragraph 68 of the Select Committee report. I endorse that part of the report and

    1325
    almost every recommendation made in it. Once again, I thank all members of the Select Committee for such an excellent job of work.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon): I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I thank hon. Members who said that we did a splendid job, which was in no small part due to the leadership and wisdom of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. I am very grateful to him.
    We visited Bosnia in April. It is a rapidly moving situation in a volatile part of the world. What we saw in April does not apply now. It was clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that some of the problems about which I was worried—humanitarian relief and the inflow of civilian money—are being tackled, but others remain. We were concerned because, although our forces had assisted the civilian populations, there was no evidence that international money was getting to where it was needed—out in the towns and villages. We were concerned, for instance, that there was no planting in the countryside because there were no tractors—the retreating sides had taken them. We were concerned that there would be no harvest. I am unaware of the current position, but I hope that serious work has been done to alleviate that problem.
    We were concerned that, despite the fact that we had the best-fed troops in the field from day one—that is always so, and if anyone has tried "meals ready to eat" they will know why there are raids on our canteens whenever the Americans, French or anybody else can get near them—there were shortfalls. We found, for example, that because of logistics delays, equipment had been lying around for ages awaiting parts. Perfectly good bathroom and toilet facilities had been lying around for months because the connecting pipes had not been delivered. The computer and communications system to back up the logistics was not working, and if anything was needed somebody had to jump in the car and drive 40 miles across the mountains to drop a note in.
    I pay the highest tribute to the men and women serving not only in the British Army, but in all the armies participating in IFOR. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned the fact that, when we went to see the Americans in Tuzla, there were a couple of Russian colonels in the American battle headquarters, and we were seen off by a Russian general under their command.
    We asked our people, "What are the Czechs like?" They replied,"They are super, smashing, professional people to work with who are doing a great job and working extremely hard at it." I cannot praise them too highly.
    Where we do have a problem is with the Dayton accord itself. I think that it was too ambitious. The out date of December is not achievable. Our military have achieved all the military tasks, but other tasks have not been met. The money for reconstruction work was not finding its way there, but I am glad that that is no longer true. There is still a long way to go.
    The people in Bosnia—the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats—are lovely people. I remember holidaying there in the balmy days of my
    1326
    youth and meeting the people. The trouble is that they love us but hate each other. That will not change overnight. We know that from the history of the Balkans and, tragically, from our history in Ireland too. We must be prepared for that. Having spent the time, money, effort and lives that we have thus far, we should be prepared to spend a little more time to try to achieve some stability, because I do not believe that the elections will bring stability.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about war criminals. Our report was written in April, but the warrants were issued only last week. The context in which we wrote our report has changed dramatically. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields: if Karadzic and Mladic thought about it, they would walk across the lines now and say, "We give up." They will be caught, because they cannot hide for ever, and the crimes on which they have been indicted cannot be forgiven—ever. They must face up to the fact that they will be caught and punished, and correctly so.
    I have witnessed things that will live with me for the rest of my life, such as the fact that a thug can walk into someone's home and say, "Get out by the morning or you are dead, and if you are not out by the morning we will burn the house down around you." On one visit, we saw body bags being taken out of a house—the horror of man's inhumanity to man. They are the same people. The only difference between the Muslims, Serbs and Croats is their history. Ethnically, they are the same people.
    It is worrying that people hark back to the evils of the battle of Kosovo in, I believe, the 12th century. The Serbs have never achieved such greatness since, and they look forward to the future. Another worrying portent for the elections is that, unfortunately, the moderate opinions that are widespread in all the communities in Bosnia are not represented by the people who appear to want to stand as candidates.
    We must try to reconstruct the country, we must try to keep it peaceful and we must do our best to help the people's future. British forces, whether they were in the Bosnian Serb sector, the Bosnian Croat sector or the Bosnian Muslim sector, were regarded as the guarantors of the safety of the people living in that sector. They were not playing favourites. That is true of all the units in all the sectors.
    We must make the commitment that people will be given another chance to rebuild and to survive. We know that the ultimate objective of the leaders in Republica Srpska is to unite with Serbia to form greater Serbia. We know that the Croatian Bosnians and the Muslim Bosnians have their own problems. We know that the potential for fighting and division continues. We know that hunger and deprivation exist.
    Our interpreters were local people. Some of the things that they did were amazing. One would find a local Croatian girl, employed as an interpreter, working in a Serbian area, voluntarily teaching two hours a day in the Serbian school because there was no schoolteacher in the village. Things like that are not talked about. We must support and develop them, but we can do so only if we make the commitment to the people not to walk out of there in December and leave them to their own devices.
    The trouble is that it is an American presidential election year, and domestic American politics are intruding. It is essential for the future of IFOR that it is

    1327
    international and that any continued force has an American ground force element. It would not be credible internationally if it did not, and it would not be right if we did not raise that matter unequivocally in the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is one of the most technically competent Members of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned land mines. Those of us who heard Sir Hugh Beach of the all-party land mines group know the extent of the problem of identifying and doing something about land mines. Does my hon. Friend have any solution?
    Mr. McWilliam: That is an important, thorny problem.
    We were told that some youngsters in Sarajevo had learnt how to dig up anti-personnel mines and that they throw them in the river so that they go off there, and that someone else down-river catches the fish killed by the explosion. That is a stupid, highly dangerous thing to do.
    Because of the construction of the forces that were operating—working on the Warsaw pact methods of organisation when there were hostilities—the average infantryman would wander out with 12 anti-personnel mines strapped around his body, instructed to lay them out as a defensive perimeter. When he withdrew, he was supposed to dig them out and come back. Unfortunately, what has happened does not accord with the Geneva convention, because there was, and is, no accurate map of the minefields. Some of such records as exist are in Split, and the Croatian Government there deny their existence.
    The solution is to spend money training former Yugoslav army sappers of whatever persuasion to clear mines. We cannot do it; we do not have enough sappers to do that highly skilled job. The mines are extremely difficult to clear. The anti-personnel mines are plastic. The only metal in them is the size of an ordinary pin, so no normal detection method works. The Americans are using remote-controlled mine clearance vehicles, but they do not get them all either. The mines do terrible damage, especially to children. I would not willingly walk off a metalled road anywhere in that country at the moment; it is that unsafe.
    A huge international effort is needed to clear the mines. The best people to do the work are the people who laid them, but they need training. We need to spend money on the manpower to train them.
    Bosnia is a beautiful country, and always was. It happens to be at the crossroads of conflicting civilisations, and it has been for a long time. By and large, however, the Bosnians got on pretty well until Germany forced recognition of Croatia far earlier than any country in that area should have been recognised. That is what blew it up. We all know that. It is too late now. There is no point in crying over spilt milk, but we are responsible in that we acquiesced in that decision. We must take that responsibility by ensuring that we make the commitment to continue peacekeeping in Bosnia.
    I wish to conclude by quoting paragraph 80 of the Select Committee report.
    "We conclude that in the wide range of post-Cold War scenarios in which the armed forces might be needed, either a prolonged peace-keeping mission like IFOR is too large a task or the Army is too small."
    1328
    We ignore that conclusion at our peril. It is either too large a task or the Army is too small. The extent of the overstretch that our forces feel is not fair or right, and it must be stopped.
    5.16 pm
    Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on the informed and balanced way in which he introduced the debate, and on the work that he does in the Defence Committee. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who would usually do this sort of thing, I warmly welcome from this Bench the decision to go ahead with replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, an announcement about which the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside spoke at the start of his remarks.
    The hon. Gentleman did not speak exclusively about the role that our troops play in Bosnia. I shall speak more widely later, but before doing so I shall repeat what all hon. Members who have so far spoken have said about the excellence of the standards that British troops are maintaining, and the very effective way in which troops from different countries are combining and working with one another under the NATO umbrella. That is a matter for congratulation and pleasure.
    Many hon. Members have spoken about Dayton, because it represents the background to what our troops may or may not be called on to do in future. Dayton stopped the guns firing. That was a very good thing, but it has other not so desirable aspects.
    I vividly remember a special meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe immediately after David—now Lord—Owen had been appointed to operate on behalf of the European Community. He had been in Croatia and witnessed one of the occasions when refugees were driven by the Serbs across into Croatia. Many of them were shot in the process. He had been extremely moved by the experience, and he made a long and passionate speech lasting nearly an hour and a half, much of which was unscripted—to the horror of his officials. He said that all the refugees must return to their homeland, that we on the continent of Europe must never allow such events to be perpetrated and that we would not rest until the last refugee was rehoused in his own home. Some of us were wondering who would achieve that.
    The Dayton accord has authorised ethnic cleansing and separation with what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside described, technically correctly but in reality not so near the truth, as a "unitary state". I fear that few, if any, refugees have returned, and I do not see them returning in the near future. Current events in Herzegovina, Croatia and Republica Srpska mean that the separation will last for a long time.
    Everybody has said, rightly, that IFOR has been much more effective than UNPROFOR. That is simply because its mandate is much more effective, and that must be maintained. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats said in an article that he wrote shortly after a recent visit to Bosnia, the problem with UNPROFOR was that it had no choice between using a light tank and having a strategic air strike. There was no graded capacity for response. That is different in IFOR's case, and it is desirable to sustain that difference.

    1329
    Many hon. Members have referred to war criminals. I agree that Karadzic and Mladic should come to justice, but it is not easy, and to pretend otherwise is silly. Who appointed Mladic? Who sustained Karadzic during the period of ethnic cleansing? The answer is President Slobodan Milosevic. So is not he a war criminal in the same way? The disagreement, which has been publicly aired, between the views of Carl Bildt and the Americans about what we should do now shows the practical difficulties and uncertainty about, first, the effect on the Serbs of seizing those two gentlemen and, secondly, the effect on the Muslims of doing nothing. One is caught between those two positions.
    We must remember that, if Karadzic and Mladic are taken to The Hague, the people they will leave behind in charge will hold exactly the same views as them. I remember meeting Biljana Plavsic, the lady who has already practically replaced Karadzic officially. I sat in a tree while, 200 yds away, a mass grave of Serbs who had been killed by the Croats was dug up. I knew that she was a tough lady but on that occasion I felt that she was vulnerable. She told me how various members of her family had been killed. She does not disagree with Karadzic about anything and we must face the fact that there are deep divisions in the community which will not go away for a long time.
    Several hon. Members have raised the issue of how long IFOR will stay. My hon. Friends and I find it unthinkable that IFOR should withdraw. As the Minister knows, the French Foreign Minister has already suggested extending IFOR's stay for at least two years. We should support that suggestion. As the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said, it was never realistic to think that matters could be resolved in a year.
    At the beginning of September last year, I was in the Pentagon on a Western European Union visit. We heard a presentation by a general about Bosnia and what the Americans intended to do. The President had said that it would all be over by December and I said, "Who are you kidding? That is not possible. Don't tell me that you will pull out just when, I hope, you are beginning to make a mark on stability in the region." The poor general was tied by official White House policy, but I could see that he was extremely unhappy because it was never realistic to think that it would all be finished in a year. Despite the fact that the matter is, as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, ensnared in American presidential election politics, I do not think that the Americans will withdraw, and I am sure that we will lend all our efforts to ensuring that they stay.
    There are two arguments about staying. The first is that no announcement should be made until after 14 September. The second is that, according to the advice of the military, for planning reasons, the beginning of September is effectively the latest that we can announce what we intend to do. Staying would also have a positive effect on the election process.
    Although most people recognise that there is official uncertainty, Governments have basically accepted that IFOR will continue, although it has not been officially announced. Staying would have a positive effect on the elections of 14 September, while the opposite would encourage—if they need encouragement—the nationalists, who will dominate the elections in any event.
    1330
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the extremely good work done by the Overseas Development Agency in conjunction with the Army. I agree that it has done some excellent work and deserves great praise for it. I have not been to Bosnia recently, but I expect to be a Council of Europe monitor at the elections. Most people who have been there recently believe that one of the notable failures arising out of Dayton is the failure to send a police force to Bosnia.
    When my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats was there recently, military people told him that having some British policemen there might be as valuable as having troops—in certain circumstances, even more valuable. As the United Kingdom has yet to send even one policeman to Bosnia, will the Minister way whether we are trying to do something about that? It would be a valuable contribution to controlling lawlessness, which is a deep and continuing problem in large areas on both sides of Bosnia.
    As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said, the basic message to emerge from the debate is that we are proud of the work that our armed forces are doing in Bosnia. It is of great value. Although it costs a certain amount, a renewal of fighting would cost even more. That is why I repeat my basic point: we should decide now, in conjunction with our allies, that IFOR will continue for at least two years.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am not a member of the Defence Committee, but I have read the report and I admire its technical expertise. I have a great interest in the subject of today's debate. I welcomed the Defence Committee's conclusion about the future of IFOR and whether there should be a follow-on force. I believe that there will be a follow-on force. It has been raised as an open question, but I think that the decision makers have already made up their minds—and that they had probably made up their minds at the outset of the operation. The timing of the decision is no coincidence: it will come shortly after the United States presidential election. Once the election is out of the way, a follow-on force to IFOR will be announced.
    I believe that whether there will be a follow-on force is not the real question—the real question is what the follow-on force will do and whether it will continue to work on what is essentially a minimal mandate. If that continues, it could lead it to acquiesce in what will be the creation of three apartheid statelets on the European mainland. Are we going to grasp the nettle and look again at the force's mandate and try to match the military force of IFOR with the political will to make a reality of the Dayton principles?
    I have seen the British forces at work on a number of visits to Bosnia over the past few years, both as a member of UNPROFOR and as a member of IFOR. I went to Banja Luka during the Whitsun recess and I had a useful discussion with the British forces commander, General Mike Jackson. My impression of the soldiers has always been the same, whether in UNPROFOR or IFOR: they are extremely keen about their task, highly motivated and well informed, and extremely capable and good at the job that they are asked to do. They are succeeding in accomplishing their present mission with the same brilliance that they have displayed on other occasions.

    1331
    However, I believe that they are capable of doing a lot more—they need the right kind of political direction and the right kind of political will behind them.
    Hon. Members have mentioned the shortcomings of UNPROFOR, which preceded IFOR. We have to look hard at what went wrong with UNPROFOR because of the damage that was done to the reputation of the United Nations. We must not let the credibility of NATO be damaged in the same way by a future failure of the IFOR mission. I believe that if we do not look again at IFOR's mandate, the credibility of NATO will be damaged in the long term.
    It is helpful to look back at the failure of UNPROFOR, which culminated just over a year ago in the fall of Srebrenica to the Serb ultra-nationalist forces. However, we now know that they were not purely Serb forces and that tanks from the Yugoslav army participated in that onslaught. Srebrenica was a United Nations safe area and it was defended by European soldiers—by Dutch soldiers—but they were incapable of stopping the onslaught, and we now know the consequences as they have been recently recorded in gruesome detail at the international tribunal in The Hague.
    What could have been done to prevent Srebrenica and the other massacres in the preceding three or four years? How could we have rescued UNPROFOR from its predicament at an earlier stage? The answer was given by General Rupert Smith in August 1995, when he co-ordinated air and artillery attacks on the Bosnian Serb army. Contrary to everything that we have been told about the dangers of another Vietnam, the Bosnian Serb army was routed at the first serious use of force against it. If I had any doubts about that, they were dispelled when I visited Banja Luka earlier this year and I was told by the local Serbs how convinced and frightened they were at the time that their town was about to fall to Croatian and Bosnian forces.
    Banja Luka is the largest town in the Bosnian Serb territory—without it, there could have been no real credible Bosnian Serb state. In other words, we were within a week of seeing the collapse of the Bosnian Serb regime and the complete defeat of General Mladic and of Radovan Karadzic. At the last minute, the offensive was halted—thanks, many believe, to British diplomatic intervention which persuaded the Americans to back off and which persuaded the Croatian and the Bosnian Governments to back off as well. It seems that British diplomacy could not save Srebrenica but it managed to save Banja Luka.
    In the course of saving Banja Luka, we saved Mladic and Karadzic to another day—and the consequences of that plague us to this day in the form of an ultra-nationalist regime still in power in the Serb entity and Mladic and Karadzic still in control of the levers of power. That is the real crisis, the real problem, facing British soldiers now based in Banja Luka and it is a direct consequence of the shortcomings and failures of a year ago.
    We have heard a lot of warnings about the dangers of mission creep in Bosnia, but I believe that mission erosion is much more dangerous: by failing to take on the continuing defiance of the ultra-nationalists, the credibility of the IFOR mission—and therefore the credibility of IFOR and, by extension, NATO—is being steadily undermined and eroded. Mission erosion has
    1332
    happened in the Serb suburbs of Sarajevo, where the Serbs were allowed to burn and loot with impunity before the handover to the Bosnian Government. That is still happening in the same suburbs today, with the few Serbs who bravely decided to remain being hounded out by thugs and Muslim nationalists because they are not getting protection from the international police task force, which is afraid to patrol at night because IFOR will not protect such patrols. That is mission erosion.
    Mission erosion happened in Mostar when the European Union capitulated to threats and intimidation by the criminal gangs who control west Mostar. I remind hon. Members that gangs fired 18 shots at the car of the European Union administrator. The response of the European Union was to capitulate and to agree to the demands to shrink the main central district of Mostar. That is mission erosion—that is credibility erosion.
    Sir Russell Johnston: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman, he should give a little more credit to the brave efforts of Hans Koschnik, the German European Community administrator, who did his utmost to try to bring the two communities together and only gave up in despair.
    Mr. Macdonald: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said. My dismay is that all this good work was ultimately let down and undermined by the failure of European Union Governments to back the solution that he had put his name to, and for which he literally risked his life.
    Mission erosion is occurring in the Serb-controlled territories where Muslims continue to be cleansed from their homes. Other refugees are prevented by force from visiting the graves of their relatives. Civilian crowds supposedly gather to prevent the visits from occurring, but those crowds comprise policemen who change into civilian clothes, grab clubs and return to threaten the refugees. Mission erosion is already occurring in that indicted war criminals—who according to the Dayton agreement should not hold appointed or elected offices—remain in charge of the Government and army of the Serb entity.
    Although great efforts have been made to secure a ceasefire in Bosnia, I am afraid that the Dayton agreement will become a dead letter. I emphasise that that is the fault not of the British forces or of IFOR, but of the European Governments and of the Americans, who lack the political will to back those forces in Bosnia which wish to build a multi-ethnic democratic society. We must not forget that 200,000 Serbs still live in Bosnian federation territory—controlled by what some people refer to as the Muslim Government. And tens of thousands of Serb refugees from the Krajina have signed petitions in Belgrade seeking to be allowed back to the Krajina, even if it means living under the Croatian Government. People want to return to their homes: the pull of that region is very strong.
    IFOR has managed to create a stable ceasefire zone in Bosnia, but that success is temporary. The space that has been created must be filled with democratic and multi-ethnic values and principles or in time it will be reclaimed by the forces of ultra-nationalism and ethnic cleansing. I believe that it is impossible simply to maintain the status quo and to allow a second force, IFOR 2, to assume the role that IFOR has played in the past few months. We either move forward into mission expansion or we go backwards into mission erosion.

    1333
    Moving forward means three things. First, it means the arrest of Karadzic, Mladic and the other ethnic cleansing ringleaders. I acknowledge the difficulties associated with that, but if 60,000 NATO troops cannot arrest them, who will? Moreover, the outgoing commander-in-chief of the NATO forces, Admiral Leighton Smith, has said that he is willing to perform the task if he is directed to do so.
    Secondly, if we are to move forward, elections in the Serb and the Croat entities must be suspended until they are guaranteed to be free and fair. There is no point in holding fraudulent elections. I believe that we should support the views of Ambassador Frowick regarding the need to prevent the Serb Democratic party from participating in the elections until we get rid of Radovan Karadzic.
    Thirdly, we must see the gradual, but systematic and progressive, return of those refugees who wish to go back to their villages and towns. That must occur under the protection of IFOR, and then of IFOR 2. I believe that IFOR 2 will find that it must either help those refugees to return and provide protection for them, or prevent them from returning. That is the choice that it will face.
    Finally, moving forward into mission expansion means that there must be the political will and resolve to enforce the Dayton agreement, which has been sadly lacking so far.
    5.44 pm
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I congratulate the Liaison Committee on its choice of subject for today's debate. I have listened with interest to the contributions from all sides, and I am proud to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous achievements of the British service men and women who have served with such distinction in support of the IFOR operation, and previously with UNPROFOR.
    In the course of the debate, my hon Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and other hon. Members have referred to the Defence Committee's recent report on its visit to Bosnia. I shall respond to as many points as I can. I welcomed the Committee's visit, and I echo the comments about the high quality of its work. Visits by Ministers and Members of Parliament help to show our forces that they are very much in our minds, and that their excellent work is receiving the attention and acknowledgement that it deserves.
    But let me first say a few words about the major part played by British forces in the highly successful IFOR operation, which has already achieved all the key military objectives in the Dayton peace agreement. The United Kingdom contribution to IFOR is a substantial one: initially, we provided some 11,500 troops on the ground, with a further 3,000 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel offshore and in Italy. Subsequent adjustments to NATO's naval and air force levels, together with reductions in initial surge deployments and good housekeeping, reduced those totals to 10,500 and 1,000 respectively.
    I can announce today that, following further good housekeeping measures and rationalisation of assets, made possible by the success of the operation and the benign
    1334
    environment in theatre, we have been able to reduce the numbers further. Our ground force contribution currently stands at around 9,200. Following the lifting of the arms embargo and the suspension of Operation Sharpguard, the RN and RAF contribution was reduced to some 500. The United Kingdom remains the second largest contributor after the United States.
    The initial deployment of the United Kingdom contingent was, in itself, a notable success. Between 4 December and 18 January, some 6,600 personnel were transported to theatre, all by RAF aircraft. Their equipment went by sea. The decision not to move by land was vindicated by the significant delays experienced by other nations which chose that option.
    In our case, despite difficult weather conditions at Split airport, the deployment was completed 24 hours ahead of schedule. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is a great credit to the movements staffs of all three services. Their hard work, and that of other support staffs, often goes unsung—indeed unnoticed—by the media who tend to concentrate on eye-catching stories on the ground in Bosnia. However, without them, the operation would not have been possible, let alone successful.
    The success of our deployment, which owed so much to the splendid work of Lieutenant General Sir Rupert Smith and Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker—both of whom have been mentioned—contributed greatly to the remarkably efficient transfer of authority from UNPROFOR to IFOR. That was essential to ensuring that the parties respected the fragile ceasefire and got on with meeting their obligations under the peace agreement.
    Most British personnel are in multinational division south-west. This British-led division has successfully presided over the largest transfer of land—the so-called anvil—under the peace agreement. From the very start of the IFOR operation, with commendable enterprise and resolve, British Army units seized the initiative and moved deep into Bosnian Serb territory. They thereby established themselves throughout their area of responsibility on both sides of the former confrontation line, in order to show presence and to secure IFOR's freedom of movement.
    The divisional HQ has subsequently transferred to Banja Luka, in Republica Srpska, to reinforce IFOR's coverage of Bosnia as a whole and further stabilise the situation on the ground. It is the only IFOR divisional HQ in Bosnian Serb territory.
    Building on the successful approach of our UNPROFOR contingents before them, British forces are performing splendid work at the local level throughout their area of responsibility. Besides implementing the peace agreement, ensuring freedom of movement, and providing general security, they are building up civilian confidence on all sides, helping to solve local problems and undertaking many local projects.
    UK troops are also working in close co-operation with the Overseas Development Administration in a most highly praised initiative which is helping to restore normal life for the local people. Nearly 400 projects have been identified under this £4.5 million programme—more than 50 projects have already been completed. British engineers are helping to rebuild schools, hospitals, kindergartens, bridges and roads. They are also helping to restore essential services such as electricity and water.

    1335
    Let me give the House just three examples. In towns such as Mrkonjic Grad, Sipovo and Banja Luka, British engineers are currently working to restore some 15 schools, the Neames bridge is being rebuilt, and, across the so-called anvil area, the scene of terrible destruction, engineers are working to restore the electricity supplies. That excellent work, which does not attract the applause it deserves, is giving the local people hope and confidence for the future.
    The overall land operation is being most ably led by HQ ARRC, which is largely British-manned, and commanded by Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker. The HQ's performance, in its first operation, is a source of great satisfaction to the UK and to NATO allies working alongside us.
    The House will be heartened to know that our forces are demonstrating the virtues of initiative, determination and discipline that are the hallmark of the British armed forces and which have made them admired and respected around the world. They—and the country at large—can be justifiably proud of their achievements. Only last week, the IFOR commander, Admiral Smith, was fulsome in his praise of HQ ARRC, of General Walker, and of the performance of British forces as a whole.
    I turn now to the Committee's recent report, introduced so knowledgeably today by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, and to some of the references made to it in the course of our debate.
    I was grateful for the report's own acknowledgement of the contribution made by UK forces to the success of IFOR. The Committee recognised that they are
    "continuing to do an excellent job."
    The Committee also paid tribute to our forces' professionalism, and adaptability in carrying out their "difficult task". I fully concur with that judgment.
    The report does, however, voice a number of concerns over living conditions for our troops in theatre and the logistics support for the operation. Some of these concerns have been raised in the course of today's debate. I propose to address these points, in which I accept that there is some substance, but it is important to set this in the right context.
    It is fundamental that operational factors must be taken into account in establishing priorities in the transport of equipment and stores to theatre. At the outset of the IFOR operation, the requirement quickly to deploy combat-capable troops to help secure the ceasefire in Bosnia outweighed the need for tactical base infrastructure. But as the mission has developed, it has been possible to devote greater priority to campaign facilities.
    Any comparison in that respect with UNPROFOR must recognise that UNPROFOR had some three years to set in place its accommodation arrangements. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, UK forces needed to move quickly into Bosnian Serb territory at the outset of the IFOR operation, in order to show presence on both sides of the former confrontation line. UNPROFOR had not previously operated in Serb-held territory. There was accordingly no existing base infrastructure to occupy. Furthermore, the area of the so-called anvil, into which British forces deployed, had suffered severe devastation and major population movements.
    There should be no illusion that British troops on an operational deployment can expect to find all mod cons in the field, particularly in what was only recently a war
    1336
    zone. That said, where there have been shortcomings in conditions, action has been taken or is in hand to rectify them, as we have set out in our response to the Committee's report. Let me give a few examples.
    Until late in the planning process, it remained unclear exactly where UK and other units would be deployed in Bosnia, and therefore what accommodation would be needed. Nevertheless, in anticipation of a shortfall, the purchase of accommodation units and Arctic tents was approved as soon as the peace agreement was signed, and in advance of the operation. Because of the lead times for delivery, accommodation units were not available in theatre at the start of the deployment. But construction has continued in recent months in order to ensure the provision of essential base facilities as the pattern of deployment has become clearer.
    In the case of warm clothing, some units' specific operational roles included the possibility of an Arctic deployment. Those units were already equipped with winter clothing on their initial deployment. For other units, the purchase of warm clothing was approved in advance of the operation, but production lead times were up to six months. However, I am pleased to inform the House that the latest range of all-weather Army clothing, combat soldier 95, has just been released into service, and those units serving in Bosnia have been given priority for issue.
    The issue of welfare telephones has been a source of much concern. When British troops first deployed into multinational division south-west, many found themselves in locations not served by the telephones installed during the UNPROFOR operation. The work undertaken to rectify that deficiency has been described in the Government's response to the Committee's report. A further tranche of telephone equipment was deployed to theatre last month, and the company which is carrying out that work expects to complete installation by the end of the month.
    More than 95 per cent. of British troops in former Yugoslavia will then have access to welfare telephones. In the circumstances of this deployment, that is no mean achievement. The remaining personnel are located at sites where the permanent installation of telephones is not commercially viable. Arrangements have been made for such personnel to visit the nearest welfare telephone facilities regularly.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside raised the question of elections and the OSCE work on elections. The OSCE has made arrangements with key capitals where there is a concentration of refugees for them to vote in absentia. Refugees are entitled to register to vote in absentia in their place of residence in 1991. If they wish to vote elsewhere, they must do so in person. OSCE arrangements are well advanced for the elections. IFOR is lending assistance wherever possible, such as with transportation, area security and planning support.
    My hon. Friend also asked about the cost of the Bosnian deployment. In paragraph 28 of the Government's response, we say:
    "The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that the additional costs of UK participation in IFOR should not be borne on the Defence Budget. A decision whether any costs should fall to the Reserve in FY1996/97 can only be taken when the implications of containing the costs of the IFOR deployment within the Defence Budget become clearer much later in the year."

    1337
    I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about LPD replacements. These are good news for Barrow and for the many sub-contractors throughout the country who will benefit from these orders. They will help to sustain about 2,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, and they are very good news for the armed forces as well.
    Mr. Keith Mans: In connection with the new orders, can we expect any further announcements in the next week or so, bearing it in mind that a number of orders are pending and that parts of the armed forces, having taken the pain over redundancies and reductions during the past three or four years, are looking forward to gain from new equipment?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I have no doubt that others will have done so, too.
    I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), one of which related to tour intervals. We fully recognise the strain that can be placed on soldiers and their families by too-frequent operational tours. We aim for a reasonable interval between them, but it has to vary from unit to unit, and according to Army commitments such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia. The long-term strength of the Army is, of course, kept under review in the light of changing circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular tour intervals for Royal Engineers and Royal Signals units serving in Bosnia. I acknowledge that both those corps are heavily committed at present. We have taken steps to reduce the pressure in these areas in the short term by the use of reservists, and in the medium term by increases in Regular manpower establishments in specific areas. We are also reviewing our engineer support to other commitments.
    A question also arises in relation to light reconnaissance units. I acknowledge that they too have a short operational tour interval. We are taking action to correct that with the creation of a third light recce regiment next year, and I am confident that that will improve tour intervals.
    The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and others asked about a follow-on force. IFOR has to concentrate on the task in hand, particularly during the run-up to elections, and much remains to be done to ensure that IFOR continues to succeed. It is right to put aside speculation as to what might happen next year, and apply ourselves at the moment to the challenges to be faced in the next six months.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon that IFOR experience demonstrates that transatlantic co-operation is essential, and it would be difficult to contemplate a United Kingdom contribution to any post-IFOR force without substantial US ground forces.
    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made a wise speech, which I have come to expect from him every time I listen to him. He raised a point about war criminals, which was also mentioned by others. The Government strongly support the work of the international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia. We have always stressed the importance of bringing to
    1338
    justice those responsible for serious violations of international law in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. The primary responsibility for handing over war criminals rests with the parties themselves, and we urge them to do so.
    But IFOR also provides considerable support to the tribunal, and the tribunal has said that it is satisfied with this level of support. IFOR will detain any indicted war criminals with whom it comes into contact in the performance of its mission and if the circumstances permit. Although IFOR does not have a mandate to hunt down indicted war criminals, it is increasing its presence throughout Bosnia in preparation for the elections, and that will impose a further constraint on the movement of indicted war criminals.
    I conclude by looking ahead. The IFOR mission and the UK contribution to it has been a conspicuous success, but much remains to be done. We must put aside speculation as to what will happen next year. Instead, we need to concentrate on what remains to be achieved this year.
    Mr. Winnick: I apologise to the Minister and the House that I was absent for much of the debate, but I was here at the start, and intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
    Will the Minister say whether there is an on-going debate about the possibility of a different Security Council resolution about war criminals—namely, that they should be apprehended? Perhaps in the next few weeks we shall see such a change. Perhaps the Minister will comment on press speculation along those lines.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not want to say more than I have already about war criminals, except to echo a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which I think was repeated this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman: that there can be no lasting peace in Bosnia unless indicted war criminals are brought to justice.
    Four key challenges remain to be dealt with. We must assist the Bosnians in the reconstruction of their country, so that they can see the benefits of peace. We must facilitate the return of the 2.5 million people displaced from their homes. There must be free and fair elections. The organisation is for the Bosnians themselves, but they will need help.
    In answer to the point movingly made by the hon. Member for Western Isles, the people of Bosnia must choose to live together. They have stopped fighting, but to date they have shown little sign of reconciliation. These tasks are primarily for their civilian organisations and, most importantly, the people of Bosnia, but, within the limits of its military task, IFOR will do all that it can to assist for the duration of its mission.
    United Kingdom forces will continue to play their full part in this, and I have every confidence that they will do so to the impressively high standards that they have achieved from the outset of the IFOR mission. They will tackle their demanding task with all the more courage and determination in the knowledge that they enjoy the confidence and support of the House and the country at large.
    6.9 pm
    Mr. Colvin: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to some of the remarks made by hon. Members this afternoon.

    1339
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the speedy way in which he responded to the recommendations of the Committee and our call for welfare telephones, bottled water, better logistics and medical facilities in theatre. That was greatly appreciated by our forces.
    My hon. Friend referred to the very successful rapid deployment of our forces. That reiterated what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Opposition spokesman, said, when he drew attention to the need to be prepared to deploy rapidly to any part of the world in support of United Nations or NATO operations. I remind Her Majesty's Government that we still have difficulty over heavy lift, transport, and some of the deployments to former Yugoslavia could not have been undertaken without assistance from our American allies. That goes not only for airlift, but for heavy lift by sea.
    When I went down to the military port at Marchwick in my constituency to see our troops depart, I was told that they were waiting for American transports to arrive to convey them to Bosnia. That should be dealt with—and I know that Her Majesty's Government already have plans for the lease of two ro-ro ships.
    The hon. Member for South Shields referred to overstretch. No one else has mentioned it, but it has a tremendous impact on the recruitment of service men and women. We are short of staff in all three services, particularly in the infantry, which has some 4,000 vacancies. We must bear that in mind. I was pleased that the Overseas Development Administration was acclaimed for the work that it is doing in the former Yugoslavia. We had first-hand experience of that work, and congratulate Dr. Greenall on his achievements.
    The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who is our technological expert on the Committee, had a number of things to say about the Dayton accord and whether it was too ambitious. He and other hon. Members questioned whether the deadline of 14 September was over-optimistic. The important thing is that that deadline puts pressure on everyone to deliver. I only pray that the elections, when they take place, are seen by everyone—especially the Bosnian people—to be free and fair. If they are not, we shall still have a difficulty.
    It is unthinkable that IFOR should withdraw before there is a satisfactory conclusion. Although no one will make any promises, I think that it is an open secret that there will be an on-going presence—IFOR 2, perhaps. It is essential for it to be a NATO presence. We must not revert to the old United Nations command structure that proved so unsatisfactory.
    Let me say in its defence that the United Nations had never had to mount such an operation before; nor, for that matter, had NATO. NATO had been prepared for an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the former Soviet Union in rather different circumstances, but its command and communication structures showed themselves capable of responding to a completely new situation. That is greatly to NATO's credit.
    This afternoon, the House has demonstrated the same consensus and unanimity as that traditionally achieved by the Select Committee. I only wish that that was a more regular feature of our exchanges on other matters.
    Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Class VI, Vote 1

  Housing Need
  [Relevant documents: Second report from the Environment Committee of Session 1995–96, on Housing Need, House of Commons Paper No. 22–1, the Government's response thereto (Cm 3259) and the Department of the Environment Annual Report.' The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2807).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further, revised sum not exceeding £3,083,844,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; slum clearance, repairs and other improvements to private housing; payments to the Housing Corporation; the transfer of local authority estates to new landlords; accommodation for the homeless and special needs accommodation; housing management and mobility; rent officers and Rent Assessment Panels; grants for the provision of gypsy sites; grants to home improvement agencies; asylum seekers' special housing grant; for research projects, including European Community programmes; publicity; and for sundry other housing and construction services and projects.—[Mr. Curry.]
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the Environment Committee's report on housing need, which is an important issue.
  I thank all those who submitted evidence to the Committee. A Select Committee—certainly, the Environment Committee—depends a good deal on the quality of evidence, and the willingness of those who submit it to come before the Committee and answer questions. I also thank all the staff in the Select Committee office—including Steve Priestley, the Clerk—for helping us to marshal the evidence and organise our activities. I am also grateful to our specialist advisers, Christine Whitehead and Peter Chapman, who gave us invaluable advice and helped to steer us into the crucial areas of investigation. Finally, I am grateful to the Committee itself, which worked in a very co-operative way.
  Let me express particular appreciation to my predecessor in the Chair, the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), who is now the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency. I say that for two reasons. First, I have some reservations about the way in which Select Committees work. They depend on a Government majority within them, and the Government sometimes try to influence their workings and, perhaps, to encourage them not to become too deeply embroiled in some of the more controversial issues.
  Between 1983 and 1992, the Committee produced some excellent reports on "green" issues, but during that time it never examined local government finance—for instance, the whole question of the poll tax—or housing, because its then Chairman felt that on such controversial matters the Select Committee would not work particularly well. I was very pleased when the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire became Chairman, and agreed—perhaps as a result of a little pressure from Opposition Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford)—that we should try to examine some of those more controversial issues. In 1993 we were very

  1341
  successful, managing to consider the question of the Housing Corporation and housing associations and producing what I considered to be a useful report.
  One of that report's key recommendations was for the Government to publish again their estimates of housing need. I was disappointed by their response, in which they said that they were still not prepared to publish the figures. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire had joined the Government when, relatively soon after that, he obviously remembered the report of his Select Committee and was part of the process that produced the Government's figures for housing need.
  I have always felt a little sympathy for the Government. First they are castigated for not publishing the housing need figures; then, as soon as they publish them, they are told that the figures are wrong. If we are to have a proper debate in this country about three issues, we must have those housing need figures. First, there is the sheer importance of meeting housing need effectively. As the introduction to our report states,
  "Shelter is one of the most basic human needs. Being without a home is a catastrophe. Not only are the roofless deprived of the means to improve their lot: an address holds the key to employment, credit, goods, support, and services."
  When we quote statistics, we should bear in mind the number of individuals who do not have adequate housing. It is easy for those who live comfortably to forget them. The first reason why housing need is an important issue, then, is the human tragedy that lies behind it.
  Secondly, providing housing takes up a substantial proportion of the resources of both individuals and the nation. That proportion has tended to grow. Back in 1960, individual households spent about 9.5 per cent. of their income on housing; the figure has now risen to about 15.8 per cent. Some of those who are in the least adequate housing—in poor furnished rented accommodation—spend more than a quarter of their income on housing costs. While Government expenditure on housing provision, particularly the provision of social housing, has tended to decline, expenditure on housing benefit has risen dramatically. Thus the second reason why it is important that we have a clear idea of housing need relates to the personal and national allocation of resources.
  Thirdly, we need to know about housing need because if we need more houses, we need to decide where they will be built. There is also the question of planning, which spills over into matters such as public transport. Low-density housing affects public transport. Such issues are important. We must also protect the countryside. We do not want it to be built over. Thus the three reasons why we need to understand housing need are: individual needs, allocation of resources and the planning implications.
  On resources, the central question is: how long will the problem last? The Select Committee appreciated that the Government published the figures up to the year 2006, but we wanted them to publish figures up to 2011 or, possibly, 2016. I regret that the Government have not been able to accept that recommendation. I understand that the further into the future the estimate, the more difficult it is to make. The longer estimates may turn out to be pretty inaccurate towards the end, but they can give us an idea of the trend.
  1342
  It is important to understand the trend. By analogy, if one is swimming against the current, it helps to know when the current will change. One's behaviour will be different if one knows that the current will change in five minutes from one's behaviour if one knows that it will never change. It would help if the Government would examine predicting beyond the year 2006. If housing need continues in an upward curve, we shall have to behave in a way different from how we would behave if, after the year 2006, the figure started to fall. Will we be trying to meet a need that has peaked or a continuing one? I hope that the Government push further forward their housing need predictions, if not tonight, then certainly over the next few months.
  The Committee received much evidence that the Government's estimates have not taken account of unmet need. I was pleased that paragraph 39 of the Government's response hinted that they might be changing their attitude and that future studies would try to make more of an estimate of unmet need. I also noticed that they criticised the Committee for not putting a figure on unmet need, which I accept, and that they tried to argue that unmet need was falling. They suggested that the number of people sleeping rough was declining. I do not have much confidence in that view, because my experience from Greater Manchester and from walking around London is that the problem is not declining.
  The Government say that fewer people are having to be put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that the figures for overcrowding have gone down. The statistics may be correct, but they were not much supported by the evidence that the Committee received—and certainly not by my constituency experience. At this stage, I do not want to argue too much about who is right and who is wrong. I want to impress on the Government the fact that we need a calculation of unmet need.
  In considering housing need, it is crucial that we examine existing stock. There has been a tendency in the House to bandy about the idea that local authorities have a lot of empty properties. That is a myth. The evidence to the Select Committee was that the majority, although not all, of local authorities had got to grips with the problem and were doing well. The good ones at least were reducing the number of empty council properties. I am afraid that the Government, especially the Ministry of Defence, were not doing quite so well; we shall have to watch what happens in the next few months in respect of that.
  The number of empty privately owned houses is an intriguing question. With the downturn in the housing market, that number has tended to increase. How many empty owner-occupied, or perhaps owner-unoccupied houses do we need to have a properly regulated housing market? It is pointed out, especially by people who are worried about building lots of new houses all over the countryside, that if all the owner-occupied houses—I am getting tangled; perhaps I need another phrase—were occupied, we would not need to build so many houses. How many houses need to be empty to allow people to move around the country?
  The next question is: how many houses are in the wrong place? That fundamental question has not had much attention. In some areas, there is almost a surplus of houses. People find it difficult to sell their houses because the jobs have disappeared, and councils find it difficult to let houses. In allocating resources, we must

  1343
  decide whether to take steps to ensure that the jobs go to those areas or whether to help people to move to such areas for retirement or other reasons rather than having to build more and more houses in areas where there are employment opportunities.
  How many houses in the existing stock are of the wrong type? The Select Committee received much evidence on the problem of bed-sits. Some housing associations, and certainly some local authorities, were enthusiastic about building bed-sits in the late 1950s and 1960s. They were aimed especially at elderly people, with the idea that they would not want large dwellings to look after and would be happy with bed-sits. Many of them were happy in the 1960s, but increasingly, elderly people are not happy with them. They prefer to have bedrooms separate from their living rooms and often would prefer two bedrooms, especially in the case of couples where one has an infirmity and does not sleep well. Such problems need to be tackled. Bed-sits are becoming increasingly difficult to let.
  I am critical of Stockport council in my constituency, and of one or two others, which, perhaps because of the pressure not to have empty properties, are keen to let bed-sits to people who come off the housing waiting list. Those people sometimes have drug-related problems. They may be alcoholics or have psychiatric problems. They would be difficult neighbours. I could make a pretty good fuss about it if such people lived next to me. But it is unfair when they are put into bed-sits next to elderly people who have enough problems coping with day-to-day life. In considering the existing stock, we must remember that many bed-sits must be remodelled if we are to get the best use out of them and not produce major problems.
  My last point on the existing stock is that some social housing estates, because of the way in which they have developed, are unpopular. Perhaps the Government have not spent enough money, but they have allowed local authorities to spend considerable amounts in implementing the estate action scheme and other schemes to reinvigorate some of the estates. Some of those schemes have been extremely successful and some of them will give long life to those estates. Some of them have had spectacularly large sums spent on them but, five or six years later, we cannot see the benefit of that expenditure.
  In the Chamber we have, over the years, become hung up on whether or not properties are owned. We tend to take the view that if someone owns his property, he looks after it and if he is a tenant, he does not. I can think back to minutes of meetings of tenants' associations in my constituency in the 1950s and 1960s—although they were tenants, they behaved as if they owned the estate. The idea of ownership—whether a property is bought using a mortgage or whether rent is paid—is important.
  When the Select Committee visited Sandwell and one or two other places, it saw tenants' representatives—tenants' enablers. The schemes that have implemented housing renewal on council estates and have involved the tenants, have been successful. I only wish that the same had happened in parts of my constituency in Stockport. The housing manager, Mr. Hilton—who has just been promoted—was very good at getting the Government to give the council permission to spend money, but he never overcame the problem of management. I am disappointed, because I do not believe that the tenants in some areas of
  1344
  my constituency feel that the estates are theirs or that they have responsibility. They tend to feel that it is the housing manager's estate and behave accordingly.
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about ownership. One important factor is the way in which the estate is designed—its physical shape. It is much easier for someone who lives in a more conventional street with neighbours, in a classical setting, to feel a sense of ownership than it is for someone living in a high-rise block, which is part of a series of blocks with wasteland between each one. That is why one of the key factors of the estate action and estate renewal programmes has been to consider the overall design and to accept elements of demolition; in that way, we can create a physical environment that gives people a greater sense of ownership.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept what the Minister says—there is considerable evidence to support that view. If estates are redesigned and properties taken out, the available stock is reduced. The redesign may make the stock better, but if there are to be more demolitions—in order to achieve what the Minister has just suggested, more demolitions may be necessary—we may need to build more houses or build between blocks. We should house people in dwellings that are people-friendly, not people-unfriendly. The Minister should do a little more work on weighing up the consequences of repair as opposed to rebuild. I am worried that there are some tower blocks and deck access schemes where it might be better value for money in the long run to start again rather than to try to make the existing dwellings people-friendly.
  Another aspect of existing stock that concerned the Committee was that of red lining. I do not want to become involved in arguments across the Chamber about whether it was a great idea in the 1980s to encourage many people, particularly council tenants in high-rise blocks of flats, to buy their property. It has happened and, having happened, I am worried about the number of people who are finding it difficult to resell their property. There is nothing worse on a council estate than to have many houses that are well looked after and two or three houses or flats that are neglected or empty and look a mess. It is particularly upsetting if those properties are owned by individuals who have simply walked away from them.
  In the 1980s, the building societies were keen to let people have mortgages on some of the properties; now, the building societies have lost their enthusiasm for lending money. The building societies have let this country down on too many occasions. In the 1960s and early 1970s, they were reluctant to lend money on old, Victorian properties, some of which were good value for money. On that occasion, the local authorities acted as the lender of last resort and made it possible to borrow on those properties. Interestingly, more recently, the building societies have taken over responsibility for many of those mortgages from local councils. Having shown enthusiasm for providing mortgages for residents in big blocks of flats, it is unfair of the building societies to withdraw that support, and doing so causes a great deal of hardship. One crucial factor when considering housing need is the analysis of existing stock, of which we must make as good a use as possible.

  1345
  Have the Government made a correct estimate of total housing need? Points that I have made about housing stock suggest that I believe that the Government's estimate is too low. One of the Committee's most difficult tasks was to come up with the right estimate. We fudged it and said that we thought that, on the whole, the Government's estimate should be at the top of the range rather than towards the bottom.
  In response to the Select Committee's report, the Government attempted to justify their figures. They said that if we continued to build at the rate of about 60,000 social houses per year, that would be perfectly all right. The Government achieve their own target, but that target is low. The Government's excuse is that we do not need as many social houses provided by the public sector, because the private rented sector is doing better than we thought.
  I am worried about the private rented sector—I am not against it in principle, but I am worried about some of it. The evidence in my constituency shows that some of the private rented sector consists of poor-quality housing. If it was cheap, poor-quality housing, we might be able to say that the Government had found a good bargain. But I am worried because much of it is poor-quality housing—people have to live in inadequate housing—but it is dear and it is paid for out of housing benefit. The tenant gets a poor deal; the Government get a poor deal because housing benefit amounts to a big bill.
  The private rented sector has also grown, but only temporarily, as a result of the number of people who have found it difficult to sell their property, so have rented it out. I do not think that all those cases should be dealt with as if they provided social housing. If someone rents out a house in one part of the country and cannot sell it, when he moves to another part of the country, he has to rent rather than buy. That process does not contribute to social housing. I accept that, sometimes, when property is difficult to sell, people move into it as social housing and receive high housing benefit to pay for it. We need more information about the private rented sector before the Government can justify their low estimates.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the problem of the high prices being paid by the public, through housing benefit, for sub-standard housing in the private sector. How does he propose to tackle the problem? Would he suggest limiting housing benefit to a certain amount according to the property's condition? What other method would he suggest?
  Mr. Bennett: I do not want to return to the time when we subsidised housing as opposed to people, but we may have gone a little too far in the direction of subsidising the individual, which has produced the poverty trap. In this debate, I simply want to illustrate that that was one of the areas that concerned the Select Committee. We are worried about the estimates. We understand the Government's argument about the private rented sector, but at this stage, we need more information.
  What I am coming to—this is not strongly recommended by the Select Committee—is that if we are to try to push up the number of social houses that we are
  1346
  building, we must consider a pretty fundamental question: where will the money come from? I would certainly argue very strongly that, although the Government are looking for tax cuts in the autumn, if they have any spare money, an awful lot more ought to be going into housing.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, on the Front Bench, that, although he has a scheme for building more houses from capital receipts in the first one or two years of a Labour Government—if he is a little inefficient, it might go into a third year—we must consider firmly where the money will come from after that. We might be able to reduce the amount that is being spent on housing benefit by getting people back to work. The minimum wage may throw some people off housing benefit.
  I would argue, although I shall not expand on it tonight, that we should weigh up the Treasury rules and the fact that there has been too much pussyfooting around about where the money comes from. If a country is investing in housing that will be of long-term benefit, such expenditure should not be treated in quite the same way as borrowing money to pay social security bills or other expenditure. That is not in the Select Committee's report; it is very much my view. One of the advantages of the Government publishing figures and of this debate is that we can argue in other areas of public expenditure that housing need must be met.
  One issue that came out strongly in evidence to the Select Committee was special housing need. It is very obvious that the elderly and other groups of people need special housing. One of the most interesting things that the Committee found concerned lifetime homes. We were invited up to York by the Joseph Rowntree trust to look at some of the houses that it was developing, which were designed so that people with disabilities of one sort or another could adapt them at a very small extra cost. I am not saying that such houses are the whole solution. The Government have been considering building regulations and how far houses should be designed to be friendly to adaptation by people who live in them for short or lifelong periods. I hope that those regulations will come out fairly soon.
  Where will the houses go? There was much technical argument in Committee on how far it is possible to measure housing need looking downwards from a national perspective and how far it can be considered from the bottom up. One of my disappointments is that it is not possible to get the two figures to meet to see what is happening. There was much evidence that those two approaches should be merged and that there should not be such a top-down approach.
  One of the crucial questions is how many new houses we need. Paragraph 16 of the Government's response says that there will be a discussion document. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been going around the country saying that 4.4 million new homes need to be built. Where should they go? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when that discussion document will be published, so that we can have a proper debate on it. I suggest that the method for planning housing in London ought to be considered for other areas. The London housing capacity survey is quite important.

  1347
  It is important that much of the new housing is built on brown-field sites. I congratulate the Government on the fact that almost 50 per cent. of new housing is being built on such sites, but I suggest that they should work the figure up even higher. I have some reservations about what a brown-field site is. I am not quite sure whether Stonehenge counts or not. There is a little evidence that some of the sites that are classified as brown-field sites do not have quite the grime of the gasworks with which we would associate the term brown-field site.
  As the first paragraph of the Select Committee report says,
  "The Government's declared aim is 'a decent home … within reach of every family'''.
  That ought to be the nation's aim, but our report makes it quite clear that we have a very long way to go to meet it.
  6.45 pm
  Sir Irvine Patnick: I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in his tributes to the people he mentioned. I know that he is a modest person, but if he will permit me, I should like to pay tribute to him. He rules our proceedings in Committee in a fair and frank manner. I do not intend, however, to follow his remarks. I want to travel a different route, but I hope that we reach the same destination.
  When a witness mentioned forecasting future housing need while, as a member of the Environment Committee, I was taking evidence on housing need one day, my memory flashed back to many years ago to when I was but a mere house building contractor. Later on, I remembered a time years ago when I was trying to complete a form— I think that it was from the Government—on forecasting how many houses I would build in that quarter, bearing in mind mortgages, overdraft, land availability and, if they were ever built, whether they would sell in the prevailing economic climate. Oh yes, I remember the Labour Government well. All had to be taken into consideration. In addition, I think that there were penalties if the form was not returned on time. Furthermore, a check had to be made on the previous form that I had completed. It was a time-consuming crystal-ball job, which was not very scientific bearing in mind the fact that there were no computers, spreadsheets and all of today's tools of the trade.
  This was a time when bricks had to be unloaded by hand and were not delivered on pallets, when concrete and mortar were mixed by hand and not delivered on site, and when plastic drainage pipes were in their infancy. Window frames were timber and eaves, gutters and rainwater pipes had just started changing from timber and cast iron to plastic. That was only 25 years ago.
  Around that time, municipal housing gave way to a new style of accommodation. The traditional housing, which my right hon. Friend the Minister refers to as classic-style dwellings, was terrace blocks. Four blocks, six blocks and eight blocks, as they were called, were being replaced by high-rise, high-density blocks. The life expectancy of such dwellings, which wasted a vast amount of communal land around them, was limited. I watched many being built, and lived to see many demolished.
  In Leeds, a most famous block of flats—Quuryhill flats—which was reputed to be the largest in Europe, had a built-in waste disposal system. If my memory serves me correctly, those flats were demolished because the cost of
  1348
  replacing the waste disposal system and putting the flats back into good repair was too great. Even then, municipal authorities had to outdo others and build even bigger and better blocks than other towns. Such rivalry continues today.
  I recollect a light rail system being built in Manchester, and Sheffield following with its own system. The building of Supertram in Sheffield created chaos on the streets, and I imagine that there is a huge shortfall between the £240 million Government grant and the project's actual cost. Incentives to ride on such facilities, such as park and ride, need to be addressed. Many cities are on the starting blocks waiting to introduce their own light railway systems, which are truly no different from the high-rise, high-density concept—but I digress.
  Houses in terrace-type blocks had their own front and back doors, and their own gardens to the front and rear. Access to the backs of all the houses was gained by way of a covered passage. The semi-detached houses on those "classic" estates were much sought after. Some of those council estates exist today. They are still very popular, and many of the houses have been bought under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.
  During the period when compulsory purchase and slum clearance were in vogue, I became a member of Sheffield city council and of its housing committee and public works committee, the latter under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). A former chairman of Sheffield housing committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was then a Member of Parliament.
  At that time, the Parker Morris standards determined the facilities and the plumbing, and whether a property could be improved at reasonable cost. Thus, dwellings that could have had a long life were demolished in the name of progress, and their occupants dispersed over the city. Communities were broken up, and the small shops that served the area were either demolished or had to close.
  That was the start of a new environment in which traditional values were lost. I accept that not all the dwellings that were cleared were capable of being improved. Some would have had to be pulled down anyway, but many of the dwellings, with a damp-proof course inserted, new electrics, and a plumbing system coupled with a bathroom and kitchen, would have had a passport into the next century and onwards.
  Meanwhile, high-density blocks of concrete flats with flat roofs invaded. If I had to select one such site as an example of that era it would be the Kelvin flats in Sheffield, which will be known to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is now in the Chamber. I remember canvassing those flats during an election campaign. The open decks turned into wind tunnels, making them freezing places. If one knocked on a door and waited, the tenant came up the steps to the front door—usually up the steps of the flat next door. Millions of pounds were poured in to try to improve those flats, but eventually the decision was made to demolish them all.
  Some of the properties that had been removed to make way for the flats would still have been around, not only today but for many years to come. They had in-built durability, and we have yet to ascertain the durability of the dwellings built in the 1950s and 1960s.

  1349
  The demolition of the original properties created the problem of breaking up communities, for many houses had been replaced by fewer dwellings—flats that were not readily accepted in an area not used to communal life in blocks of flats. That was all the fault of the nature of the planning brief in those days.
  I recollect with fond memories that, on a popular estate—one of the estates that the Minister would describe as "classical"—it was possible to guess the age of the occupants of the houses. The names on the electoral roll were the giveaway, because they were no longer in vogue. The state of the garden too, gave a clue in most cases, letting us know that the residents were elderly, and might have moved out if there had been a smaller property nearby to move into. The four, six and eight blocks could have been converted into self-contained flats, with central heating and a lift on the outside of the block, which would in turn have released the other dwellings for other residents to use.
  That would have increased mobility, yet most old people, rightly, wish to stay in their existing homes. Who can blame them? A good friend of mine aged 91—I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning him—has recently lost his sight. Last Saturday, he managed to find his way to my home, and after a long chat I offered to walk him back home to his wife. It was not far.
  When we arrived at my friend's home, he mentioned his concern about the garden, and I asked if I could look at it. Hon. Members must not imagine that it is a large garden. We had to go down some steps—six in all. My friend counted them out, and informed me that some were wider than others. Then he pointed out where his roses, his soft fruit and his lawn were. Despite his blindness and disability, my friend had his memories and was at home. Move him, and he would be totally lost.
  When I was in the house building industry, the sites were either green-field sites or infill plots. Today, our planners, like the Chairman of the Environment Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, call them brown-field sites. The planners advocate making better and more imaginative use of existing buildings and empty homes.
  The planners also advise that projections of housing provision should be subject to further examination as part of the preparation of a development plan, saying that we must ensure that up-to-date information is used, and should even take into account information on demographic and housing market trends, as well as land availability. House builders and councils will in future have to monitor the supply of land, while advice on the affordability of housing is spelt out in policy planning guidance note 3—PPG3.
  Rural areas can be affected by "in-migration", which is a new word to me. Today, local authorities are advised to make use of existing housing stock and to reduce the number of empty dwellings. That is advice that a council such as Sheffield could take on board.
  Last year in Sheffield, there were 330 properties vacant for up to three weeks, 363 vacant for between three and six weeks, 810 vacant for between six weeks and six months, 324 vacant for between six months and one year, and 219 vacant for more than one year—a total of 2,046. Those are the Audit Commission's figures, not mine.
  1350
  In the Government's response to the Committee's report, it is said that, although the void rate is about 2 per cent., that includes properties in need of extensive renovation before they can be used, and properties awaiting demolition. Nationally, the number of local authority void properties awaiting minor repairs or letting averages just over 1 per cent., yet the percentage of Sheffield local authority dwellings unlet is 2.85 per cent., and the percentage for Yorkshire and Humberside is 1.95 per cent. Another interesting fact is that the average time taken to relet in Sheffield is 48 days.
  The recommendation of today's planners is to encourage the conversion of larger under-occupied dwellings into flats. That takes me back to what I said before about terraced houses. It is a funny old world. Planners also advocate the conversion into dwellings of suitable non-residential property, such as former mill offices, warehouses and empty space above shops, and recycling vacant, under-used and previously developed land in urban areas. That advice could be followed by Sheffield development corporation in the lower Don valley—by building houses where factories used to be.
  In rural areas, infill sites in rural settlements, when appropriate to their character and structure, may be a solution, but without incursion into the green belt. More is the pity that the planners of yesteryear were not given that simple advice, which today we can all go along with. If they had been, we would have a larger stock of what an old Sheffield alderman, a former chairman of the housing committee who is no longer with us, called units of accommodation.
  It has been an enjoyable experience for me to return to talking about building, albeit for a short time. I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee report on housing need, especially the fact that they accept that the published estimates are but work in progress, and that they are working on a way of improving estimates of the demand for housing.
  I also welcome the fact that the Government fully recognise the importance of improving their understanding of the factors that affect the number and type of households that are formed, and I await with great interest their discussion document, which will examine trends.
  The Select Committee commented on empty dwellings. It is true that the performance of local authorities as landlords, with all their vacancies, leaves a lot to be desired. That factor is taken into account and used in the housing revenue account subsidy calculation, in recognition of the rental income that is lost to authorities. The proportion of local authority properties that are void while awaiting letting averages just over 1 per cent.
  As I have already said, the private and public sectors must grow together to ensure that accommodation is available for our needs both today and in the future. I would have commented on many other aspects of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, but I know that others are waiting to speak.
  In conclusion, the advice that planners are giving us today could result in yet another change in housing accommodation. Who knows whether, in years to come, the properties that were recommended to be converted from industrial use to dwellings may return to their former use so that the housing wheel will have gone a full cycle.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Greg Pope: I enter the debate with some trepidation, given the number of members of the Environment Committee present and the fact I am not a member of that Select Committee.
  I begin by warmly welcoming the Committee's report on housing need. It demonstrates the scale of housing need in the United Kingdom and the extent to which the Government have underestimated it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his wide-ranging introduction to this evening's fairly brief debate and say with some consternation that I found little to disagree with in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). I was interested in his recollection of canvassing deck access flats in Sheffield, and their later demolition. I trust that there was no correlation between his canvass returns and the decision to demolish the flats.
  As a member of the housing committee on Blackburn borough council, I recall taking the decision to demolish deck access flats many years before local authorities had paid for them. The decision was made on the correct grounds—people did not want to live in them. The hon. Member for Hallam may share my view that the decision to build the flats in the 1960s was understandable. When faced with the squalor of urban housing in the 1960s, many local authorities did what they thought best and built high-density housing, some of it deck access. It turned out to be a tragic mistake, but there is no point in trying to allocate political blame.
  I shall address a narrow part of the report—that relating to private sector disrepair—but I am not making a partisan speech. The Government attempted to address the problem in recent legislation and, to be fair to them, they recognised some of the deficiencies inherent in the existing grant system. In 1993, the Department of the Environment noted that the mandatory grants system had given rise to unsustainable financial pressures, and in 1995 it stated that
  "mandatory grants have created unrealistic expectations. The demand for grants has exceeded the resources available."
  That is a masterly understatement in respect of my constituency.
  Also to be fair to the Government, some of the measures that they have introduced over the past few years have been an improvement on what went before. For example, there is fairly general recognition that housing renewal areas were an improvement on housing action areas and general improvement areas. It is a pity that, when the Government first flagged up the idea of housing renewal areas before the 1987 general election, they implied that the scheme would attract extra Government support. It has never been forthcoming
  It is now clear that, even with housing renewal areas, the mandatory grants system was failing. Many local authorities—including mine—have not been able to meet the huge demand for mandatory grants and, therefore, comply with the law. The Department of the Environment concluded that
  "the main problem with the arrangements is that, while resources remain finite the system has turned out largely demand led."
  Nowhere has that been shown more starkly than in my constituency.
  1352
  Most of the housing in my constituency—and in east Lancashire generally—was constructed during the industrial revolution. Although it served its purpose well, there is little doubt that, as towns expanded, houses were built fairly rapidly and, inevitably, some corners were cut.
  Much of the original housing remains. More than half of the houses in my constituency were built before the first world war. That is not unusual in the urban parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Decay in those properties has been unavoidable, and there are now around 9,500 homes in need of statutory intervention because they are unfit for habitation. Another 5,500 homes need immediate assistance to avoid becoming unfit in the near future. So, 15,000 homes require serious renovation. The Minister would not disagree that it is broadly unacceptable in this day and age that 15,000 families in my constituency should live in sub-standard housing.
  It is interesting to note that, in response to the Department's consultation paper, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated:
  "if the Government's proposals are implemented"—
  they are now in the process of implementation—
  "conditions in the private sector will inevitably continue to deteriorate and more people on low incomes will be condemned to live in officially uninhabitable accommodation, with the associated consequences for related policy areas such as ill health and area regeneration."
  The Government have placed local authorities in a dilemma. Until now, they have stated that mandatory repairs have to be carried out on properties, otherwise the local authority can be hauled before the local government ombudsman, but they are not prepared to fund even a fraction of the cost of meeting that requirement. If local authorities spent money that they did not have, however, there is no doubt that the Government would seek to have the councillors surcharged. Local authorities are in a no-win situation.
  The Government are now in the process of extricating themselves from that appalling mess by removing the mandatory duty on local authorities to provide home improvement grants for people whose properties fail the fitness standard. That is all well and good for the Government, but where does it leave my 15,000 constituents who are in housing need and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who face similar difficulties?
  Many people recognise the scale of the problem. The Select Committee heard evidence that there are 1.5 million properties that are unfit for human habitation in England alone. They include 157,000 homes without heating other than portable heaters, 272,000 homes without adequate ventilation, 165,000 homes without a bathroom and 150,000 homes that do not meet the bedroom standard for space. The director of the House Builders Federation told the Select Committee that unfitness in the private sector was both
  "a significant problem and one that is not easy to resolve."
  I agree.
  Some housing is simply beyond repair, and in those circumstances clearance is the only option. My local authority is far from unique in having insufficient resources to clear such properties to make room for regeneration. As time passes, an increasing number of properties fall into that category and certain areas are desperately in need of clearance.

  1353
  My constituency suffers from the well-known problem of clearance blight. People know that their properties need clearing, as does the council, but they cannot sell their houses, and the local authority does not have the resources to demolish them. That has led to an increasing problem nationwide, but especially in east Lancashire. People simply give up hope and abandon their low-value, privately owned terraced houses. As a result, void properties that are privately owned fall into disrepair and are abandoned while—even in constituencies such as mine where homelessness was unheard of 15 years ago—there is an increasing problem of homelessness.
  The School of Advanced Urban Studies in Bristol produced a report in 1994 that concluded that there was a "crisis in housing renewal", and which went on to say that there was
  "a continuing problem of unfitness and disrepair on a substantial scale, and that in addition to this enormous backlog, other properties will continue to fall into disrepair in the future".
  The residents of those properties are entitled to ask the Government this: if they could not access improvement grants when they had a mandatory right to them, how on earth can they access a grant when that right has been removed? That is a matter of real concern in my constituency, and to the 1.5 million people who live in sub-standard housing. The Government should be concerned about that, but instead of facing up to the problem, they are running away from it.
  I wish to refer briefly to public sector housing, about which the Committee took evidence. There is not a great deal of public sector housing in my constituency, where more than four out of five homes are privately owned, but many of the council estates have been greatly improved in the past few years. To be fair to the Government, the estates have been improved because the council has been able to work in partnership with the Government in the estate action programme. More than 1,000 properties in my constituency have benefited from that programme. I know what a difference it has made to many of my constituents, and I pay tribute not only to the Department of the Environment and the Minister, but to the local authority.
  Sadly, the fact remains that a large number of properties—a similar number, in fact—have not benefited from estate action and they are in desperate need of investment and renovation to bring them up to the minimum standard. The problem, which must be repeated throughout the country, is with estates that have not been renovated—the estate action programme seems to have stopped but, as far as I am aware, nothing meaningful has been put in its place.
  I have been trying recently to help the residents of the Sands estate in Rishton. Residents of that estate are in appalling housing need. One told me a week ago that a person would have to be absolutely desperate to accept a house on that estate. There is no way in which the local authority can access resources to help those people out of their desperate problems. I hope that the Minister will address the matter in his winding-up speech. What will to happen to people in such circumstances?The only avenue open to them at the moment is for there to be a voluntary stock transfer of estates such as the Sands from ownership by the local authority to a housing association. That is
  1354
  fine, and I have no ideological hang-ups about it—my constituents who are in housing need could not, in the end, give tuppence about who the landlord of their property is. All they want is to know whether their properties will be improved.
  I wish to make a point to the Minister that is neither ideological nor party political. It is far from satisfactory when the only option open to people in estates such as the one to which I have referred is to transfer ownership of the entire estate from one sector to another. Surely it would be better to put in place a funding mechanism not dissimilar to those that the Government have put in place in the past few years to provide some kind of home for people in such housing need.
  Acute housing need is, without doubt, the greatest problem faced by millions of our fellow citizens. In 1996, it cannot possibly be right for 1.5 million people to be living in properties that the Government accept are unfit for human habitation. The House does not have the opportunity to debate issues such as housing anywhere near often enough, and I am grateful to the Select Committee and its Chairman for providing us with the opportunity to debate the issue tonight.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: First, I declare an interest as a consultant to a building society and to a firm of solicitors, both of which inevitably have property matters relevant to their activities, although neither of them, nor any client of the solicitors, has invited me to express an opinion in the debate.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing as a major issue and, in particular, the Select Committee report. Housing is and always will remain at the forefront of political debate, and policies related to it are deeply contentious and go to the core of social division and the distribution of wealth. The Select Committee was probably extremely courageous to take on this subject, and it is a tribute to the co-operation of all members of the Committee that the report has received almost unanimous endorsement. I hope that cross-party co-operation within the Environment Select Committee will continue despite a temporary setback.
  After the provision of food, shelter for oneself and one's family is the most vital human need. It is estimated that the average cost of housing is now about 15 per cent. of disposable income. There has been a sharp increase in that figure in the past few years, but that is reflective of the sacrifices that people are prepared to make to acquire the home of their choice.
  The first issue to address in a debate of this kind is the definition of housing need itself. Is it limited to those who simply want a better home? That would certainly be reflected by the expression "housing demand", but "need" goes to a narrower definition. The Committee chose not to be limited to the other extreme—those totally lacking any dwelling at all—as that would have been far too narrow. However, there are clearly individuals or families living in overcrowded conditions, lacking basic amenities or with no reasonable home available at all, and it is they who can be said to have a housing need.
  There are difficulties even on the margin of that definition, particularly those who are sharing with their parents. Sometimes the space will be adequate and the amenities satisfactory, but they will still want a home of

  1355
  their own, which they may have difficulty in achieving. The key additional component is, therefore, that they also cannot afford a market price, whether to rent or to buy. Inevitably, that led the report to concentrate on social housing, rather than exclusively on owner-occupation.
  In considering the number of additional units that may be required, it is necessary to look at the historic position. There are clearly large numbers of people currently seeking alternative accommodation, many of whom may rightly claim a need. Should the estimated future provision required take into account that backlog, or simply address the numbers year to year, that is, keep pace but not reduce the backlog? In part, the historic backlog is also dependent upon estimating the numbers of those who live in sub-standard housing—a difficult estimate, compounded by some who do not want to move. We have heard examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
  The next issue to consider is the expected level of owner-occupation. If owner-occupation is to increase as a proportion of the stock—as it has done substantially in the past two decades—less provision will be required for new household formations in the social housing sector. Conversely, fewer buyers will lead to a greater requirement for social housing. Most of us, myself included, tend to support the Government's argument that the total number of owner-occupied households is likely to rise by about 3 per cent. in the next few years to a total around, or just exceeding, 70 per cent. That takes account of those who wish to move into owner-occupation, either from adequate rented accommodation or on new household formation, coupled with right-to-buy applicants.
  The right to buy remains a substantial force, and applications remain considerable. Against this figure, we must take into account those falling out of owner-occupation, particularly through repossession. The number of repossessions has fallen since the peak in the early 1990s caused by difficulties within the property market. The rise in house prices in recent months—particularly since our report was published—suggests that negative equity may be increasingly something of the past. However., it would not be unreasonable to assume that there will still be a number of repossessions, even if that is below current figures. In addition, demolition of sub-standard stock that is currently owner-occupied will have some impact on the figures.
  The next factor we had to consider in calculating owner-occupation numbers relates to changes in tenure caused by social adjustments. Thus, as people live longer, there will be a tendency for them to move into sheltered accommodation or residential care from traditional owner-occupation.
  The figure for owner-occupation, showing a small but still significant increase, takes into account all those factors. Thus there remains a strong determination among people generally to own their own homes. All the indications show that at least 80 per cent. of the population would like to be home owners, even if some, for financial or other reasons, will not be able to achieve it. Despite the temporary unpopularity of home ownership caused by falling property prices, there is no real indication that there has been a shift in people's desire to own their own home—the concept that the Englishman's
  1356
  home is his castle and the ambition to be its owner remain dear to our national psyche, and they appear to be almost as strongly held in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Another important aspect of social change that we had to consider was the desire of young people to set up home more quickly than has been traditional. Many of us did not feel that it was appropriate for public resources to be devoted to the provision of homes for young people the moment they cease to be schoolchildren. They may have some need to establish themselves, but scarce public funds should not be made available to provide homes in those circumstances.
  The exception must be particularly vulnerable youngsters, such as those leaving local authority care and others in similar circumstances. I was impressed by one scheme based in London which was making provision for young people in this situation. However, as a general rule, it is clear that while the earlier maturity of young people will create additional housing pressures, we should not expect them in general to be accommodated in social housing subsidised by the taxpayer or by fellow tenants. They will have an impact on household formation numbers, but they should not generally lead to increasing social housing demand.
  As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, the Government estimate that up to the year 2001 there will be an annual need for between 60,000 and 100,000 units of social housing. The Government believe that a target figure towards the lower end of that range would be appropriate as slight under-provision will create demand for private rented accommodation and lead to more investment in housing for rent. The Government have estimated the figures on the basis that the number of households in England will rise by 4.4 million over the next 20 years as a result of factors such as increased life expectancy, higher net immigration, changes in marital status and co-habitation, and general growth in the, rate at which people form independent households.
  We received other estimates of the number of social housing units that will required. Most were in the range of 60,000 to 100,000 units, with 120,000 probably being the largest. The Government are therefore talking of pitching the figure towards the lower end of their range, somewhere below what is considered by most observers to be the likely need, but they are not that far out, particularly if they are correct in their expectation that there will be new investment in housing. Indeed, that could ensure that the gap is made up.
  That new investment, therefore, will be critical to the equation. It is imperative that housing investment trusts are a success and that private sector capital is introduced into the letting market. Some units will not be suitable for people who are able to afford only social housing rents—with or without housing benefit—but it is clear that the attraction of public sector investment in the lower range of private rented accommodation will be a vital component if pressures are not to build to an unacceptable level.
  I am convinced that the Government are right in believing that that can be achieved, but they will need to monitor developments in the field closely and be prepared to step in to encourage more private investment if it appears to be failing to make up the anticipated substantial supplement to the social housing stock that is required.

  1357
  Flexibility is therefore important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us later that he will continue to keep the position under review.
  Little can be said about housing generally and housing need in particular without referring to planning implications. Whether provision is for social housing or for owner-occupied housing, land must be found. I represent a constituency that is particularly sensitive to development proposals. We are bordered by the west midlands conurbation and our neighbours are Solihull, Birmingham and Dudley. To the south lies the expanding town of Redditch, and Kidderminster, which has grown substantially in recent years, is not far away.
  With major transport links running through the constituency, the Bromsgrove area has become a particularly popular place in which to live. Part of its popularity, as with so many other similar places, is its semi-rural nature. If we allow further development within the green belt, which covers most of the constituency, that attractive quality will be lost. This view is not simply driven by the short-term and selfish attitude of those who wish to protect their own position—the NIMBY principle—but is more about retaining green lungs around our cities and ensuring that we do not have long and continuously developed corridors of development stretching out across the countryside so that for many city dwellers a view of a field becomes a rarity.
  We must ensure that our planning policies are designed to retain open areas around our cities. If that is to be achieved, it follows that there will be continuing pressure on land available for development. I therefore particularly welcome the Government's determination to ensure that 50 per cent. of new development will take place on brown-field sites. The target is not terribly ambitious, however, as the Select Committee discovered, for existing levels of development are not far from that already—itself a point worth noting.
  I hope that Government planning policies will move increasingly towards the encouragement of more development on brown-field sites. I should like to see a target set of 60 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. by not much past the turn of the century. We need to introduce new life into our cities to ensure the redevelopment of derelict and contaminated land. These are not cheap and easy sites to develop. Any developer knows that a green-field site is cheaper to build on and easier to sell. If planning is about ensuring that we have a reasonable way of life and protecting our environment, this issue must be addressed and we must improve the urban landscape as well as the rural one.
  It was fascinating that in the course of our inquiries we discovered evidence to suggest that the creation of new housing is leading to greater demand. Simply put, the more houses that are built, the more people are prepared to occupy them. Thus, early household formation may be encouraged by more property being available to buy or to let. If that scenario is true, and it is a fascinating one, it is a powerful argument to suggest that there should be restrictions on new development.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of the evidence vigorously denied that proposition?
  Mr. Thomason: I agree that the point was subject to much dispute, but it is worth drawing it out in the debate.
  1358
  It was an interesting and fairly innovative point that, rather like building roads, the more that is done the more demand is created. I have some doubt about the validity of that evidence and of the argument put to us, but more thought needs to be given to the point and I hope that the Government will research it in the future.
  It is important in planning terms to differentiate between affordable—and therefore social—housing, and that built for the private sector. Density requirements imposed by planning authorities will tend to encourage the development of low-cost homes, but planning knows no distinction between social and other housing. I am sure that that is right. I would be concerned that the creation of a special planning use categorised as for social housing purposes would lead to the construction of ghettos, rather in the manner of the huge council estates that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Much more should we see a mixture of housing in low-cost developments, with planning authorities using their powers to impose conditions to direct that a proportion of new developments should contain social housing.
  We cannot reasonably differentiate between local authority, housing association and private sector accommodation. What really makes a property a social one is whether it is affordable. We still have no clear definition of what affordable means. Indeed, the whole of this debate is surrounded by terms that are extremely difficult to define. Clearly, however, affordable tends to suggest that it is within the reach of the vast majority of the population.
  I hope that the private sector will be increasingly able to respond to the need for affordable rented accommodation so that the trend may be away from bricks and mortar subsidy and towards subsidy of the individual through the housing benefit system. The cost of housing benefit will be a constraint on that policy, but I am sure that ultimately it is the right objective; in that respect, I disagree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
  I welcome the Government's initiative to create housing investment trusts, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will say something about those in his closing remarks.
  The Select Committee report has made an important contribution to a vital debate which will continue, inside and outside the Chamber, for many years to come. I commend the report to the House for consideration, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate.
  7.29 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that we are holding this debate. Seven days ago, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) described this time of the week—7 o'clock to 10 o'clock on a Thursday—as "the black hole" of the parliamentary week, but we have attracted a number of right hon. and hon. Members to the Chamber today because this is an important issue.
  I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing is at the front of political debate. Part of our problem is that it is not far enough toward the front of political debate. That is why I warmly welcome the work done by the Environment Select Committee and the opportunity that it has given us to debate housing need today.

  1359
  Like many hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Bill earlier this year, and I know too well how knowledgeable the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), is, and how passionate he is about housing—something that I believe goes for quite a few of us present tonight.
  In such a debate, it is easy to get bogged down in figures as we discuss whether we need 60,000, 90,000 or 150,000 more social homes a year. I share the view expressed by many organisations working in housing—such as Shelter, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing—that the bottom line is that the Government's estimate is inadequate. Even if the figure of 60,000 to 100,000 a year proposed by the Government were correct, it would be sensible to aim for the upper end of that scale, or at least the middle, rather than the bottom end. After all, even members of the Government admit that estimation is an imprecise art.
  As has been said, not only people without homes have need. I am pleased that the Select Committee paid close attention to hidden housing need, and I am pleased that it paid special attention to the work of Alan Holmans, a former chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.
  A huge number of people live in homes that are unfit to be lived in. The most recent housing condition surveys show that 2.5 million homes are unfit or in need of substantial repair, and 5 million people live in them. Those figures are frightening, but hon. Members arid the Government should study another figure—that of the country's bill for treating medical conditions caused by sub-standard housing. In a recent Committee, medical experts estimated that it might be as much as £2.4 billion a year. That figure represents only health spending. It does not take account of how illness caused by bad housing affects attendance at work or school, or increases the uptake of social security benefits. I fear that, in years to come, we may look back on the abolition of mandatory renovation grants and realise how much damage we have done and how much it will cost us in future, especially in health spending.
  So many of our problems stem from the fact that, in many ways, we have not engaged in sufficient long-term thinking when considering how to provide housing. Investment has been cut year on year. There has been a lack of long-term thinking, not only at a macro level, but at a micro level. That was emphasised to some of us this year during the passage of the Housing Bill, when we realised that, as a result of the Bill, homeless people would be unable to find stability.
  It is traumatic to lose one's home. It may be an eviction or a repossession, and it may have resulted from the loss of a job. Whatever the circumstances, the last thing that people need then is insecurity and short-termism, with short-term contracts, often in the private rented sector, making it impossible for them to be certain where they will be a couple of years later.
  Many of those people are unable to afford even the top end of the middle of the private rented market, especially following recent housing benefit changes. They therefore end up in badly kept, often ramshackle, properties, and often they find it difficult to cope with the situation. The
  1360
  history of the experiences that brought them there often makes them feel unable to challenge their landlord about some of the factors that affect the condition of the property.
  Mr. Thomason: I listened to the hon. Lady's remarks about housing benefit. Is she saying that more housing benefit should be made available to tenants?
  Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I put it as one of the problems of the rented sector. There is a problem with housing benefit. Many of us believed that it would be useful to subsidise the individual when it came to housing, but that has not worked. We have an enormous housing benefit bill, and many of us are considering ways in which to cut the benefit bill while ensuring that people have security in their homes. The issue is security rather than the level of benefit. Perhaps we should be considering more investment in bricks and mortar, because obviously we have a problem.
  I want housing benefit to be a safety net that enables people to stay in their homes. If we were to drop housing benefit suddenly, as some proposals emanating from the Government suggest, it would not help. People would end up in housing need because they had been turned out of their property. Our challenge is to get the equation right. How do we set a benefit level that promotes better conditions in the private sector, gives people a decent safety net and encourages investment in properties? I did not intend to have a long discussion about housing benefit, but it is a key factor.
  The private rented sector has an important part to play. It has grown in recent years, but not as much as the Government would have us believe. Our housing market is far more polarised than that of any other country. We have an enormous number of people in home ownership—nearly 70 per cent. of the population—and a much lower percentage living in the private rented sector. In France, 20 per cent. of the population live in the private rented sector, in Germany, 43 per cent. and in Switzerland no less than 66 per cent. Part of the reason is that private rented accommodation is subsidised differently in those countries. All political parties have been studying the way in which other countries deal with those matters.
  Other hon. Members have spoken of the way in which people regard the property that they live in—whether it is important that they own rather than rent it, to make them feel that they want to look after it, that it is important and that they have a stake in it, to use that popular phrase. The experience of other countries shows that people do not need to own their property to feel that they have a stake in it. They do, however, need to feel that they have some control over their immediate environment and what goes on in their house. It has been shown in many authorities throughout the country that that can happen whether people own or rent their property. The idea is clearly possible, given the experience of other countries.
  To meet housing need, we must be more flexible not only on tenures but on providing different types of housing. The Environment Select Committee discussed demographic changes. My constituency has the fifth highest proportion of pensioners in the country, so I shall dwell for a moment on how we should deal with housing for an aging population. In 15 years' time, a further

  1361
  300,000 home owners will be over the age of 80. Where will they be housed and what type of homes will they need? Will they be able to stay in their present homes? Those questions will be among the most important housing questions over the next two or three decades.
  We need to know how many elderly people will wish to live independently and how many will need sheltered housing or residential care. We must ensure that we meet the needs of the elderly across the range of accommodation. I am pleased that the Government have withdrawn their proposal to cut eligibility of service charges in housing benefit and have decided to set up a full review of the matter. Without such benefit, many vulnerable people could not afford to stay in their homes because they could not pay the charges to wardens or others who help them. Many people may have needed to go into institutions rather than stay in their homes. We must have a middle option and I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to my representations and those from relevant organisations.
  The majority of people want to stay in their homes when they get old. A recent MORI poll for Anchor Housing showed that two thirds of home owners wished to stay where they were rather than move. The majority of those who wanted to move said that it was because their accommodation was too big for them and that they would prefer something smaller because, for example, it would be easier to heat. That shows that we need more homes that can be adapted. Creating so-called "lifetime homes" will be an important part of meeting need in that sector in the future.
  I add my voice to those calling for the incorporation of those criteria into part M of the building regulations. The cost of building accessibility features into homes from the outset is small compared with the cost of incorporating them later. Our thinking must be long term. Elderly people are often put off having their homes adapted because they would not be able to stand the upheaval. The attempt by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to amend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill was not as successful as we should have liked. I hope that Ministers will eventually see the light and adopt a more far-sighted approach to accessible housing.
  The debate on long-term care touches slightly different areas of housing, and we do not have time to deal with that tonight.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Lady has identified a number of problems, but what is the Liberal Democrat policy for solving them? The document entitled, "Towards 1996", prepared in her Whips Office, says:
  "Our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity. Our policy on freeing up council house sales receipts no longer stands up, being a little bit dated. We are still not sure what we would do about housing benefit. Our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity is expensive and ill thought out."
  What are the Liberal Democrats' policies on MIRAS, council house sales, housing benefit and negative equity?
  Mrs. Maddock: We always get the old chestnuts. I thought that people had got to the bottom of this, but I shall explain once again. The document from which the
  1362
  hon. Gentleman quotes was used internally to make us think about those questions. Interestingly, when we were discussing the matter someone said that they wondered what Conservative Members would say if they got hold of the document. I regret to say that the document was somehow purloined, although we tried to keep it to ourselves. It was a discussion document.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady is a teenage scribbler.
  Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. He does not usually descend to that level of debate. We shall produce a policy document in the future.
  Before I gave way, I was about to ask how we can progress towards meeting housing needs and produce good-quality housing that people can afford to stay in, even if times get tough. I shall devote the rest of my speech to that and deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
  We must help people to stay in their homes and tackle need before it becomes desperate. The Liberal Democrats propose a mortgage benefit, which would be paid for by phasing out mortgage income tax relief. We would not phase in mortgage benefit overnight as the Government would, because that is not fair on people who have made long-term financial plans. Such a scheme has been part of our policy for a long time.
  The Government's attempts to help people who lose their jobs not to lose their homes have not been successful. Insurance is sensible and I would encourage people to cover themselves as much as possible, but research shows that huge numbers of people could not get insurance cover—at least two or three have come to my Saturday morning surgeries. Part-time workers, those with temporary contracts, the self-employed or people approaching retirement age are denied such insurance cover. Increasing numbers of people are experiencing job insecurity, so we must tackle that problem.
  Many people cannot move to a room in the private rented sector, not because of high rents—although those affect some people—but because of the deposit that is required. Many local authorities and charities have set up good rent deposit schemes, which lend deposit money to people who cannot find it. The Environment Select Committee looked into the problem of deposits, and we must consider the matter further. As tenants cannot get their deposits back, they sometimes leave the property without paying the last month's rent. That is a ridiculous way to carry on. We need to put in place a system that does away with rental deposits. Australia has a scheme that takes care of all the deposits. A proposal to solve the problem was made in the Committee considering the Housing Bill, although it was not ideal. The problem must be solved if we are to have a thriving private rented sector.
  We must make better use of our property resources by discouraging under-occupation, ensuring that empty properties are used as homes, using brown-field sites, and accommodating people in shops and offices in town centres. Clearly, we cannot spread across the countryside. An important question for people who live in rural areas is what will happen under the right-to-buy proposal in the latest Housing Bill. Where will people in rural areas replace the social units that may be lost through that scheme, and how will social housing units in rural areas be replaced?

  1363
  There has been a lot of agreement around the Chamber tonight—I say "around the Chamber" because I think that far too often we talk about this side and that side. There was also agreement around the Chamber during the passage of the Housing Bill and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. It was agreed that there is unmet housing need, but there was disagreement about the level. One of the problems is that the Government are always on the lower end of everything, not the top end—although they do not always have to be at the top end. The Select Committee believes that the Government are hitting far too low.
  Mr. Thomason: The hon. Lady's assessment of the situation assumes that there will be no private sector investment in rented accommodation. Does she feel that there is no contribution to be made by the private sector?
  Mrs. Maddock: I did not realise that I was being incoherent. I have been talking at some length about the private rented sector and about how important it is. I believe that it should exist and that we should do things to enable people to get into it. As a party, in the past we have supported various tax benefits and schemes to enable people to rent properties out and to make renting much more of a business.
  Mr. Thomason rose—
  Mrs. Maddock: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I want to progress. I have said quite a lot about the private rented sector, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know more, I can recommend quite a lot of our documents to him and he can read them at his leisure. If he orders them and pays for them at Cowley street, they will be the genuine thing—they will have been passed by our members at our party conferences.
  There is agreement about better use of sites and better use of buildings, but there is not agreement about how much investment we should put into it. Over the years, Governments have encouraged local authorities and everyone else to use sites and to bring properties back, and they have set up wonderful schemes that go for only a year and are then changed. I would like to see some long-term thinking in this regard.
  Most hon. Members agree that we need to plan for demographic change, but the question is how much and for how long. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that he was disappointed that we were not looking ahead to 2011 and 2021 in relation to housing need. That is not easy to do, but we should be looking at it and making estimates. If we can encourage people to look that far ahead, they might focus on the short term as well.
  It is agreed that we need flexibility—people need to be able to move in and out of the private sector. However, there is not always agreement on how that should be done. We also need investment, and I am not sure where the Government stand on this. The Government always ask the Opposition where they are going to get investment from, but they do not say where their investment will come from.
  We need to use the money that is locked up in councils in capital receipts but, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, that will not solve all the problems. To get more money into housing, we need to recognise that
  1364
  putting capital into bricks and mortar is a good investment. If we continue to account in a way that means that, every year, we have to hit the public sector borrowing requirement, which does not separate capital and revenue, we shall be in this mess for ever. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, I know that other Labour Members recognise it, and I hope that we can convince other hon. Members of the need for it. Studies have shown that that will bring more money into housing—not just public money but private money. We all want to see that happen.
  There is disagreement about how we should deal with those matters, and about who should deal with them. I believe in local control. I recognise that the Government have put a lot of time and money into schemes that hon. Members have talked about tonight. In my role as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on housing, I try to get out and see what is happening in the country. I know that there are good regeneration schemes—there just are not enough. As we have heard, the schemes that are in place are good but so many other people need their homes to be improved.
  Local authorities are in the best position to know what they need in their area. I would like the Government to keep a less tight rein on who will get the money and enable local councils to invest in their areas. During the debate on the recent housing legislation, we spoke about the need to allow local authorities to get private money. If they know what the need is, and if there are regulations to ensure that that spending does not go through the roof, we shall get more sensible investment and some of the severe need will be met.
  A home is the key anchor for successful individuals and families, and that is why we cannot afford to keep missing the target when it comes to meeting housing need. There is evidence that Europe and Scandinavia—I have lived in Sweden—invest more than the United Kingdom. We have to invest more. Successful individuals and families mean successful businesses and communities, and that means a successful country.
  My greatest sorrow is that this year we had the opportunity to move forward on this when we debated the two housing Bills. I regret that, although there were some improvements in some areas, we have moved the goalposts—we did not create any more units to meet the need that we are discussing tonight. Until we can all come to an agreement about that, we shall come back here and carp about unmet housing need.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I am grateful to the Government for finding time for us to have this important debate on housing need. The Environment Select Committee's report on the subject was the result of a major inquiry into an important matter of social and environmental concern. It is good that we now have the opportunity for a wider debate on the Floor of the House. I welcome the chance to discuss the work of Select Committees in this way.
  The Environment Select Committee's report examined the way in which the Government assess future housing need and prepare themselves to meet the challenge of housing the nation within the framework of the planning system and their overall environmental objectives. I shall focus on meeting housing need and its impact on the

  1365
  countryside. Housing policy has to be seen very much within the wider environmental context. New housing development is responsible for a greater loss of countryside than any other single factor. Hon. Members would agree that new housing seems to upset constituents more than any other local environmental issue.
  Britain has undergone, and is still undergoing, profound social and demographic changes, which are bound to have a significant effect on housing in the future. Every reliable survey indicates that the population and the number of households are growing. There is bound to be a consequent need for new homes—particularly for affordable new homes. The Government have to assess the likely need for social housing in the future, and to ensure that their planning policies take account of that and of increased demand in the private sector for new homes.
  In the past, the Department of the Environment and local authorities have sought to make this sort of estimate, mainly on the basis of household projections. However, household projections are notoriously unreliable and difficult. Indeed, several of the Environment Select Committee's witnesses questioned whether household projections were the best basis on which to assess either the need for social housing at the national level or the requirements for additional housing land at the local level. They were right to question that—after all, household projections are not sensitive to local conditions or to the environmental implications of current planning policies. The use of household projections as a method of estimate fails to assess the nature rather than the numbers of housing need, especially the need for housing geared to specific needs. This is clearly a major problem at a time of such enormous demographic change, particularly with the growth of the elderly population.
  Housing projections have been, and are, used to define the scale of overall housing requirements. They dominate the preparation of regional planning guidance and development plans. However, they are not policy neutral: they are the major tool used by the building lobby to bludgeon the Government into releasing more land for development. We need to base our housing requirements and policies on a wider set of objectives than demographics and a highly contentious and unreliable system of projections.
  Therefore, I warmly welcome the Environment Committee's recommendation that the Government and local authorities should attach much more importance to local environmental concerns, and much less importance to statistical projections of household formation when deciding upon building levels. The importance of that recommendation cannot be underestimated.
  There is massive pressure for new housing development on green-field sites in the countryside, on the edges of towns and villages, and on every available strip of open land. That pressure is widely resented by people all over the country, whether they live in towns or in the countryside. They realise that, left unchecked, it would swamp rural England and destroy our countryside heritage.
  We have a magnificent rural heritage. Last summer, I walked across the north of England from Scarborough, up the coast to Whitby and down to Blackpool. I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish
  1366
  (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Environment Committee, is also a keen walker. Anyone who goes into the countryside and sees what a magnificent place England is—particularly the north—will realise what a great heritage we have to pass on to our children. That, more than anything else, is the jewel of our national heritage, and we must treasure it.
  However, every year we lose 11,000 hectares of countryside to urban development—most of which is new housing. A recent report in The Daily Telegraph claimed that unpublished Government research predicted that an area of rural land the size of greater London would be urbanised by 2016 at a rate of development one third higher than that experienced in the 1980s, during a peak period of private sector housebuilding. By 2016, there may be as many as 4 million new households in England if current demographic trends continue.
  We have not begun to pay enough attention to the consequences of simply building houses to meet those trends. Those consequences are horrifying. If current rates of development continue, 20 per cent. of England will be urban by 2050. That would be a terrible legacy for our children. It would be an environmental nightmare and a betrayal of the greatest treasure in our children's inheritance: England itself.
  That would also be utterly pointless, because, while demographic trends are bound to create a strain, there is no need to try to solve the problem by releasing more countryside for building. Much more can be done to meet housing needs from the existing stock of buildings. The vast bulk of future housing provision already exists, and new development adds only about 1 per cent. to existing stock each year. There is significant under-use of the existing housing stock. During the Committee's inquiry, I realised that little research has been done in that area. However, it is clear that almost 800,000 homes are currently empty.
  Therefore, a widespread programme of new housebuilding, coupled with the relaxation of planning controls, would clearly be an absolute disaster. We must respond to the challenge of meeting future housing needs in ways other than simply taking account of statistical projections. We must attach more importance to local environmental concerns, such as those expressed by the residents of Cleveleys on the edge of my constituency. They are objecting to the development of open farmland on College farm between Cleveleys and Fleetwood. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look carefully at that matter when he receives the residents' representations.
  We must encourage local authorities to prepare local planning strategies that are based on the capacity of their environment to accommodate new development, rather than simply imagining that the countryside is a renewable resource which can be squandered at will to meet the demands of the building industry. Against that background, it is clear that the Government will have to plan for a significant increase in the demand for social housing.
  The Environment Committee report is correct to highlight that aspect, and to stress the need to plan much more carefully for special housing needs. The members of the Committee were unanimous in the view that the Government must provide more social housing if we are to meet future needs.

  1367
  The Government have already done much to provide affordable homes for families on low incomes. They spent £5 billion on grants for social housing in 1994–95. That enables 300,000 families to find homes in the social rented sector each year, and has provided an extra 72,000 affordable homes on average in each of the past three years. That is an impressive record, upon which the Government must build. Much of the demand can be met through the better use of existing sites, and the Environment Committee recommended increasing the share of new development in towns and cities.
  I mentioned that about 800,000 homes are currently empty. Of those, 700,000 are in the private sector. The Government are committed to reducing the number of empty homes in England from 4 to 3 per cent. They have encouraged people to make use of empty homes and dwelling places through measures such as removing the need for planning permission when converting space above shops into housing; by encouraging the conversion of older offices into flats: by making it easier for, and more attractive to, people to become landlords; and by creating the conditions for a healthy housing market so that empty homes can be sold.
  The Government are also disposing of surplus accommodation among their empty stock. In 1994–95, nearly 4,000 homes were brought back into use or resold. They have gradually made it more attractive for landlords to let empty properties. Most importantly, the Government are trying to encourage the construction of houses on urban, as opposed to rural, sites. Last year's housing White Paper set a target that 50 per cent. of new houses should be built on land previously in urban use. I understand that that target is being met, but I do not think that it goes far enough.
  That was also the Environment Committee's view: we concluded that every effort must be made to increase the scale of re-use of brown-field sites that had been built on previously. The report says that the 50 per cent. target can be met and improved in the future. I hope that the Minister will take the recommendation particularly seriously, because that aim is realisable and will help to take pressure off the countryside.
  A wider question, which the Environment Committee has addressed in previous inquiries—particularly in its examination of out-of-town shopping—is the quality of life in our inner cities and towns. It is not enough to respond to the challenge by developing brown-field sites—and I am sure that the Government will not respond in that way. As a nation and as a Government, we must do a great deal more to improve the quality of life in the urban environments in our towns and cities.
  We cannot underestimate the challenge that faces us as we approach the 21st century. For many people, inner-city areas and towns are empty, desolate places of despair. Many towns in this country have been effectively abandoned. I believe that that is the great challenge facing the Government and the Department as we approach the 21st century.
  The Committee has travelled to other parts of the world, including other countries in the European Community, for previous inquiries. Members of the Committee have seen some imaginative responses to the challenges of urban planning, which have encouraged people back to town centres and made them attractive, pleasant places in which to live and work. Some towns in
  1368
  this country that have good, well-run local authorities have gone a long way to meeting that challenge; other towns are an absolute disgrace. As a nation, that must be our top priority. I know that the Minister is extremely concerned about that, and I hope that it is a matter to which the Environment Committee will turn its attention in future.
  8.9 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I want to place on record my appreciation of the Select Committee's important work on housing. The Department of the Environment has such a huge variety of work that it was good for the Select Committee to concentrate on an issue such as housing, which is so central to our constituency concerns. In particular, as has become apparent in the debate, the work of our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), was much appreciated by all concerned.
  When our inquiry began, it appeared to be dominated by statistics and the need to determine whether the Government's statistics or those of the former Government adviser, Alan Holmans, in his research for the Joseph Rowntree trust, whose figures suggested that the Government's were too low, were more applicable. However, as the inquiry progressed, it became obvious that figures of housing demand and need are really people—old and young, families and households—and figures of housing supply. are really homes—homes in good and bad condition, new homes, old homes and flats in different areas.
  Beyond those two statistics was another figure which perhaps we did not touch on enough, but which needs to be mentioned, and that is the number of people for whom the housing industry provides a livelihood in terms of jobs and training, including the professionals—architects, designers and surveyors.
  It becomes clear that, when a country finds the right balance between housing need in the form of people and housing supply in the form of homes, the result is—the most important factor of all—stable communities benefiting from independence and self-esteem. As people move through life, from youth, to having families, to old age, housing is probably the most important factor in their lives.
  Therefore, it is important that the Government should take seriously the Committee's core recommendation outlined in paragraphs 251 and 252 of its report. It says:
  "the Government's estimate of the need for social housing is below all the estimates produced by respected organisations and academics."
  Therefore, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that
  "it would only be prudent for the Government to assume that in determining policy, including the allocation of public expenditure over the next few years, it ought to provide for a figure at a higher point of its present estimated range".
  I want to touch on the various groups and practical issues which emerged from the Select Committee's approach. We need to ensure that, by housing need, we mean people. I welcome the element of the Government's response, which suggests that they will undertake further research into the demographic implications of the different groups of people that make up housing demand and need.

  1369
  The briefing for today's debate from the Anchor housing association states that, by the year 2011, an additional 300,000 people over the age of 80 will require housing. At present, pensioners comprise one third of all households, and the majority of those are in rented accommodation, so what older people will need in the next decade or two is fundamental to our consideration.
  I think of Mrs. Hulbert, whom I visited at the weekend on her 100th birthday, who looked no older than 81 or 82. She lives on her own in a small terraced house in my constituency, fairly independently. Such independence, with some support where needed, is a factor which should be at the top of all hon. Members' agendas.
  It also emerged from the evidence of some housing associations that, although people are living longer, the period during which they are severely disabled and so need adaptations is not necessarily getting longer. During the next 10 or 20 years, older people will increasingly want their independence of living. Moreover, current trends of increasing separation and divorce, which I deplore, will increase the need and demand among older people in society for independent living.
  Most Members of Parliament will have experienced distressing cases where a local authority has told an elderly couple in an inflexible way that the only dwelling to which they are entitled is a bed-sitter or a one-bedroomed bungalow. When first faced with such a situation, it is difficult to ascertain what the problem is. Then it emerges that they have not slept in the same room for many years. For such people to be told that they are entitled only to a one-bedroomed house because they are elderly, a pensioner or slightly disabled is not a satisfactory way in which to meet their needs.
  The same care is required when addressing the housing need's of younger people. I was disappointed at the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations for younger people. We saw some excellent examples of vulnerable younger people being given the opportunity of independence in rented accommodation, and the effect of that on their rehabilitation in society.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Lady will remember our visit to the young people's accommodation. However, did she not share my concern that the young people seemed to have little incentive eventually to leave that accommodation and stand on their own feet? The impression seemed to be conveyed to them that it was all right to stay there, playing the guitar, doing their painting or whatever they were doing, as long as they liked.
  Mrs. Jackson: I remember that the young person who spent a lot of time painting did not have another job, but he was, to all intents and purposes, working hard at achieving the most important thing that he wanted to do in his life, which he would not have been able to do without independent accommodation that he could feel was his and which gave him the space and opportunity to do it.
  Let us move on from individual cases to think about most younger people and the importance to them—certainly the younger people I have known from my family and friends—of their move into independent accommodation. The idea that any bar should be placed on opportunities for
  1370
  younger people to take the chance to move away from their parents and set up home independently is very retrogressive, so I am not happy about the Government's response, in which they seem to say that they do not accept that younger people—even young adults who share a home with friends or families and say that they would rather live in separate accommodation—can be considered to be in housing need.
  Moving on from younger people as they move through life, the other point raised by Alan Holmans, which the Government need to address seriously, is the trend for young people—particularly young professional people who feel that they might need to move away to follow their profession—to move into rented accommodation for a longer time rather than become owner-occupiers, and all the signs in the housing market at present are that that trend will continue. Owner-occupation is no longer seen as a financial investment for young couples, who would rather move into a house where they know that they have the flexibility to move in or out of the area when they want.
  That takes us further through life, to families. We cannot underestimate the effect that the trend of single families, single dwellers, people who have separated, will place on housing need and demand. It is quite unacceptable that people in unhappy situations together should, because of pressure of housing, find it impossible to get out and live separately.
  Adequate provision of housing to meet demand is a matter not just of housing policy but of social policy. It is a matter of supporting, at each stage in their lives, people who are vulnerable and who need that extra independence.
  Before I finish, I shall say a little about the other side of our inquiry—housing supply. Our report said many useful things about house design and the condition of housing, and those points were touched on by many Conservative Members. I enjoyed the speech of the hon.Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) about his recollections of the Kelvin housing estate in Sheffield, which has come and gone.
  Adequate design and condition are part and parcel of the provision of adequate housing. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Bill this Session, but I was a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Grants' Construction and Regeneration Bill, which made some interesting points about unfit housing—a matter that the Select Committee felt important—where renovation was required to bring the properties up to standard.
  The concern that Opposition Members feel about the long-term effect of changing mandatory grants to discretionary grants will return to haunt the housing industry. The change will not put a penny more into renovation and the adequacy of house condition, particularly in the private rented sector.
  Hon. Members who made points about void rates and vacant rates should remember that the void rate in the private sector is four times that in the public or housing association sector. If we really want to address the problem of using all the empty properties, we must address the issue of voids in the private sector.
  I appreciated the comments by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), because my constituency, being on the edge of Sheffield, covers land that is in high demand for housing and of extra-high demand for housing developers, who press at every opportunity to build there

  1371
  rather than on the areas in and around the city of Sheffield, where there are industrial complexes that are genuine brown-field sites, on which it would be most appropriate for houses to be built. But for housing development to take place on those sites, extra resources need to be provided, through the single regeneration budget, estate action and a combination of housing associations, housing corporations and local authorities.
  The Government should take steps to achieve a co-ordinated programme, not only to realise the 50 per cent. target for new housing on brown-field sites but to expand on that. However, it will require clear guidance to the planning authorities to ensure that planning guidance notes work in that direction as well.
  I end by quoting two points, one of which came from the House Builders Federation; the other came from the general secretary of the builders' union. It is interesting that they totally agree. The House Builders Federation told our Committee:
  "The main reason for today's housing shortage is that, during the 1980s, approximately 1 million too few houses were built in the social and private sectors to meet the needs of the growing numbers of households during the decade. In fact, contrary to popular myth, far fewer homes were built in that period than in any decade since the 1940s."
  The general secretary of the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians made the point recently:
  "Half a million building workers have lost their jobs since the recession"
  in house building.
  "Keeping these building workers idle will lose over £11 billion in potential national output."
  because it costs the Treasury
  "an average of £9,000 in benefits per unemployed person".
  Many years ago, when I was at the campaigning stage of my political career, I was involved in the development of a campaign for homes and jobs, which centred on the fact that building workers are needed to build homes and the fact that homes give people security and independence. Most people want both those needs to be dealt with, and they should be the goal of any proper housing policy. That would make a big difference to society.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The Select Committee's inquiry into housing need was one of the most interesting and, I hope, useful that it has undertaken since I became a member in 1994. I pay tribute to the work of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—not only in connection with the inquiry, but for the way in which he presides over our proceedings, with tact and humour, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
  We must, at the outset, draw a clear distinction between housing need and housing demand. The fact that a person may want a house—or a bigger house, or another house—does not mean that he is in need. In paragraph 203 of our report, we spoke of the danger of acceding to housing demand rather than housing need. We noted that, in its consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", the Department of the Environment had
  "voiced apprehension about: 'the impact on the environment of an apparently insatiable demand for additional housing; future generations may not thank us if we continue to devote scarce national resources to producing ever more dwellings'."
  1372
  Obviously, if a person has no home at all or is living in accommodation that lacks basic amenities, the community as a whole has a responsibility to do something about it; but is the fact that someone does not get on with his parents, or the fact that a husband does not get on with his wife, a reason for saying that the rest of the community must bear the burden of providing him with a home? When we can do that, we should, but if the cost is building on green-field sites, we are faced with a delicate balance. On the one hand, there is demand—perhaps strong demand—for a house; on the other hand, is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a beautiful meadow that the forces of nature and the activities of man may have taken a hundred years to develop? Is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a piece of woodland that provides a habitat for wildlife, to meet housing demand? We need only pose that question to realise that the answer must be no.
  Then we come to the "top-down versus bottom-up" argument, to which the Committee devoted considerable attention. Should we rely on national statistics, say, "Yes, these houses must be built," and then hand out to county councils and, through them, district councils the number of houses for which land must be provided? I think not. Paragraph 217 of our report says:
  "Some witnesses expressed concern about the 'top-down' nature of the way that housing need is presently assessed; using national projections as a base and then extrapolating local targets from them, they argued, involved playing a sort of 'numbers game' at the local level which did not necessarily reflect local needs and conditions."
  A few paragraphs later, we say:
  "Early in the inquiry the Committee attempted to obtain bottom-up estimates of housing requirements for each area in England, in order to compare the national total of such figures with national projections. We were told these figures were not available, that each set of local figures was arrived at in different ways. This proved to be the case."
  That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  As is explained in paragraph 222,
  "We eventually received figures from the Department showing the provision for housing made in each local plan and in regional plans. These suggested that local plans are heavily influenced by the 'top-down' approach, an impression which was confirmed by written evidence which stressed both the extent to which local plan requirements were the outcome of negotiation within the regional figures and the primary importance of the Department of the Environment's household projections in determining those regional figures."
  I suggest that the Government's national projections are much too important a factor in the planning process, and that the capacity of individual localities to bear the strain in terms of cost, land availability and the environment may not be accorded the importance that it deserves.
  In my county of Sussex, the environmental issue that concerns local people perhaps more than any other is the constant pressure on every little piece of open space for housing. In Rustington, in my constituency, a large tract of land has just become available because of the projected closure of the Horticultural Research Institute. The danger is that that site will be covered with houses. There may well be housing demand, but is it right for the site to be covered with houses when almost the entire coastal strip that comprises my constituency has, since the second world war, been built up to a point at which almost all the character of the small towns and villages that once existed has been destroyed? Fortunately, not all of it has

  1373
  been destroyed: in many parts of my constituency, it is still possible to catch a glimpse of what it was like before the builders arrived.
  In the years since 1945, we in Britain have put far too many of our national resources into bricks and mortar—money that should, perhaps, have been invested in productive industry. We have, I think, employed too many of our people in building when they could perhaps have been employed in other jobs that would have contributed more to the country's ability to pay its way in the world. Fortunately, because of the economic policies that the Government have pursued since 1979, our economy is in better shape than ever before. We are now forging ahead in comparison with the French and the Germans. But we had a legacy to deal with—a long legacy of neglect and misdirected investment, which began with the Labour Government of 1945.
  There are far too many empty houses. It may not be widely known that there are far more empty houses and flats than there are homeless families. I pay tribute to the work of the Empty Homes Agency, one of whose representatives we met during our inquiry. He took us to see empty Government, local authority and health authority housing. The amount of potentially usable housing that was simply lying empty—largely, from my recollection, because of the dead hand of bureaucracy—was scandalous. I am glad that the Government are now dealing with that—or, at least, that the Ministry of Defence is. I hope that other Departments will do the same, for, on this small, overcrowded island, we cannot afford to allow many houses to remain empty.
  Nor can we afford to leave houses that could be used to house families lying empty because there is no money to refurbish them. Under the old system, mandatory grants meant that money was sometimes given to people who could well afford to renovate the houses themselves. However, I wonder whether we have the balance right today. Is the otherwise admirable policy of subsidising the individual rather than the bricks and mortar achieving our objective of ensuring that dilapidated houses are refurbished in a timely manner? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can develop the Government's thinking on that.
  Many buildings in need of refurbishment are listed buildings. I have received many complaints that, in the discharge of their responsibilities, the listed building authorities have only one word in their vocabulary—no. Why cannot, for example, Victorian additions be removed and houses restored to how they were in the Georgian era or whenever they were built? Logically, that should be permitted, but all too often, perfectly sensible alteration or refurbishment to listed buildings is not permitted. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can examine whether those powers need to be exercised more flexibly.
  Brown-field sites have been mentioned several times—they are of immense importance. It is absurd, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, that green-field sites on the fringe of her constituency—many of which are beautiful, as the Committee saw when we visited the Peak district—should be built on when there is industrial dereliction in the centre of Sheffield that needs to be redeveloped. If permission were not granted for people to build on green-field sites on the fringe of Sheffield, they would have no alternative, if t0hey wanted
  1374
  to build in Sheffield at all, but to use brown-field sites. The planning system has a major role to play in promoting such development.
  In some areas, we must accept that housing need, as opposed to demand, is so great that new housing must be built. Is the right way to meet that demand to expand existing villages and market towns, or is it better to build new villages or towns in places close to motorway junctions or railways, where proper infrastructure is available? Before I came to this place, I was a county councillor for a rural division of Essex called Dunmow, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar from his days as a Member of the European Parliament.
  The question arose whether additional houses should be provided for people who were going to work at Stansted airport, that big white elephant in the middle of Essex. I argued that if the airport operators wished to employ vast numbers people to serve their businesses, they should bear the cost. They should bus the people from the relatively nearby communities where they already lived and not expect the people of rural Essex, and of the nation, to bear the environmental burden of covering more and more meadows and woodlands with houses. Even worse, the character of Dunmow, an ancient town of 5,000 people, would be completely destroyed by the addition of the 900 houses that were proposed.
  I managed to persuade my Conservative colleagues on the county council to reduce the number to 450, but an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Labour party reversed the decision and Dunmow was saddled with 900 houses. I fear that the unique character and charm of that small town in Essex, which took perhaps 1,000 years to develop, will be destroyed because we, the custodians of the planning system today, did not have the foresight to realise what we were doing.
  The situation is getting worse. I read in the newspaper only the other day that more houses will be required to feed this white elephant. Small villages such as Takeley and Little Dunmow will be smothered by this behemoth to provide housing. That is wrong. If the housing is needed, which I doubt, new towns and villages should be built. Ancient settlements that have taken hundreds of years to develop should not be sacrificed. They can never be replaced.
  It is a question not only of covering green fields with buildings, but of the quality of the buildings. We have only to visit any small or large settlement to see the depredations wrought by architects and town planners since 1950 or thereabouts. Some of the worst excrescences and eyesores have been built by local authorities and central Government—tax offices, hospitals and schools built with no imagination and with no thought about how they would fit into their environment.
  Sir Irvine Patrick: Marsham street.
  Mr. Stephen: That is a good example. When I was briefly personal assistant to the late Nicholas Ridley, he took me to a window in his Marsham street office and said, "This is the best view in London because from here, you cannot see Marsham street." I am glad that it is to be razed to the ground. The sooner the better.
  I entirely approve of the Government's policy of shifting the burden of providing public rented housing to housing associations, which have done a magnificent job.

  1375
  Since 1988, with money supplied by central Government, they have built 67,000 more houses. We constantly hear from the Labour party, and no doubt we shall hear it again when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) winds up, about capital receipts. The capital receipts from the sale of council housing can be spent by local authorities if they are debt-free. Even if they are not debt-free, 25 per cent. can be spent. The problem is that the local authorities that have the receipts are often not those that need the money to build more housing.
  As local authority spending amounts to about 25 per cent. of all public expenditure, no Chancellor of the Exchequer could ignore it in planning his inflation strategy. If local authorities were at liberty to release the receipts into the money supply, the Chancellor would not be able to keep control of inflation.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in a minute, because I am about to finish. There would, of course, be no capital receipts at all if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats had had their way.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) for having misled him by not having previously risen, but the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will be delayed for a little more than a minute.
  Yesterday morning, I was on the unfinished ramparts of James Stirling's great building at No. 1, Poultry, with Lord Palumbo, its owner, and a bagpiper and drums. A tattered Union Jack was flying from a nearby building. There was a strong echo of the siege of Lucknow. Earlier there was a reference to this part of the parliamentary week being a black hole. I realise that that meant an astronomical black hole, not a historical one. I have not felt during this debate that I was in a black hole of any sort.
  I shall try to make the shortest speech of the debate. I declare what 1 might call a non-interest as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, a role which in fact precludes me from playing any parliamentary part on its behalf. I am not a member of the Select Committee, which is why I waited until all my hon. Friends who serve on it had been able to speak. I am not remotely an expert on the subject. I compliment the Select Committee arid its Chairman on its report, which is so clear that one was able to understand it, even during the debate. It was certainly a stimulus to revisiting the evidence during the recess.
  In the same spirit, I compliment the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on his masterly and even-handed introduction to this evening's debate, which made it easier for someone like me.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said that too much was said about the two different sides of the Chamber. In a mischievous spirit, I say to her that her party has always adopted the policy of running with the hare and apologising to the hounds when they caught up, so both sides of the Chamber would feature in every speech made by a Liberal Democrat.
  1376
  Our former colleague Sir Carol Mather, the hon. Member for Esher, who once commanded a battalion of the Welsh Guards, found himself in Moscow, sitting next to a senior officer in the Russian armed forces who asked him his view of the cold war at a time when it was very cold. Carol Mather gave a totally predictable reply and the colonel said, "Colonel Mather, you are making a constituency speech." Carol acknowledged that that was an extremely good analysis of the speech that he had made.
  Like the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), I shall draw on constituency experience during my remarks, which will inevitably be discursive. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) said that city centres were cold and desolate. I regard it as a given that we would seek to see residents within them. The homeless necessarily play a role in my constituency—that is a characteristic of inner-city seats.
  I wish to dwell for a moment on the relationship between the homeless and residents. When Sir Freddie Laker erected his tented city in Pimlico a little after I became the Member of Parliament for that area, I was asked at the Civil Aviation Authority inquiry whether I was in favour of it moving somewhere else. I said that that was the last thing that I wanted it to do because that would simply transfer the problem to another part of London and another set of residents. There is a genuine problem involved in providing supportive institutional facilities in residential locations. I realise the need to put such facilities near the problems that they seek to solve because one can only ask people to attend them voluntarily and there is no power of coercion. But there is no question but that such facilities impinge on the residential areas around them. We must find new vehicles and devices of education and consultation so that we can carry residents with us on homeless matters, just as we have to on heritage issues.
  I shall reiterate briefly the point that I made about day centres, and the need to ensure that they are comprehensive, during the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill, of which a number of us are veterans. I salute the foyer idea for the young homeless, but I am conscious that the last 10 per cent. of capital funding is proving difficult to find in foyer after foyer. If the money is not found, the foyers will carry severe capital costs thereafter. As many people write to Members of Parliament expressing concern about the homeless, I make an incidental appeal: one way that the general public can provide help is to ensure that foyers receive that last element.
  I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to defer conclusions on changes to housing benefit regulations as they refer to service charges because of the social considerations that apply, however homelessness is defined.
  Paragraph 265 of the Select Committee's report refers to housing stock in central London. My constituency has lost 1,000 electors a year every year for, I think, the past 46. That is not just the spirit of Abercrombie—it is not slum clearance. The reason for that loss involves indigenous people moving out, company flats, foreigners and, now, absentee owners, who purchase flats as investments for partial residence during the year because London is recognised as having political security.

  1377
  I am all in favour of the open society and I would not seek to prevent absentee owners acquiring those properties, but there is a risk that the city will lose its heart in the process. There is a further problem of leaseholders' enfranchisement and the risk of slowing it down. If the absentee owners are not present, they cannot be approached in order to be part of the qualified majority necessary to secure the freehold. That is ironic because they do not, on the whole, understand the leasehold principle; they are more interested in acquiring the property than in reading the small print of their contract—but they would like to avail themselves of the freehold if they could.
  Holiday lets represent another form of housing that is taken out of normal occupation. They represent a separate irony as they are flats that are in continuous occupation by foreigners—often owned by foreign investors. They are not empty—they contribute to the city's liveliness—but tend to be vastly overcrowded, with adverse consequences for their permanent neighbours. There is a need for local authorities to have resources necessary to monitor them. There is no question but that there is tourism pressure on the centre and, as we were saying in the seminar on London's future at the Guild hall last Friday, the more we can encourage development outside the inner core of the city, the better.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Health and after he had answered 50 Adjournment debates on hospital closures, wrote a spoof parody of an Adjournment speech by a Minister on hospital closures, which included the memorable phrase in characteristic dress:
  "I now turn to the police raid on the nurses' home."
  I now turn to paragraph 272 of the Select Committee's report, which relates to developments in Birmingham and bringing commercial property back into residential use.
  I have had a personal interest in the matter since the late 1950s; it was initially derived from the inner-city area in Philadelphia. Ed Bacon, the father of Kevin Bacon the film actor, was the chief planning officer of Philadelphia and the author of a very good book called, "Design In Cities"—he was a rare example of his profession in that he featured on the front cover of Time magazine. He and the late Oskar Stonorov, an equally rare example of an architect who was admired by both architects and planners, were very much involved in the revival and renewal of downtown Philadelphia.
  I am delighted by the Birmingham experience, to which the Select Committee referred. I am also delighted at the prediction that 40,000 potential homes in central London will come back into use out of office accommodation, of which at least half are thought to be in my constituency.
  Paragraph 271 relates to living over the shop. That subject has also been one of my interests for a considerable time, although it arose later. My interest in the subject initially arose in Bath during the 1970s, where the issue posed an acute problem. Almost as soon as I became a Member of Parliament in my present constituency, a constituent in Soho, who is still my constituent, interested me in the subject. I remember giving lunch to him and Sir Hugh Rossi, who was the shadow spokesman for the position of my right hon.
  1378
  Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration—what a pleasure it is to call him my right hon. Friend—in the far-off days when the Conservative party was in opposition. The development has had a long germination, but I am pleased by its progress.
  Finally, on a personal and idiosyncratic footnote, I refer to paragraphs 254 and 256, which relate to the standards and quality in buildings. I am chairman of the Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation—COTAC—and I declare my interest. I run the slight risk of being ruled out of order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though, before you took the Chair, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish brought Stonehenge into the debate. I am not sure whether he remembers the very good spoof by Frank Muir of the Architects Journal interviewing a caveman on what he thought about the development of henges as an addition to the housing stock. The caveman thought that they would be draughty and was doubtful whether they would catch on.
  COTAC is preoccupied with heritage craftsmen and their supply. I make no apology for raising that, as the majority of listed buildings are private houses. A rough and ready calculation is that half the construction industry takes the form of the refurbishment of buildings rather than new build. About 5 per cent. of that is heritage work, but it concerns more than the 2.5 per cent. of the labour force that straight arithmetic suggests, because the activity is labour-intensive, and, therefore, in COTAC's view thoroughly worth encouraging. There is a problem with apprenticeships. Since the move of builders and contractors into management, because they no longer employ apprentices, and because subcontractors are often too small to do so, it is tricky to make certain that the supply is sustained.
  I shall have stayed within the limits of brevity if I make one final plea. It concerns the mild potential conflict between conservation officers and surveyors who are employed by people who are thinking of buying houses. Conservation officers are perfectly properly very preoccupied with ensuring that listed buildings should be repaired in a manner that is totally in line with conservation. It is irritating for the owner thereafter to hear the surveyor for the person who is thinking of buying the house say that the work has been done in a manner that is not wholly satisfactory, when, in fact, the owner of the house had no choice but to do it in the way in which the conservation officer required.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I declare an interest. I act as a consultant to HACAS Ltd., the social housing consultancy.
  It is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider the important issue of housing need. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spelled out lucidly and very well the main concerns that were identified by the Select Committee, which he chairs, in its report on housing need that was published earlier in the year. Several hon. Members have contributed very useful insights, largely drawn from a range of differing constituency experiences. It is a comment on the natural ingenuity of hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South

  1379
  (Mr. Brooke), that those constituency interests have managed to embrace Russian generals, Philadelphia planners, cavemen and Stonehenge. It is remarkable what can be brought into constituency interests.
  I was intrigued by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), both of whom spoke about the much-hated Kelvin flats. I had the pleasure of being in Sheffield a year or so ago when they were in the process of being demolished. I can testify that the community shared that pleasure at the disappearance of an utterly loathed blot on the Sheffield landscape—a monument to the kind of housing that we should never allow to be built again.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) raised the issue of capital receipts. Since I was unable to intervene, he may like to think about this question: if it is financially irresponsible for a Chancellor to allow the release of capital receipts, why did he support his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in releasing 100 per cent. of capital receipts between November 1992 and March 1994? Indeed, during that period, the Government allowed local authorities to use 100 per cent. of their capital receipts for housing investment.
  Mr. Stephen: The answer is that the limited release of capital receipts was consistent with the Government's economic strategy at the time.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He will know that that release of capital receipts encouraged recovery in the housing market and achieved a level of output of social housing that was within the range that most experts believe is necessary to meet housing needs. Since the Government reversed that policy in April 1994, the housing market has once again been in extreme difficulties and social housing output has fallen to levels far below every reasonable estimate of need—a point to which we shall return. l am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, all members of the Select Committee and their advisers on an excellent report. It makes an important and significant contribution to our understanding of the many complex issues involved in assessing the demand for housing and the scale of housing need.
  Few people can feel comfortable about the state of housing in England today. Our country's performance in responding to the many housing problems that we face has in recent years been woefully inadequate. To summarise: we face an acute problem of homelessness. Local authorities in England last year accepted 120,000 households as homeless, but that includes only those officially recorded. It is a sobering comment on the official statistics that the vast majority of people who sleep rough, huddling in doorways under blankets or in cardboard boxes, never feature in the official statistics because they have not approached the local authority and have therefore not been recorded.
  With repossessions continuing at a rate of 1,000 per week, the problem of homelessness is clearly impacting on the owner-occupier market as much as anywhere. That contributes to the continuing problem of insecurity that overhangs the market.
  1380
  Although there have been some encouraging signs of recovery in the first six months of 1996, the market remains in a fragile state. Recovery is patchy, and is certainly not feeding through into any substantial nationwide increase in housing starts. The figures for the three months ending May 1996 show new starts 9 per cent. down on the equivalent period last year. While the output of new homes for sale is down, the comparable figures for new output of rented homes for those in social need is nothing short of catastrophic.
  Councils have to all intents and purposes ceased to be able to build homes, and housing association output, down by 22 per cent. over the first four months of this year, shows the drastic impact of two successive steep cuts in the Housing Corporation's budget. Consequently, over the past five years the annual output of new social housing has fallen to the lowest level since the end of the second world war.
  At the same time, 1.5 million homes in England are still unfit for human habitation, with many others sub-standard in one way or another, with many desperately hard to keep warm in winter. The problems are found in all tenures. While there are especially acute concentrations of properties in poor condition in the local authority and privately rented sectors, the largest number of sub-standard homes are owner-occupied. That fact was brought out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) when he spoke of the many owner-occupied properties in poor condition in his constituency.
  That necessarily quick snapshot of housing conditions in Britain in 1996 is shocking enough, but even more shocking is the inadequacy of current Government programmes designed to tackle the problem. By international comparison, our performance is nothing short of disgraceful. We lag right at the bottom of the list of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmemt countries in terms of housing investment. We spend only about 3 per cent. of our GDP on housing, whereas comparable European countries of a similar size, such as Germany, France and Italy, are spending between 5 and 6 per cent. of their GDP on housing investment.
  Perhaps it is asking too much to expect the Government to admit those failings openly and publicly, but at least we have the right to expect a realistic and informed appraisal of the extent of unmet housing needs.
  Mr. Thomason: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is telling us that his party's policy is to release the capital receipts held by local government to address all those alleged ills? If so, can he confirm that it is also his party's policy at least to maintain the level of housing investment at its current level, so he is thereby making a substantial spending pledge? Does he have the agreement of his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet in that pledge?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, who must have been asleep for much of the past four years, that the Labour party has made a clear commitment and pledge to release on a phased basis the capital receipts estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing at £5 billion—money that is currently unavailable for investment because of foolish Government restrictions. That commitment is shared by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and it will enable an incoming Labour

  1381
  Government significantly to increase the output of housing for social need, of which there is a chronic shortage, as the hon. Gentleman will know full well from his involvement with the Select Committee's work.
  Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will make some progress first. But I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  It will come as a considerable surprise to those unfamiliar with the Government's neglect of housing to learn that between 1977, when the Labour Government published their comprehensive housing policy review, and 1995, there was no official published estimate of the scale of housing need in this country.
  I always believe that it is right to give credit where credit is due, and the Minister now responsible for housing, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, should be congratulated because, unlike any of his Conservative predecessors, he has at least allowed departmental estimates of housing need to be brought into the public domain. That may have required a certain amount of pressure; it may have required repeated parliamentary questions to prompt that outcome. Nevertheless the figures were published, and we welcome that fact.
  I wish that I could be as positive about the figures themselves, but they are far from adequate in most respects. Indeed, they revealed a process almost diametrically opposite to that which should inform policy making. Instead of starting with an impartial, objective appraisal of the full range of needs as a basis of reaching decisions on the necessary scale and type of investment, clearly the Government's objective has been to legitimise the current inadequate levels of investment by tailoring the figures to meet the anticipated level of new construction.
  The Select Committee effectively demolished that charade. Its carefully considered and cogently argued report draws on evidence from leading experts to demonstrate conclusively that the Government's estimates are out of line with those of all other recognised authorities. Nor can the Government question the credentials of those authorities as foremost among them was Alan Holmans, research fellow at Cambridge university and until recently chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. Holmans' evidence, which clearly impressed the Select Committee, demonstrates a need for new housing provision for social needs of around 117,000 homes a year over the 20-year period to 2011 if we are to provide adequately for the backlog of unmet needs, as well as the needs that will arise through normal demographic and social changes over the same period. That contrasts with a Department of the Environment estimate of a need of between 60,000 and 100,000 new lettings a year over the decade to 2001.
  To add insult to injury, Government policy is predicated on a requirement to meet only the bottom end of that range—60,000 new lettings per year.
  I regret to say that the Government's response to the Select Committee report published in May this year is simply inadequate. Its failure to address fundamental issues and its repeated use of feeble excuses for not
  1382
  responding to the Select Committee's recommendations have rightly prompted disappointment and derision throughout the housing world. Its weakness is revealed as early as paragraph 5, where it becomes crystal clear that—as with the estimates of housing need published a year earlier—the Government are interested not in an objective and truthful picture of the expected scale of need, but rather in a cosmetic exercise designed to legitimise current levels of investment.
  Paragraph 5 states:
  "The Government in deciding how much social housing to provide has to consider not just estimates of need for social housing, but also the appropriate balance between public and private provision for housing and the impact that a higher or lower level of provision may have on private supply of housing. Higher levels of provision of social housing could crowd out the reviving private rented sector and suppress growth in home ownership. The Government's aim therefore remains as stated in the Housing White Paper to provide additional social lettings in line with the lower end of the Government's range of estimates. Overall, there are choices to be made about how public money is spent, and estimates of need for social housing have to be balanced against competing demands for resources."
  Let us analyse the three lines of defence offered by the Government. First, a value judgment about an appropriate balance between public and private sector provision is given greater importance than estimates of the need for social housing. That is little more than an admission that the Government's ideological prejudices are being allowed to override objective assessments of need.
  Secondly, the Government advance the claim that increased provision of social housing could crowd out private lettings and suppress the growth in home ownership, with no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. Interestingly, elsewhere in the Government's response it is suggested that a revival in private renting might "compensate" for a decline in the growth of owner-occupation, but no fears are expressed that the process of reviving private renting might crowd out or suppress owner-occupation. The contrast between the language in those two passages is another telling illustration of the Government's outdated ideological fixation with the promotion of the private sector at the expense of the public sector.
  The Government's third admission is that the amount of public money available will determine how much social housing can be provided—so much for the pretence that decisions on housing investment are being informed by estimates of need. It is the other way round. The acceptance of need is being informed by the available finance.
  Mr. Stephen: Has the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), given the hon. Gentleman a blank cheque? If so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have made it clear that the Labour party is committed to a phased release of capital receipts, and we have repeated that commitment many times. It is not a blank cheque—it is a significant investment that will help

  1383
  to get the unemployed back to work, building homes to meet our housing need. It will also ensure that we tackle some of the country's economic needs.
  Mr. Elletson: Has the hon. Gentleman not admitted in the past that this scheme is not a no-cost option? What will that cost be, and what impact will the scheme have on council taxes?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will tell the hon. Gentleman full well what the benefits will be: more homes for people in need, and more people back in work. The costs will be determined by the Labour Government when they are elected and when they decide on the phasing of the release of those receipts. I can assure him that the total sum of capital receipts is estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing to be £5 billion. We shall allow that money to be released on a phased basis, and the decision will be taken when we are in government.
  Even the Government's inadequate estimate of the requirement of 60,000 new lettings a year may prove to be more than the Government, in their dying days, are capable of providing. As the report highlights in paragraphs 98 and 99, public expenditure on new social housing has been steadily reducing in recent years. The DOE's submission to the Committee showed the impact of this in a declining level of new lettings from 70,000 in 1995–96 to 58,000 in 1996–97 and 55,000 in 1997–98. That was based largely on the expected output from the Housing Corporation's programme agreed in February.
  If, as is rumoured, the Housing Corporation budget—which has been cut savagely in each of the past two years—is raided once again by a Chancellor desperate to cut public expenditure to make room for pre-election tax cuts, it is difficult to see how even the woefully inadequate target of 60,000 can be achieved. I invite the Minister to come clean to the House when he responds. I understand that he attended the Cabinet this morning, so he should be in a good position to tell us what is in store. Will the Housing Corporation budget be maintained or cut next year? If it is to be cut, how will the minimum projected level of output be achieved?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is flattering me—the Secretary of State attended the Cabinet, not I.
  Mr. Raynsford: I stand corrected. I understood that the Secretary of State was absent and the right hon. Gentleman attended in his place. However, I shall still look forward to an illuminating response to the question, as I presume that he has communicated with the Secretary of State on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting.
  Reading through the Government's response to the report, it is blindingly obvious that the figures have been bent to meet the Government's preconceptions as to the scale of programme that they can afford. No allowance has been made of any possible trend that could point in a different direction. Let us briefly look at some of the statistics. First, I wish to refer to the extent of the backlog of unmet housing need. According to Alan Holmans, the backlog may be as high as 480,000: 110,000 concealed households, 140,000 sharing households, 50,000 would-be couples, 55,000 owner-occupiers seeking a move to social housing for reasons of health or age, 25,000 home owners seeking social housing because they cannot pay their mortgages, and 100,000 single people either homeless or living in hostels.
  1384
  The Government's response is derisory, and does not even address the issue. Instead, it tries to redefine the need in different and highly restrictive terms, referring to rough sleepers and households in bed and breakfasts as though these were the only categories in housing need. The DOE official who gave evidence with the Minister to the Committee referred to the
  "very few hundreds of rough sleepers plus a small number of people in bed and breakfast."
  When challenged about those living in totally inadequate accommodation, he made the curious assertion:
  "I think it is more difficult to say that you should use those as an addition to the total number of houses you required because obviously one way of achieving improvement is to improve those houses."
  That begs a number of questions. For example, what will be done to increase the rate at which those sub-standard homes are improved? As the Minister knows, the Government are dismantling the mandatory home renovation grant system and have consistently refused to countenance a comprehensive mandatory national licensing system for multi-occupied houses.
  Even if the Government were energetically pursuing the problems of properties in a poor condition, the Minister must recognise that it is total nonsense to pretend that not one of the hundreds of thousands of people living in such conditions will need to be rehoused in social housing. If the Minister does pretend that that is the case, he should explain to the House why the first category listed in the clause of the Housing Bill that defines the groups of people who should be given priority in the allocation of social housing is
  "people occupying insanitary or over-crowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions".
  Does the Minister intend to amend the Housing Bill when it comes back to the House on Monday on the ground that everybody living in such conditions should be assisted by the renovation of their homes rather than the allocation of social housing? That is the implication of his official's response to the reasonable questions of the members of the Select Committee.
  The Government's position on the backlog of unmet housing needs is untenable, but their stance on the scope for increased owner-occupation is equally suspect. I shall not go into the complex methodology of the "net stock" approach to estimating housing needs, but it is based on assumptions about the numbers likely to resolve their housing needs through other options.
  The extent of owner-occupation is critical to those assumptions. The Government's response can only be described as that of an ostrich—they are sticking their head firmly in the sand to avoid seeing the unpleasant evidence from the surrounding world. The experience of negative equity, repossessions, recession and anxiety and insecurity in the market are not features that the Government wish to countenance, so they simply assert that owner-occupation will grow from 68 per cent. to 71 per cent. by 2001. As the Select Committee recognised—and all the evidence from people in the know reinforced the message—the growth of owner-occupation has slowed dramatically because of the impact of the recession, which was caused by the Government's economic mismanagement. As a result, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which probably has the greatest expertise on that subject, believes that the likelihood of

  1385
  the 71 per cent. figure being reached by 2001 is remote. The prospects for continued growth in home ownership are less favourable than in previous decades, but the Government are blithely ignoring that evidence. The truth is that the Government's estimate of the growth in owner-occupation is unlikely to cover needs. Apart from that, the assumptions on owner-occupation—and, therefore, the Government's ability to reduce the need for social housing in the next few years through owner-occupation—are out of line with all informed opinion in the housing world. I doubt whether the Minister would be willing to wager his shirt on a 71 per cent. level of home ownership by the year 2001. If he is, I will gladly take the bet.
  Government estimates of the scale of housing need are hopelessly inadequate and their estimates of the scale of housing demand are equally at odds with reality, but in a different way. Government estimates of housing demand, published last year, project that an additional 4.4 million households will require housing in the 25 years from 1991 to 2016. The accuracy of those figures may be debatable, but the broad consensus of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee was that the forecasts were sound and that, in the past, such forecasts have generally tended to underestimate rather than overestimate the level of demand. Projections imply a need for some 4.4 million extra homes between 1991 and 2016. We are already one fifth of the way to 2016 and if the trends of the past five years are continued, we will fall dramatically short of the necessary level of housing provision. In the past five years, we have started just over 700,000 homes in total—including public, private, and housing association provision. At that rate, we shall be short of the necessary figure of 4.4 million homes by 2016 by some 800,000. Quite simply, that will be a recipe for increased homelessness, overcrowding and housing deprivation, as well as posing a risk of house price inflation if effective demand is allowed to run too far ahead of supply.
  The Minister may suggest that the market will respond quickly to any such imbalance; but the housing market does not tend to respond quickly to overcome such imbalances, and it often cannot because of planning restrictions. The housing market has proved highly volatile in the past, with wild fluctuations and extreme boom-bust cycles. Millions of home owners rue the impact of the last major boom-bust cycle in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  The price of the Government's mismanagement of the economy and the housing market, stoking up an unsustainable boom in the 1980s and then turning their back on the victims when the market collapsed in the 1990s, is the very large number of people who have endured the anguish of repossession and the misery of negative equity.
  We must learn the lessons of the past and ensure that the housing market is helped to grow at a modest but sustainable rate, and we must avoid any return to unsustainable boom-bust cycles. That is why the Government should now be extremely worried that housing output has been allowed to fall seriously behind the levels necessary to meet the demand anticipated for the next two decades. If that is not corrected soon, we may well find ourselves heading for another inflationary
  1386
  boom, and that would do no good to the housing market or the millions of households who would end up suffering as a result.
  The policies pursued by the present Government in the past 17 years have involved a betrayal of their responsibilities to house the nation. They have betrayed every section of the community. They have betrayed home owners. They have betrayed leaseholders, whom they promised to help and then sold out to the interests of the big landowners who bankroll the Tory party. They have betrayed tenants, whether private, council—
  Sir Irvine Patnick indicated dissent.
  Mr. Raynsford: Oh yes they do. We saw what happened to the 1993 leasehold reform measure. We saw that, and we saw the betrayal of leaseholders by the removal of the right to manage from the Housing Bill earlier this summer.
  The Government have betrayed tenants, whether private, council or housing association, by forcing up rents, cutting investment, reducing tenancy rights and plunging an increasing number into benefit dependency and poverty traps.
  The Government have betrayed the homeless, using the Housing Bill to remove the statutory safety net that has been there for 17 years, and which every informed organisation concerned with the homeless—every church, every housing association, every voluntary body involved with the homeless—says is a necessary and correct way to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and provides proper cover and help.
  The Government's housing record is a disgrace, which will come back to haunt them as we approach the general election. Of the many reasons for which the Government will deserve to lose that election, their failure to meet the housing needs of our nation will be among the most powerful and persuasive. Their lamentable and inadequate response to the Select Committee report will provide a revealing and telling epitaph to a dying and discredited Government.
  9.27 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): There is a difference between a Government or Opposition day, in which we engage in the normal polemics of this place, and the opportunity for a more reflective and discursive approach that a Select Committee report provides. I plan to choose the less exciting of those approaches, but it may be more appropriate.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) may have forgotten that the Housing Bill has almost completed its passage through Parliament—although we join for what may be our last passage of arms in that matter on Monday—because he made his familiar speech again. I could have written the peroration myself. I have heard it so often that I have come to know it almost by heart, but it deserved a slightly wider audience—of three rather than two.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) chairs the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence. I also had the pleasure of his company on the Housing Bill Standing Committee. After the first

  1387
  sitting, he complained that too many documents and too much paper were being thrown at him. It reminds me—my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) will recall this—of George III's response to Edward Gibbon's latest production: "Another damn volume, Mr. Gibbon."
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish remarked on the structure of the Select Committee, but that is not for me to respond to. He intelligently summarised the issues raised by the Select Committee report and, broadly speaking, I intend to follow the structure of his remarks in responding to the points that have been made. He talked about the human circumstances of housing and homelessness, 1 he economic cost of housing in individual and national terms, and the crucial issue of planning.
  I understand the instincts of people who wish to protect the open countryside, the green areas between built-up zones, the woodlands and our traditional rural landscape. I should strike a small note of caution, however, because someone with a house overlooking the countryside may have a slightly different sense of priorities from someone whose aspirations for a home have not yet been met. One of our central dilemmas in dealing with housing is that building houses is not popular and meets enormous resistance.
  It is easy for the housing lobbies and those of us in housing politics to say where we think people should live and where it is convenient for them to live—it may not be where we happen to live ourselves—and to forget the tremendous resistance to construction. Whenever plans are submitted, or housing allocations in the home counties or further afield are published, there is resistance because people genuinely feel that there is a cost to be paid in terms of land being taken. The answer must be to build on the so-called brown-field sites, but to say that every element of housing need can be satisfied in that way is not only extremely prescriptive but puts more housing on those sites than they can sustain.
  We all agree that it is difficult to come up with a formula for the estimates that is not within a wide bracket because they are based on so many uncertainties and permutations. Tonight, we have discussed two sets of estimates: first, the household projection estimates and, secondly, the estimates of need. The household projection estimates are that there will be 4.4 million new households by 2016. The hon. Member for Greenwich was right to say that, historically, we have tended to underestimate rather than overestimate housing needs. They result from many factors: population growth, which is one of the major factors; changing age structures; changes in behaviour; and the number of single-person households, which is growing in every age group. That category includes not just single or unmarried mothers, but single people throughout the age range.
  The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) mentioned the problem of elderly people. Obviously, a better use of our towns and cities must be a priority. We have set a target of ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new build is on sites that have 'been used before. We have now attained 49 per cent., whereas in the 1980s we managed less than 40 per cent. We must constantly see how we can improve that percentage because, in some areas, building is part of regenerating arid enhancing our cities. It is part of improving the environment, not what is regarded as a
  1388
  constant erosion of it. It may not be a panacea, but we must look in that direction for a significant part of our new build.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is right to say that we should make better use of our existing stock. There are 800,000 empty properties in England, 700,000 of which are in the private sector. That is why we are doing our best to encourage the use of those properties. Housing associations have an important role to play in buying and restoring derelict buildings.
  No one can come up with precise figures on the calculation of housing demand—many extrapolations are built into the formulas—but I agree that we must keep the figures under review and develop our methods of assessing need. We are looking ahead, and we have asked the department of applied economics at Cambridge to develop an economic model that will enable us to establish the possible future need for social housing under a range of different scenarios. I do not think that there will be a definitive answer to the question.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised some important issues about the unfortunate people who do not have homes. He made an important point about the difficulty of coexistence between homeless people and residents. For example, we have to seek planning permission for our winter shelters. In addition, people have difficulty finding a conventional shelter.
  People also look for wet shelters, for detoxification units and for shelters where people with mental health problems can go, which are more difficult to find. Hon. Members must have experienced resistance in their constituencies when approval has been sought to provide an establishment for people who have behavioural problems. No matter what reassurances are given, people usually think that there is a good reason to place the shelter somewhere else.
  A homeless person in a hostel is better than a homeless person in the street—for the person concerned and for the residents. There is too much facile discussion about homelessness and too many assumptions that if a homeless person is plonked in a home they will be all right—they may have been homeless for many years, and they may have a multiplicity of disadvantages.
  A month or so ago, I visited a Salvation Army shelter in Whitechapel, and talked to a young person in his accommodation. He said that it is terrifying to be given a key, because that is responsibility. He said, "I have to take control of my own life now." He admitted that that was a difficult thing for him to do and that occasionally he was tempted to walk out of the shelter and back on to the street. The framework of care is crucial in helping people who have these difficulties.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am interested in what the Minister is saying about the element of care. I hope that he will say these things during the review on benefits as fervently as he is saying them here. I have made representations to the Minister on this issue. Many people are concerned that the packages will not add up if we do not have that care element in benefit.
  Mr. Curry: I understand the hon. Lady's concern in this regard. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South talked about the foyer

  1389
  projects. I understand their importance, but they are not a panacea. There is a temptation to look for something that is the answer to all the problems of homelessness, but it ought to be resisted.
  Today, I opened a different sort of project, called off the street and into work, which attempts to place homeless people in skilled employment. They will not be employed because they are homeless; they will be employed because they have the skills. The fact that they are homeless will be irrelevant. If they have a job, they will be able to acquire a home—which is important when they try to get a job—and they will be able to have a more "conventional" and self-sustaining life style. The scheme has a wide range of business support as well as London local authority support. Voluntary organisations are familiar with the rough sleepers initiative. It is a market-oriented way of helping homeless people. I was privileged to open the initiative this morning and to see how effective it is.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is correct: the record of local authorities in turning over property for collecting rents is improving. Some authorities have a long way to go, but the overall record is improving, which is good.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the problem of houses in the wrong places. He said that we should take the jobs to the people rather than force the people to migrate to find jobs. I believe that both circumstances will always prevail. I offer the example of the efforts of development corporations, the jobs that Nissan has created in the north-east of England, and the jobs that have followed the Korean investment and the Siemens relocation.
  We have tried to create new opportunities to allow people to remain in their areas because we know that they are attached to the concept of locality and neighbourhood, but we want people to migrate elsewhere if that is how they seek to improve themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to the wrong type of house. That is an important issue: needs change. We must deal with the problem of under-occupation, as it is known in the jargon. More than half a million local authority and housing association tenants have two or more spare bedrooms. We do not propose to say, "We must decant you because we need the space for someone else." People may want to be able to have family members to stay or, what is more, they may have been brought up in those properties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) referred, in a fascinating historical account, to that crucial sense of belonging and identity. Over the years, we have learnt from programmes such as slum clearance—which, as far as I was concerned, was first highlighted in the book "The Life and Death of a Great American City"—the effect of uprooting people from their neighbourhoods and the resulting social problems. We aim for a better match, but that policy is necessarily inefficient in economic terms. We cannot avoid that: we put up with the inefficiency because the social considerations are more important.
  Hon. Members returned time and again to the notion of community and regeneration. That is at the heart of housing policy. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to difficult housing estates. My hon. Friend the
  1390
  Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned that problem, as did many others. We have moved away from a pure renovation estate action type of programme—however impressive that appears—to a more integrated approach. The evidence from around Europe—not just in the United Kingdom—points to the fact that, if crucial elements are missing, there is a danger of decline. A spanking new estate may be completed and still look good five years later, but 10 years down the road it may face all the old problems because we failed to tackle the social difficulties within the estate framework.
  Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of life on many council housing estates has been transformed by the right-to-manage scheme, whereby the Government have transferred the management of estates to their tenants? Will he examine closely the actions of the Labour-controlled Blackpool council, which has deliberately sought to frustrate the wishes of the tenants of the Queen's Park estate in my constituency? They want to exercise the right to manage and they have been trained to do so by Department of the Environment schemes, but they have been confronted by the underhand tactics of Blackpool council's housing authority. Will my right hon. Friend investigate their complaints?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right: that is an important issue. Since 1990, 112 tenant management organisations have been set up, and more than 100 are in the process of being formed. I hear what he says about the problems in his constituency, and I am willing to examine any difficulties there. As a matter of fact, this morning I signed the order making Blackpool a unitary authority. Perhaps the extra responsibility will bring additional openness to the council's actions. I also signed the order for Blackburn.
  Mr. Elletson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend takes a somewhat different view but, as Blackpool will now have additional responsibility, perhaps it will review its behaviour and we will find that responsibility brings some improvement.
  The estate renewal programme makes an important contribution to difficult estates. Several hon. Members have said that we should not become fixed on one form of institutional solution, and I agree. Large-scale voluntary transfers have a significant role to play. The estate renewal programme is based on the need to help the worst estates which, frankly, must be given away if they are to be transferred. That approach involves a mixture of demolition and renovation.
  Sandwell was one of the first authorities to be included in the scheme and to go to a new social landlord. Two or three of the first schemes in that programme are planning transfers to the new housing companies which will shortly be made possible by new legislation. We are therefore beginning to see diversification in the forms transfer can take and the nature of the social landlords to which property can be transferred. I think that that is a welcome flexibility and I hope that all the mechanisms will be used in the circumstances which seem most sensible for a particular estate.

  1391
  Hon. Members are right when they say that a sense of ownership is important. The Bonamy estate in Southwark, which is also known to the hon. Member for Greenwich, has benefited from demolition, rebuild and recreation of the street pattern. People there have gardens. The hon. Gentleman and I shared a platform at Central hall, Westminster, where, to our mutual distress, we found ourselves on the same side on a number of points. We found ourselves defending people's right to have a garden as a means of expressing their identity. A garden is often an individual and personal thing. We had a detailed discussion with one tenant about what was the best form of winter-flowering cherry. For anyone who is particularly interested, it is a prunus subhirtella autumnalis. Holly street in the east end of London, a deck access estate, had all the social problems with which we are now familiar, but it is now an attractive area. However much we might scorn the eponymous Acacia avenue, the Acacia avenues work better in social and human terms than the tower blocks of the 1960s and 1970s. They were created with the best of motives, and I will not scorn what was then believed to be an answer to a difficult problem until we are confident that the ones that we now espouse will be better.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised the crucial issue of where we should put houses, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) because of their concern about the countryside. The brown-field sites must play a significant part. We need to knit it into the programmes to rebuild the cities and to make them work better.
  I have no responsibility for planning matters, but occasionally I venture into the realm of planning policies. Planning policies and their revision are buttresses of that wider policy. Without them we would find it more difficult to build houses in the cities, to have people wanting to live in the cities and to create the demand that flows from the city centre. It is too easy to think that a 24-hour city is achieved by keeping the pubs open until 2 am. That is not the case. The demand needs to be generated by people of different sorts, different tenures, different backgrounds and different occupations living in cities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam described what has happened in Sheffield from a historical perspective and from his own experience, and he gave particularly apt examples of what makes the city work. We are trying to make the cities much more attractive, but the concern for the countryside is real. I represent the Yorkshire Dales national park, so I appreciate that. I understand the problems of summer and winter lets and the problem of second properties—a matter my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised, as did the hon. Member for Hillsborough from a completely different perspective.
  There are villages in my constituency where I suspect that the majority of properties are second homes. The election material of all parties at the last election is probably still on the doormat of some of them. The national park even embarked on a policy of trying to restrict new building in the park to people for whom it would be the principal home, and we are engaged in a debate with the national park authority about that policy. That policy demonstrates once again that we must
  1392
  recognise that house building is an activity in which it is too easy to believe in theory, but which it is difficult to accept in practice when it is too close.
  The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) talked about private sector renovation and housing renewal areas. I think that he acknowledges—I am glad that he got the right Bill this time; I recall that he once started a speech but then realised that he had chosen the wrong occasion on which to make it—that the mandatory grants system was not working. We need a more strategic approach. His local authority will be able to use the new legislation as part of an area renewal programme.
  Quite frankly, I am not surprised that local authorities said, "It would be nice if we could meet all the demand," but they know that that is not realistic, so the measures that we have taken are sensible in the circumstances.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing investment trusts are important. It is right that the balance of housing in the United Kingdom is different from that on the continent. Since taking this job, I have constantly said that we need a better equilibrium in the housing market between owner-occupation—about which I do not have a particular hang-up—private rented and social rented to try to create more diversity and choice.
  I am particularly concerned that young people, when looking for accommodation at the start of their working or married life, should have the choice of high-quality private rented accommodation. What distinguishes the housing pattern in Britain from the continent is that many young people here go into owner-occupation, partly because they do not have the necessary choice. The pattern for the older age ranges is much more common across the European countries. We need diversification.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch and others mentioned the elderly in community care. I have asked the Government offices to hold discussions this year with some local housing authorities in each region, specifically to discuss their action to co-ordinate work on housing with work on social and health services. They will take place either when the Government offices visit the authority to talk about the housing investment programme submissions or at meetings specially set up for the purpose. As I have mentioned to the hon. Lady on a number of occasions, we have to produce the guidance to accompany the Housing Bill, and we are anxious that it should reflect best sensible practice.
  I have been somewhat discursive, but I said at the beginning that I thought that that was the best way to reply to the debate. The exchanges have been useful, and the speeches of colleagues have ranged widely. The House does not provide sufficient occasions on which we can exchange ideas. I hope that my contribution has been of some assistance in demonstrating that, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, there is much common ground on an issue of crucial importance to all of us.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who has been on the Front Bench for much of the debate. It is appreciated in the House when Ministers come to listen and not just to participate.

  1393
  I thank the other members of the Select Committee for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) seemed to apologise for entering into the debate. I stress that one of the functions of Select Committees is to carry out the inquiry and produce a report so that the whole House is better informed. Sadly, too often, the House does not take a blind bit of notice of the report, and all that happens is that members of the Select Committee further debate the report that they have produced. The contributions from hon. Members who were not members of the Select Committee were very welcome.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) reminded us of the importance, which we stressed in the report, of trying to bring people back into the city centres and bringing shops that are empty back into residential use. He also stressed the problem of local authority rates of relet. I have a slight reservation about that. It is possible to lump the figures together and say that an authority is reletting properties in four or five weeks; a more interesting question, however, is not how long it takes overall but how long it takes to relet the really popular properties. We cannot be too critical of an authority that takes 12 weeks to relet an unpopular estate, but I am worried when it takes six or eight weeks to relet popular properties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn ran down deck access flats, as did a number of other hon. Members. I understand the problems, but when I am in London I stay in a set of deck access flats in the Barbican. It is some of the nicest housing in London. If we knock down all the deck access flats, we may well have to take away a bit of the green belt. We must put a bit more effort into ensuring that all deck access flats are as nice to live in as those at the Barbican. The crucial thing about the Barbican is the amount that is spent on services and looking after the area. It may be better for the nation to spend money on introducing good services and maintenance in deck access flats than for us to knock them down, going for low densities and taking up more of our countryside.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—whose support on the Select Committee I appreciated—expressed enthusiasm for housing investment trusts. We must wait and see whether they manage to deliver. The Select Committee visited the west midlands and looked at some of the green belt around some of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I understand why he and other hon. Members passionately want to protect the green belt—indeed, I share their views—but we must find somewhere for the houses to go.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred to lifetime homes. I have made the same point, and I hope that the Government will consider it with much more sympathy. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) reminded us just how much of Britain could disappear under housing. We must go for high-density housing, and make it work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) made the important point that jobs go with housing. She then said, "Hands off the green belt." The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made a similar point, although he also mentioned the difference between
  1394
  demand and need. Those are important issues. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised the problems of homeless people—referring to day shelters and day care—and the problems of second homes.
  This has been a very useful debate. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am tempted to sit down, although I understand that you are in the procedurally awkward position of having to suspend the sitting for three minutes, but I think that it would be unfair of me to go on filibustering. Let me express my thanks to all involved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot filibuster, or he will be brought to order.
  Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).
  9.57 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  10 pm
  On resuming—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Questions on Estimates 1996–97 (Class I, Vote 1, and Class VI, Vote 1).

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

  Class I, Vote
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £6,228,158,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on: personnel costs, etc of the armed forces and their reserves and cadet forces, etc; personnel costs, etc of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence; movements, certain stores, supplies and services; certain spares and maintenance; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; works services; certain contingent liabilities; certain services provided by other Government departments; some sundry services, subscriptions, grants and other payments, including those abroad, including assistance to foreign and Commonwealth governments for defence-related purposes; and set-up costs, loans and funding to trading funds.

  Class VI, Vote
  Resolved,
  That a further, revised sum not exceeding £3,083,844,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; slum clearance, repairs and other improvements to private housing; payments to the Housing Corporation; the transfer of local authority estates to new landlords; accommodation for the homeless and special needs accommodation; housing management and mobility; rent officers and Rent Assessment Panels; grants for the provision of gypsy sites; grants to home improvement agencies; asylum seekers' special housing grant; for research projects, including European Community programmes; publicity; and for sundry other housing and construction services and projects.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates).

  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1996–97
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £105,763,862,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1997, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 261, 262, 263 and 427
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mrs. Angela Knight do prepare and bring it in.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1996 and 1997; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): 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),

  CONTRACTING OUT
  That the draft Contracting Out (Functions relating to Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Anti-avoidance (Heating)) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1661), dated 26th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.
  Motion made, and question put, forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (1) (a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  That the draft Deregulation (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
  That the draft Deregulation (Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (9) (European Standing Committees),

  PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1997
  That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. COM (96) 300, the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1997, 6431/96 and 6431/96 COR 1, the proposal for an adjustment of the Financial Perspective; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.

  MARITIME POLICY
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6813/96, towards a new maritime strategy, and endorses the Government's approach to it—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

  Local Authorities (Government Guidance)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.3 pm
  Sir Irvine Patnick: I have enjoyed sitting again on the Front Bench for nearly four hours but I had forgotten how uncomfortable the Benches are. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government guidance to local authorities on their responsibilities.
  If asked what a local authority does, or should do, most people could reel off a list as long as their arm, and I am no exception. Even with the constraints of time, it will be a long list. If people are asked what a council does not do, the list may be even longer. With the passage of time, many councils have come a long way since they declared themselves nuclear-free zones; at least they have taken down the signs and gone some way towards conformity.
  Whenever local authorities are discussed, one inevitably turns to the area that one knows best which, in my case, is Sheffield city council, on which I was privileged to serve as a councillor for more than 20 years. Many former councillors are currently active Members of the House of Commons—one of them was present during the previous debate.
  Examining what Sheffield city council does is easy. The annual report of the city council contains a service charter, the introduction of which reminds everyone of the council's statutory performance indicators—providing that Sheffield people know what that means—whether the indicators are complied with and, above all, whom to contact if they are not. The Audit Commission, set up by the Government, publishes comparisons of councils' performances on a range of services that they provide. That helps when comparing one council with another, providing that citizens know where to look for the information.
  Sheffield city council is now in partnership with many organisations in the city. The council now co-operates with the Government, rather than conflicts with them, which used to be the way that it operated. I invite the Minister to travel around Hallam with me when he is next on one of his frequent visits to the city. He should not be shocked or alarmed when he sees an invasion of Daleks on traffic islands. Those plastic, crenellated cones are coloured bright yellow and have a black stripe across them, bearing the legend, "Danger—high voltage". They stand motionless and inhabit the places where the traffic bollards used to be—those bollards have not been replaced.
  My hon. Friend will also come across no entry street signs at the junctions of roads such as Steel road and Neill road, and Carrington road and Ecclesall road. The signs can hardly be seen as they have never been replaced, repainted or even made to stand upright. My hon. Friend will also see unswept and hazardous pavements. If he has second sight, he will see road signs that are not visible due to overhanging trees. He will see street lights that have not been repaired; yellow paint that is visible on minor roads where potholes have been marked out for some time, but not yet repaired; sporadic grass cutting; and trees that have been chopped down in a rush one weekend at places such as Willow Croft in Fulwood—months later, the site has still not been developed.
  1398
  Sheffield city council's annual report lists nine items in the Sheffield charter. Three of them are:
  "The highest quality services possible with the resources we have at our disposal
  Services which are responsive to your needs and views"
  and
  "Prompt remedial action if services do not come up to the standards we promise".
  I contend that those standards have been found wanting. Surely it is the role of any council to ensure that they are met.
  The Sheffield newspaper The Star has waged campaigns on unlit traffic islands that are hazardous, potholes in the roads that are dangerous and other road safety aspects. I am grateful to Neil Fieldhouse, the political editor of The Star, for his forbearance.
  It is extremely difficult in a short debate not to raise areas of council work that are not within the local government responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister, but council responsibilities stem from the cash that is allocated by Government, using various formulae and indicators; each council then determines its own priorities.
  Accident prevention features highly in what I deem to be a council's priorities, yet my offers to lobby the relevant Minister are dismissed by the council. I contend that street lighting should work to enable people to see and be seen, pavements should be swept, road signs should be made more visible, street lights and potholes should be repaired and street names should be visible. Road side weeds should be removed, grass verges cut on a regular basis and damaged bollards replaced. Surely the council's role is to ensure that this is done.
  This is not a "Let's knock Sheffield" debate. I am proud of the city and do much to ensure that every possible crumb of the Government's financial cake goes to Sheffield. I have joined parliamentary colleagues and members of the city council in lobbying Ministers on many occasions, which has sometimes resulted in success. We have lobbied for things ranging from an inner ring road in Sheffield to a development corporation for the city.
  I well remember endeavouring to get a development corporation for Sheffield and the opposition that I encountered in the city to the new, and as far as those people were concerned, alien concept. When I made representations to the late Lord Ridley, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, he informed me that I required the support of businesses in Sheffield before the matter could be considered. That was readily forthcoming and, now, the lower Don valley has changed greatly from what was at one time a totally run down and derelict area, where confidence had vanished.
  From the development corporation's inception, it began assembling sites suitable for business and the new infrastructure that would be required to improve transport access. Sites were compulsorily purchased to bring together the fragmented ownership and the development corporation used its financial resources to decontaminate land and prepare sites for sale. It was not a speedy process and the physical appearance of the valley changed little at first, but as the sites were reclaimed and the infrastructure built, the east end of Sheffield was transformed, like a phoenix rising from the ashes.

  1399
  A £33 million dual carriageway link road now runs through the valley, putting all parts of it within easy access of the motorway. Old, dilapidated buildings have been refurbished to a high standard by a programme that targeted prominent routes and areas. The environment has not been neglected either. The River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley canal, which run the full length of the valley, have been improved and form the basis for a footpath-cycle network and waterside locations. They have been opened up not only for development but for public access. Through the development corporation's efforts, the derelict canal basin has emerged as a model development and leisure complex. It was once called the Canal wharf. It is near the city centre and is now better known as Victoria quays. It has led to a ripple development in the vicinity, which includes the city centre and the valley generally.
  Sheffield development corporation's actions have revitalised a dilapidated area of Sheffield and had a knock-on effect in the rest of the city. The impressions that people once had when driving along the Tinsley viaduct passing Sheffield have been greatly improved.
  It is obvious to anyone that housing development could, and indeed should, take place in the area. The area was considered at one time as a site for a higher education establishment—a far cry from the old image. Under the chairmanship of Hugh Sykes and chief executive Graham Kendall, the SDC has brought back into use areas that, for decades, were lost to dereliction. In addition, an airport brokered through Government assistance is under construction. We have a revitalised sector of the city where industry is thriving and Sheffield has benefited.
  Up to March this year, the SDC has reclaimed 593 acres of land, built 12.7 km of road, secured 3.7 million sq ft of floor space and created nearly 12,750 jobs. It has secured £577 million of private sector investment—all from a Government grant of £93.2 million.
  The questions for the Minister are: what will happen when Sheffield development corporation, which I was instrumental in helping to set up, comes to the end of its life, and how will the momentum that it created continue? In March, the Yorkshire and Humberside planning strategy for the next decade was set out in the document, "Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and Humberside", which gives local authorities a broad framework for development and planning.
  The document aims to encourage sustainable development in Yorkshire and Humberside, by means of four main objectives—promoting economic prosperity and competitiveness, conserving the environment, helping with urban regeneration and making the best use of available resources. It sets out the idea of economic development by creating a partnership between the public and private sectors and through the use of inward investment.
  The document echoes the work of Sheffield development corporation, saying that derelict land should be revitalised and town centres maintained. The question is: should that activity be channelled through local authorities? The document gives priority to regenerating the region's inner cities and former coalfields, and to the co-ordination of planning and transport policies. It also advises that protection should be given to the countryside, and says that future generations should not suffer from today's development.
  1400
  The Minister will recollect a previous debate in which I drew to his attention a proposal in Sheffield city council's unitary development plan to reduce the green belt. The Minister's actions persuaded the council to do otherwise. The Government have increased the green belt, and I have nothing but praise for them for introducing the first-ever audit of environmental issues, in the document "This Common Inheritance"—an audit which is updated every year. I commend that document to everyone with an interest not only in the environment but in the well-being of the United Kingdom.
  Detailed guidance is given to local authorities on planning matters, but what guidance on other matters is given, for the sake of the well-being of the community? That information does not appear to be as readily available as information on planning. Through a series of questions for written answer, I have endeavoured to bring the issue into the public domain.
  Different councils allocate different priorities in the attempt to ensure that grass cutting, the collection of rents, rates and taxes, the reletting of council houses, the recycling of waste and a wide range of other activities are carried out. Yet how does a council tax payer become aware of a local authority's performance indicators, which are provided by the Audit Commission? What efforts have been made to improve councils' quality of complaints procedures, as outlined in chart 18 of the Audit Commission's publication?
  Recently, I questioned in the House the setting up of the Yorkshire and Humberside assembly. Suddenly and, it appears, from nowhere, local authorities have found the money to set up that assembly. The councils seem to have found no problems in raising the cash for that purpose, which is a far cry from the story that they usually peddle.
  The assembly will meddle in affairs in which councils have no statutory authority. A regional assembly will be another tier of government, like the old South Yorkshire county council, and it is to be imposed on the people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for his active support in questioning the setting up of the assembly. Truly, the question that needs to be answered is: is that assembly really needed?
  I welcome inward investment, and Sheffield has a labour force second to none. It is located in a wonderful area with many facilities, including land, but when push comes to shove, Government grant helps too. I therefore ask the Minister how people can ensure that the work that councils have powers to do, and which is in accordance with their responsibilities, is done satisfactorily.
  If residents cannot do that, how can they complain? The information should be readily available, and provided in a simple manner. Perhaps in this short debate the Minister will spell out in plain language Government guidance for local authorities on what their responsibilities are, and who is to oversee them.
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have had the privilege and pleasure of getting two bites of the cherry today, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) has talked about Sheffield in two separate debates. I had the good fortune to hear his earlier

  1401
  speech, although admittedly through the television network, and I found that as fascinating as I found the speech that he has just made. As the House knows, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of representing Sheffield in the House and in local government. Therefore, it is important that we should listen to the points he makes.
  My hon. Friend has focused on Sheffield, and it is probably sensible if I do the same. However, I do so with some caution. Although my knowledge of Sheffield is increasing—it is based on statistics and comments from business men and industry and a number of visits—it is nowhere near that of my hon. Friend.
  At long last, Sheffield city council has started to recognise that changes are needed and has taken steps to improve its performance. Debates such as tonight's will help that.
  As an ethnic minority immigrant, I can say that Sheffield is renowned throughout the world. It is a great city, with a great history. The people of Sheffield are fabulous people who are proud of their city. Many people are surprised to learn that, despite the restructuring and rationalisation of the 1980s, the steel industry for which Sheffield is internationally famous now produces more steel than ever before, and is more profitable. The greatest difference—which I have discussed with my hon. Friend while standing in Sheffield—is that now one can see it. The old smokestacks are gone, and the environment has greatly improved.
  Sheffield can no longer rely on a single industry for employment. The city needs to grow and diversify, but the council appears not to make that a priority. I still hear complaints that the council is anti-business. As a result, in desperation at the council's attitude and in recognition of the problems—and with considerable prompting from my hon. Friend—the development corporation was set up.
  I shall not spend much time on that. The Development Corporation is extremely successful, and has revitalised the lower Don valley, which is now an attractive location for industry, distribution and office development. My hon. Friend mentioned the airport, which is an example of partnership between Sheffield development corporation, English Partnerships and the private sector. I am not sure whether the local authority was involved, or even adopted a positive attitude.
  However, as my hon. Friend has said, all urban development corporations were intended to be limited-life bodies. They need to reach a conclusion, and the Sheffield development corporation will be the next one to wind up in March 1997. The remaining development corporations will wind up in March 1998.
  We all recognise that suitable arrangements must be in place to ensure that the corporation's achievements are safeguarded and maintained, and that the osmosis of that success into surrounding areas continues. The local authority and other agencies such as English Partnerships have been actively involved in ensuring that the achievements of the development corporation will be maintained.
  That commitment and the partnership between public and private sector—English Partnerships is an example of an interim body—will force local authorities to continue
  1402
  to move the city ahead and adopt a different attitude. It is happening already, although Sheffield has been one of the slowest to change.
  Arrangements have also been made in the context of the Government's current policy towards urban regeneration. I refer to the single regeneration budget challenge funding, which compels authorities such as Sheffield to perform sufficiently well to gain funding. The challenge funding approach forces authorities to modernise their thinking and work in partnership with other agencies, particularly the private sector. Sheffield was typically—I say it with a deep sigh—slow to grasp that. Its bids under rounds 1 and 2 of city challenge were full of the old socialist claptrap. They were rejected, and deservedly so.
  I am pleased, however, that Sheffield learned from that rejection. It took a while, but it happened. Its later single regeneration budget bids had changed out of all recognition and were successful. Sheffield received £38 million over seven years in round 1, and £36 million over seven years in round 2. The city's two main SRB challenge fund schemes are among the largest approvals in the country.
  My hon. Friend will accept that that shows that Shefield city council finally recognises the importance of the matter. These schemes will lever in more than £140 million of other funding, of which nearly £90 million will come from the private sector. The importance of partnership has finally sunk in to Sheffield. If it can sink in to the minds of those councillors, there is hope everywhere. These schemes, and a further £22 million approved under the SRB estates renewal challenge funding, will make a significant contribution to the continued regeneration of this important city.
  My hon. Friend portrayed a dismal litany of inadequate maintenance in Sheffield—daleks, potholes, broken street lights, dirty or hazardous pavements and the rest. I have tripped over them in the streets. However, I must add that Sheffield is by no means alone—many Labour and Liberal authorities have similar records. Funnily enough, there are even worse examples—but few. There is, however, some evidence that Sheffield is moving away from this record. I was particularly pleased to hear that the nuclear-free zone signs have been taken down—or perhaps they fell down.
  These matters touch on what is, I think, the nub of what my hon. Friend has described—the lack of quality services that citizens in some areas get from their local councils, and what they can do about it. First, councils are ultimately accountable at the ballot box. If people are dissatisfied, they alone can vote out those who run their councils—particularly if all the information is provided. Local accountability rests on this. We have done a great deal in recent years to ensure that better information about performance is available.
  What does the information show about Sheffield? I have touched on some of the statistics, and my hon. Friend has done so in an earlier debate. Some 7 per cent. of council tenants are more than 13 weeks in arrears with their rent. That is better than Liverpool, where the figure is 18 per cent., but much worse than the average. These arrears are then loaded on to the more honest citizens, who have to pay.
  Sheffield is the second slowest metropolitan council in deciding housing planning applications. What is more, between 1993–94 and 1994–95, the percentage decided

  1403
  within eight weeks—our standard—fell by more than 10 per cent. In addition, one should be cautious before eating in the restaurants of Sheffield. On average, metropolitan authorities inspect 79 per cent. of those premises that are due for a look. Four councils—Bolton, Knowsley, Dudley and Solihull—achieved 100 per cent., but Sheffield managed less than 20 per cent. I cannot give a list of those that passed.
  My hon. Friend knows the story of Supertram better than me, and Sheffield is finally taking action to privatise the enterprise and to stem the haemorrhage of public funds. But the bottom line for local taxpayers this year is that, with only half the hoped-for passenger usage, there will be losses of more than £6 million, with more to come. The belated sale will still leave taxpayers saddled with paying huge residual debts, on top of the major debts incurred by the world student games—which would raise a smile if it were not so disastrous for local people.
  I trust that the council tax payers in Sheffield and elsewhere in South Yorkshire will make their councillors answer for that, and ensure that they will in future sit on the sidelines and allow somebody competent to take over.
  I trust, but I do not believe, that the new regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside will prove a sensible exercise in co-operation. I hope, perhaps in vain, that it is not a politically motivated attempt to promote
  1404
  further waste by imposing more bureaucracy that is to be paid for by the taxpayer. We will watch it, and make sure that the voters in the area are aware of what is going on.
  Like my hon. Friend, I have no intention of knocking Sheffield. The city council has shed much of its past image, and is clearly taking steps in the right direction. At the end of the day, what we will need for Sheffield and other areas is what we will get after the next election—a Conservative Government who will ensure that Labour authorities are forced to behave in a responsible manner.
  Many of the changes by Sheffield and other councils have been brought about directly by Conservative policies. In the past 17 years, we have introduced a range of measures to increase local accountability, to improve local council performance and to enhance value for money. At last, they are starting to bite in Sheffield. We have constructed a framework within which local government can adopt three roles—as an enabler, regulator and, above all, community leader. I suspect, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam may agree, that we need a Conservative Government to ensure that the improvement continues. We aim to ensure that the country has an effective and locally accountable system of local government that gives value for money and the quality of public services that the people of Sheffield deserve.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fruit Trees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to promote local food production in inner cities and urban areas by the planting of fruit trees in parks and cities; and if he will make a statement. [37360]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are already a number of Government initiatives which promote local food production and the planting of fruit trees in urban areas. This year we gave a £26,100 grant from the environmental action fund to the charity Common Ground, which successfully encourages volunteer involvement in a number of campaigns including the development in urban areas of community orchards containing indigenous fruit trees, and which promote the annual apple day.

  This year my Department is again funding the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners with a grant of £30,450, part of which is designed to help it to promote allotment gardening and increase the take-up of vacant allotments, including those in inner cities. The NSALG has a number of information leaflets on how to acquire an allotment and how to cultivate it.

  Furthermore, last October I announced the launch of the greening the city initiative which will culminate this autumn in the publication of a good practice guide on urban greening. It will be up to individual authorities and bodies how they implement these guidelines, but the planting of trees is an integral component of the urban greening process. It will be for individual authorities to determine which species are appropriate for specific projects.

  Drought
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to help farmers prepare for the possibility of drought. [36434]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency has a policy of seeking to minimise the impact of any restrictions which might be necessary on the direct abstraction of water for irrigation purposes. It will provide information in advance of possible restrictions. It is working to encourage farmers to determine the risks to the reliability of their supplies of potential restrictions, and to assess the costs and benefits of providing on-farm winter storage bearing in mind the substantial reductions in charges for winter abstraction which the agency makes.

  Parliamentary Boundary Changes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 500, if he will place in the Library two
  596
  copies of base maps of 1:100,000 scale for each county, bearing the new local authority and new parliamentary boundaries. [37721]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. Ordnance Survey does not produce 1:100,000 scale county maps with local authority and parliamentary boundary overprints as a standard, paper-based product. The agency is able to supply a customised product, derived from the computerised national topographic database, at a price estimated for individual requirements.

  Local Education Authorities (Budget)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for local education authorities in England (i) individually, (ii) by class and (iii) in total(a) the actual budget outturn for 1996–97, (b) the provisional budget for 1997–98 and (c) the provisional education standard spending assessment. [37781]

  Mr. Curry
  Budgeted 1996–97 net revenue expenditure information by individual authority has been placed in the Library of the House. Class totals are as follows:

  £ million

  Total net revenue expenditure

  Education net revenue expenditure

  Shire counties

  17,190

  9,956

  Unitary authorities1

  2,136

  1,028

  Isles of Scilly

  3

  1

  Metropolitan districts1

  9,470

  4,462

  City of London

  143

  4

  Inner London boroughs

  2,857

  1,109

  Outer London boroughs

  3,873

  1,849

  All local education authorities1

  35,672

  18,409

  1 Includes estimates for two authorities who have yet to return a valid RA96/97 form.

  Provisional budgets and standard spending assessments for 1997–98 will not be available until after the revenue support grant consultation announcement towards the end of this year.

  Nuclear Waste (Culham)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to give further consideration to the granting of permission for a low-level nuclear waste repository at Culham, what is the minimum distance from a school required for(a) short-term and (b) permanent permission for such a repository; how far the European school is from the site at Culham; and if he will make a statement; [37988]

  (2) what representations he has received against the granting of permission for a low-level nuclear waste repository at Culham. [37989]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency is considering an application from Safeguard International for authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 in respect of a radioactive waste transfer station at Culham. The facility would be a temporary store, not a repository for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste and would handle non-nuclear radioactive waste—e.g. from hospitals,
  597
  universities, research laboratories and non-nuclear industries. The European school is 1.5 km from the proposed facility. There is no requirement to set minimum distance for schools or any other development, since the surroundings of a facility are taken into account by the Environment Agency when considering applications. The Secretary of State has received one petition and 89 nine letters and will consider whether to call in the application for his own determination under section 24 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how Departments performed against last year's targets for reducing empty homes; and what new targets have been set for 1996–97. [38816]

  Total slock at 1 April 1996

  1995–96 target for percentage empty

  Achievement against target

  1996–97 target for percentage empty

  1995–96 target for percentage habitable homes empty more than six months

  Percentage achievement against target

  1996–97 target for percentage habitable homes empty more titan six months

  Action being taken to dispose of homes empty more than six months

  Home Office

  3,455

  <11

  7 (242)

  <6

  <3

  0.3 (10)

  1

  —

  Department of Transport

  3,532

  <25

  18.9 (669)

  <17

  <9

  8.3 (293)

  <7

  194 of these homes are in the process of being sold, including 60 being auctioned. 99 are in the process of being let

  Welsh Office

  243

  1<3

  20.5 (50)

  <15

  3

  9.0 (22)

  <5

  Seven sales in progress, one under offer, three to be auctioned. Seven awaiting disposal as part of larger package

  Scottish Office

  213

  10

  9.8 (21)

  1

  <3

  1.8 (4)

  1

  Expected occupation of all houses by winter 1996

  Ministry of Defence

  70,409

  To dispose of 1,500 homes by April 1996 and to dispose of a further 2,500 by end summer 1996

  1,703 disposed of by April

  To dispose of 4,000 empty homes

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The 3 per cent. target was based on the position at 1 April 1995. In relation to the properties empty at that time 2.8 per cent. are still empty. However, others have become empty since then. The targets for 1996ߝ97 make realistic provision for properties becoming empty during the year.

  <=less than.

  1. Properties that are "habitable"include all properties except:

  (a) derelict properties that await demolition (e.g., to make way for road schemes),

  (b) those that are expected to be demolished in the near future where the expenditure required to make them habitable would be disproportionate to their expected life (e.g. where substantial investment would be required to connect essential services such as water, sewage or electricity),

  (c) those that cannot be made accessible (e.g., due to adjacent construction works).

  2. Figures for the national health service in England and Scotland are not included in the table. The recent survey figures for England show a decrease in vacant properties from 1,800 at 1 December 1992 to 1,604 at 21 October 1995. The target for this period was to reduce the number of vacant properties to 1,100. The NHS is committed to future reductions in the number of empty properties held, but do not intend to carry out further surveys since the void rate equates to only about 3.5 units per NHS trust. Figures for NHS Trust properties in Scotland at 1 April 1995 were; total stock 1,185—properties empty 113 [9.5 per cent.]. Figures at 1 April 1996 are; total stock 1,087—properties empty 162 [14.9 per cent.]. The NHS in Scotland is also committed to future reductions in the number of empty properties held.

  3. The Welsh Office figure includes information about empty property belonging to health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales.

  4. The total number of empty homes in the civil estate owned by Govnerment Departments—(i.e., excluding MOD and the NHS—was 1,567 on 1 April 1995 and 970 on 1 April 1996, a reduction of 38.1 per cent.

  598
  Mr. Curry
  The number of empty homes in the civil estate owned by Government Departments fell by almost 600 between (1) April 1995 and 1 April 1996, a reduction of nearly 40 per cent.

  In 1995–96, almost all Government Departments reduced the number of empty homes that they hold. I am particularly pleased that the Home Office, Department of Transport and Scottish Office all exceeded their targets.

  Departments' progress demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to reduce the number of empty homes. The new, more exacting targets set for 1996–97 will build on this success. I am also confident that the sale of the Ministry of Defence married quarters estate will lead to an improvement in performance in tackling MOD empty homes.

  Details of achievement against targets for 1995–96, and new targets for 1996–97 are shown in the table:
  599

  Water Payments
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what mechanisms people living in new properties are able to change from meters to rateable value means of paying for water. [37370]

  Mr. Clappison
  Properties built after April 1990 do not have rateable values. Consequently, where a water company has a policy of metering new properties, it is not possible to change to a rateable value basis of paying for water.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the supplement to the English house condition survey will be published. [37991]

  Mr. Clappison
  The supplementary energy report will be published this summer.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in taking forward the commitment in the White Paper, "Rural England", to stimulate the more active participation of parish councils in footpath management and to develop, with the Countryside Commission, a pilot project to build on the experience of the parish paths partnership. [38817]

  Mr. Clappison
  The aims of the local access initiative will be to maximise the role of local people in access management and maintenance, to integrate more fully the rights of way network with other access and recreational opportunities, and to provide opportunities for additional access, on a voluntary basis.

  We also intend that the initiative will consider the relationship of local management to the accurate recording of rights of way and look at the scope for changes to the network. We intend to set up projects in four or five areas in England.

  We have asked the Countryside Commission to manage the initiative. The commission will be seeking to set up schemes involving partnerships of local landowners, farmers, other local people and interested groups of individuals, on a parish basis. Participation in the initiative will be entirely voluntary and management of the scheme is expected to be through the local highway authority. We hope to announce the projects by the end of the year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he takes to protect from(a) fire and (b) other damage manuscripts and other records at the Public Record Office. [36892]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer. I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  600
  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 18 July 1996:

  In the absence on leave of the Chief Executive, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the steps taken to protect from (a) fire and (b) other damage manuscripts and other records at the Public Record Office.

  (a) Protection from fire

  At Kew the two buildings have advanced fire protection systems. Fire detection is provided in offices and plant areas by smoke, heat and beam detectors, and manual call points. Detection in document storage areas is provided by an early smoke detection system. All systems are connected to a central computerised control centre, from which the fire services can be summoned. Document storage areas are divided into fire compartments by walls of two hour fire resistance; doors in these walls are held open on fusible links so that they will close automatically in case of fire.

  At Chancery Lane fire detection is through a manual alarm system linked to a central control centre. Document storage areas are divided into fire compartments by fire resistant walls and doors.

  At both sites the document storage areas are also served by hose reels and extinguishers and are subject to regular round the clock patrols.

  We are currently transferring the Chancery Lane documents to Kew so that all will be protected by the highest modern standards.

  b) Protection from other damage

  The Office has established and promotes a preservation policy. This sets out the obligations of the Office, the staff and the readers protect the documents it its care.

  It also has a preservation strategy and programme which includes:

  Security

  —invigilation of the reading rooms by security staff and, at Kew, by CCTV cameras

  —round the clock security patrols of the buildings, with CCTV monitoring at Kew

  —registering document users

  —computerised tracking of document requisitions and movements

  —prosecuting those who are caught damaging documents

  Storing and protecting material

  —monitoring the environmental conditions in which documents are stored: at Kew documents are stored to the requirements of BS 5454 Recommendations for the storage and exhibition of archival material

  —regular cleaning of document storage areas

  —protecting documents against damage in transit or by fire or water by boxing them

  —providing protective equipment in the reading rooms, for example book supports, melinex sheets through which to trace maps, and cotton gloves for use while handling material such as photographic negatives or prints

  —following recommended standards for the exhibiton of documents

  Training

  —training staff and readers in the care and handling of documents

  —producing leaflets to promote understanding of the physical nature of documents

  —holding workshops for staff and readers on preservation and conservation issues

  Conservation

  —the Office has trained staff to conserve documents

  Disaster control

  —the Office has a disaster control plan which includes staff training and periodic trial exercises
  601
  Providing surrogates

  —The Office is undertaking a programme of copying heavily used classes of documents, mainly on microfilm, in order to enable readers to access the information without subjecting the originals to wear and tear

  I shall be happy to provide further information about any of these subjects if you require.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those magistrates courts in the Yorkshire and Humberside region that are to be built under the private finance initiative proposals; and if he will make a statement. [36876]

  Mr. Streeter
  PFI bids will be sought for the provision of new or improved magistrates court facilities at: Kingston upon Hull, Beverley, Keighley, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Northallerton, Malton and Doncaster.

  The programme for procuring magistrates courthouse facilities under PFI is now to be taken forward. Details of the programme and guidance are being sent to local authorities and magistrates courts committees this week.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many schemes for the building of magistrates courts are proposed under the private finance initiative. [36887]

  Mr. Streeter
  There are proposals to provide new or improved facilities at 50 magistrates courts under the private finance initiative.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  South Africa
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent advice he has given to the Republic of South Africa on land reform; and if he will make a statement. [38191]

  Mr. Hanley
  Land reform is a major priority for the South African Government. We are currently supporting, with the EU and the Danish Government, a Government pilot programme of land reform which aims to promote land transfer to the rural poor using the market and to develop local capacity for service provision. Her Majesty's Government's contribution is about £7 million including our share of EU funding.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licences (Caravans)
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the current television licensing requirements for touring caravans; and if she will make a statement. [38769]

  Mr. Sproat
  As announced on 2 July on Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill, the Government will introduce regulations to take account of the changes in the use of television in recent years. Our intention is that the scope of the television licence will be altered so that a licence will be required only when a television is installed or used in a602
  "fixed abode or permanent place of residence".

  This will be reflected in the regulations which specify the fees. Use of television in touring caravans, and in other vehicles and vessels, will require a separate licence only if they are used as a permanent place of residence or if no licence is held for the normal place of residence. The revised licensing requirements will be set out in detail in new consolidated regulations, which we aim to lay before the end of this calendar year.

  Deregulation
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what deregulation orders her Department has made under sections 1 to 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [38770]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department's first deregulation order was made on 16 July 1996 and will come into force on 16 August 1996. It abolishes the existing statutory requirements for television dealers both to register with the BBC and to hold and pay a fee for a dealer demonstration licence. Dealers will still be required to notify all sales or rentals of television sets to the BBC.

TREASURY

  Abortion Statistics
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by(a) procedure, (b) gestation of pregnancy and (c) technique of the number of abortions performed in the North Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available. [37007]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The figures presented are for legal abortions performed in 1994 on women usually resident in the North Thames health region.1

  (a) Number of abortions by procedure

  Procedure

  Number of abortions

  Hysterotomy (only)

  6

  Hysterectomy (only)

  1

  Vacuum aspiration (only)

  29,416

  Vacuum aspiration with dilation and evacuation

  2,979

  Dilation and evacuation

  745

  Other surgical

  1

  Prostaglandins (only)

  302

  Prostaglandins with other agents

  154

  Antiprogesterone with or without prostaglandins

  595

  Other medical

  30

  Other combined methods

  5

  Total

  34,234

  (b) Number of abortions by gestation of pregnancy

  Gestation in weeks

  Number of abortions

  Under 9

  15,786

  9–12

  15,195

  13–19

  2,865

  20 and over

  388

  Total

  34,234

  (c) Number of abortions by technique Abortion data by technique are not routinely collected.

  11994 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB no. 21.

  603
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by the procedure adopted of the number of abortions performed in the Northern and Yorkshire region in the latest year for which figures are available. [36928]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: The figures presented give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to women usually resident in the Northern and Yorkshire health region by procedure, for the year 19941.

  Procedure

  Number of abortions

  Hysterotomy (only)

  3

  Hysterectomy (only)

  1

  Vacuum aspiration (only)

  13,503

  Vacuum aspiration with dilation and evacuation

  335

  Dilation and Evacuation

  450

  Other surgical

  2

  Prostaglandins (only)

  595

  Prostaglandins with other agents

  203

  Antiprogesterone with or without prostaglandins

  1,130

  Other medical

  24

  Other combined methods

  14

  Total

  16,260

  1 Reference: 1994 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB no. 21.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by technique of the number of abortions performed in the Northern and Yorkshire region in the latest year for which figures are available. [36930]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: Abortion data are not routinely collected by technique.

  Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of suicides in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [37842]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of deaths from suicide and injury of undetermined intent, ICD1 E950–E959, E980–E989 less E988.8, in England and Wales is shown in the table. The deaths in 1993 and 1994 represent occurrences whereas those for 1995 are registrations.

  Year

  Deaths

  1993

  5,250

  1994

  5,144

  1995

  5,146

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  ICD codes E950–E959 refer to deaths where suicide is the underlying cause of death; ICD codes E950–E989, minus E988.8 relate to deaths where it is undetermined whether the injury was accidentally or purposefully inflicted. The majority of these, however, are regarded as suicides.

  Diesel Duty
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of reducing the duty on commercial diesel by £0.09 per litre. [37981]
  604
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The last published "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" by HM Treasury shows that reducing the duty rate on road diesel by 9p would cost around £1.5 billion in the first full year, measured against a non-indexed base.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of reducing duty on diesel to the European average. [37980]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The last published 'Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" by HM Treasury shows that reducing the duty rate on road diesel by approximately 6p to the European average would cost around £1 billion in the first full year, measured against a non-indexed base.

  Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to limit retrospective repayments of VAT and other indirect taxes and duties. [38693]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government have become concerned at the increasing amounts of revenue at risk in taxation boundary disputes, particularly VAT. Large sums, collected and paid in good faith, are being repaid to businesses, in some cases many years after the tax was collected and with no possibility that refunds will be passed on to final consumers. The Chancellor therefore asked Customs to undertake a review of the refund provisions applying to VAT and other indirect taxes. I am today announcing the outcome of that review.

  I am proposing that with effect from today a three-year limit will be introduced for retrospective refund claims, applying to VAT and other indirect taxes, and to associated statutory interest. This will be subject to parliamentary approval.

  I also propose to recommend changes to the unsatisfactory law on unjust enrichment. Draft legislation effecting these changes will be published shortly and will subsequently be included in the 1997 Finance Bill.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Costs Review)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 145, when the cost of implementing the recommendations arising from the review of the open prison estate will be made available. [37451]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George, dated 18 July 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about when the cost of implementing the recommendations arising from the review of the open prison estate will be made available.
  605
  The Prison Services' plan for the implementation of the open prisons review is intended to be completed by December 1996. The plan will include details of the costs of implementation.

  Sexual Offences (Re-offenders)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records his Department collates in respect of re-offending by those convicted of sexual offences against children. [37786]

  Mr. Maclean
  Offenders who are convicted of sexual offences against a child can be charged with any one of a number of offences. The legal categories of sexual offence do not always differentiate between child and adult victims. This means that the Department's centrally available records cannot be used to determine reconviction rates for offenders convicted of sexual offences against children.

  House Fires (Deaths)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths in England and Wales in house fires occurred in each of the last three years. [37792]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The number of fire-related deaths from dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales in the last three years for which figures are available are 502 in 1992, 406 in 1993 and 383 in 1994.

  Electoral Registration (Homeless Persons)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account will be taken of the judgment in the case of Kevin Lippiatt v. the Electoral Registration Officer, Penwith district council in the guidelines to be issued to electoral registration officers concerning the registration of homeless people. [38167]

  Mr. Sackville
  The guidance will take the judgment fully into consideration, within the context of existing legislation.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many dangerous dogs have been registered under the Dangerous Dogs Acts; and how many people have been(a) injured and (b) killed by dogs in each year since 1988; [38009]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the categories of dog in the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Acts; [38007]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Acts; [38006]

  (4) what plans he has to make ownership of a dangerous dog, as specified under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Acts, illegal; and if he will make a statement. [38008]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 imposed controls on dogs bred for fighting. The dogs so designated are the types known as the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. There are no plans to extend this designation.

  Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence to possess a designated type of dog unless the owner had the dog registered, neutered, tattooed, and insured by
  606
  30 November 1991. It is also an offence to allow such a dog to be in a public place without being muzzled or on a lead. A total of 8,600 pit bull terriers were notified to the police and the index of exempted dogs. Of these, 5,223 were issued with certificates of exemption, of which 3,609 are currently valid.

  Section 3 of the Act also created new offences, applying to all types of dog, of owning or being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. A conviction for an offence in respect of one of the designated types of dog or for any dog not kept under proper control, and when there is an injury to the person, results in mandatory destruction of the dog. These provisions are intended to encourage more responsible dog ownership.

  Information on attacks by dogs is not collected centrally. The Act has resulted in a substantial reduction in pit bull ownership, in line with eliminating this type of dog in the United Kingdom. The Government remain committed to the objectives of the Act and have no plans to amend the law.

  Betting and Gaming
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further announcement on the future of the Tote. [38626]

  Mr. Howard
  I announced last year that I intend to carry out a review of the options for the future of the Tote in a way which preserves the extent to which racing benefits from the Tote's activities.

  Since that time, my officials have been carrying out preparatory work including informal consultations with a number of interested parties. The conclusion which I have drawn from this preliminary work is that those options which involve changing the existing statutory framework might put at risk the contribution which the Tote makes to racing.

  I have concluded that, pending further work on these issues, I should end the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Tote by retaining the present statutory framework for the present. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to the wish of the British Horseracing Board to take on responsibility for the Tote. However, while it is the representative body of racing, transfer of a public asset to a private body such as the BHB raises complex issues which are unlikely to be settled in the short term.

  I am laying in the Library a brief explanatory note about the Tote and the issues which have led to this conclusion.

  I intend to begin very shortly the search for a new chairman to take on responsibility for the organisation and to work with racing when Lord Wyatt retires in April 1997. The post will be advertised. In view of the importance of the Tote to racing, I intend to consult the BHB and other interested parties about the appointment and the responsibilities of the post so far as is consistent with the statute and the code of practice on public appointments.

  The new chairman will be tasked both with supporting racing and with conducting a wide-ranging review of the Tote's operations. I would expect them to pursue further

  607
  the improvements in efficiency the Tote has made in recent years. The Government will wish to return to the issue of the Tote's status in the future.

  The Government wish to enhance further their working relationship with the horseracing industry. I have therefore accepted a proposal from the chairman of the British Horseracing Board that he should personally select a small horseracing advisory group, who will meet me from time to time to discuss the general state of, and key issues affecting, the horseracing industry. The group will complement, not replace, the established arrangements for regulation and communication between government and the industry.

  Lord Wakeham has agreed to select the group, to which appointments will be personal, not formally representative of any particular interest, by the autumn and I look forward to a first meeting later in the year.

  Drug Prevention Initiative
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a report on the progress of his Department's drug prevention initiative. [38627]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am publishing today the drugs prevention initiative's sixth annual progress report which covers the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. The report describes the varied and extensive programme of community-based drugs prevention work which the initiative has developed during the first year of its expanded operation in 12 areas in England. The programme will run until 1998–99, and aims to show by then what people can do to respond to local drugs problems. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  Manchester Bomb Incident
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has determined the materials used to produce the explosive mixture used in the Manchester bomb; and if Semtex was used in the device. [34844]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The investigation into the bombing in Manchester on Saturday 15 June is a matter for the police. It is for them to decide if, having regard to any possible future criminal proceedings, they should make public the results of their current forensic inquiries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghan Refugees (Pakistan)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan on the issue of refugees from Afghanistan living in Pakistan. [37785]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly discuss with the Government of Pakistan a wide range of issues including Afghan refugees. Officials last discussed the issue with Pakistani counterparts during the annual aid talks in Islamabad in December 1995.

  Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the recent elections in Albania and with whom. [37791]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have had discussions in the European Union and continue to work with our partners in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe to establish a dialogue between the Government and the Opposition with the aim of agreeing steps to restore confidence in the democratic process.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available. [38625]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Copies of the foundation's annual report for 1995–96 will be placed in the Libraries of the House during the week beginning 22 July. The foundation received £2.5 million from the FCO for its activities in 1995–96. With this grant it has supported 426 projects, compared with 244 last year. Its priority areas for assistance have been central and eastern Europe, central Asia and anglophone Africa, but it has also funded projects elsewhere. The foundation continues to make a valuable contribution to the promotion of democracy overseas. Projects have included work with political parties, the independent media, trade unions, human rights groups, women's group and other non-governmental organisations involved in political development.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 28, if he will provide a breakdown of the main spending involved in the miscellaneous expenditure of £4,600 incurred by his Department on the visit of the Duchess of Kent to the Seychelles on 3 to 6 December 1993; and if he will break down the travel cost to show the methods and people carried. [35875]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main expenditure was for clothing, which cost £4,300 for the whole party.

  Commercial flights were used. Four staff accompanied the Duchess of Kent, at a total cost for the whole party of £15,500.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 26, if he will itemise the main spending involved in the miscellaneous expenditure of £7,500 on the official visit by the Duke and Duchess of Kent to Hong Kong from 25 November to 2 December 1994. [35740]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main miscellaneous expenditure was for clothing, which cost £7,400 for the whole party.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 27, if he will itemise

  609
  the main spending involved in the miscellaneous expenditure of £7,400 on the official visit by the Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean in March 1993. [35742]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main headings of expenditure in the miscellaneous categories were as follows:

  Clothing for the whole party: £1,800

  Expenditure on royal yacht: £4,400

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 27, if he will give details of the methods and costs of travel for the visit by the Prince Edward to Swaziland between 4 and 7 September; and if he will give a breakdown of the main spending involved in the miscellaneous expenditure of £4,900. [35873]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The party travelled by commercial flight at a total cost of £11,600. The main expenditure in the miscellaneous heading was as follows:

  Clothing for the whole party: £2,200

  Reconnaissance visit: £2,600

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 29, if he will give a breakdown of the main spending in the expenditure of £6,300 incurred by his Department arising from the visit by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Mexico on 20 to 23 November 1995. [35877]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main headings of expenditure in the miscellaneous category were as follows:

  Clothing for the whole party: £3,000

  Reconnaissance visit: £3,300

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 28, if he will provide a breakdown of the miscellaneous expenditure of £8,100 incurred by his Department for the visit of Princess Alexandra to Hong Kong and India on 14 to 27 October 1994. [35874]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main expenditure in the miscellaneous category was for clothing for the whole party at £7,000.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 28, if he will give the dates of the visit and the engagements undertaken by the Princess Margaret to San Francisco in 1995; and if he will give a breakdown of the main spending involved in the miscellaneous expenditure of £10,300 incurred by his Department as part of the visit. [35876]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The visit by Princess Margaret to San Francisco was from 23 to 29 June 1995.

  Engagements included attendance at events celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations, a concert by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, and official receptions including for the English Speaking Union.
  610
  The main headings of expenditure in the miscellaneous category were as follows:

  Clothing for the whole party: £7,200

  Reconnaissance visit: £2,200

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 26–27, if he will list those countries visited by the Duke of Edinburgh in the Caribbean in March 1993 and Her Majesty the Queen in the same area in 1994. [35741]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: In 1993, the Duke of Edinburgh visited Dominica, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  In 1994 the Queen visited Puerto Rico, Anguilla, Dominica, Guyana, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, the Bahamas and Bermuda.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 27, if he will provide a breakdown of the main items comprising the £13,400 miscellaneous expenditure incurred by his Department in respect of the visit by the Princess of Wales to Nepal on 2 to 6 March 1993; and how much of the expenditure related to clothes for the princess. [35872]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The main headings of expenditure in the miscellaneous category were:

  Clothing for the whole party: £4,800

  Reconnaissance visit: £7,000

  It would be inappropriate to provide further details. High-profile and worthy representation of Britain abroad inevitably involves additional expenditure on clothes by members of the royal family and certain of those accompanying them. It is right that such expenditure should be met by the Government for visits undertaken at our request.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to ensure that at least one member of an industrial tribunal dealing with cases raised under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is a person with special knowledge or experience of disability issues in the employment field; and if he will make a statement. [37894]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The constitution of individual tribunals is a matter for the president of the industrial tribunals and their regional chairmen. However, my Department and the industrial tribunals are currently considering the implications of the employment provisions contained in the Disability Discrimination Act. As part of this, special efforts were made in October last year to recruit new lay members who are disabled or have a special interest in disability matters. Eight per cent. of those appointed were people with disabilities. We also added the Employers Forum on Disability and the
  611
  National League of the Blind and Disabled to the list of sponsor bodies which provide nominations to the Secretary of State.

  Queen's Moat Houses plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's investigation into the Queen's Moat Houses group, indicating the costs to public funds incurred to date. [37822]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 12 November 1993 inspectors were appointed under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of Queen's Moat Houses plc. Their inquiries are continuing. The cost of the inspection to date is £2.5 million.

  Brick Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he is taking to promote competition in the manufacture and supply of bricks; and if he will make a statement; [38039]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to prevent the creation of a duopoly in the supply of bricks to the building industry. [38036]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to keep markets under review and to consider taking action where he believes there may be anti-competitive behaviour.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed acquisition of Redland Brick plc by Ibstock Building Products Ltd; and if he will make a statement. [38034]

  Mr. Taylor
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear on 11 July,Official Report, column 284, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading he will refer this proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission unless suitable undertakings are given by Ibstock to remove the competition concerns arising from the acquisition. A public consultation exercise is under way on the form and content of those undertakings and it would be wrong to prejudge the final outcome.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received to date from the housebuilding industry about the proposed acquisition of Redland Brick plc by Ibstock Building Products Ltd. [38035]

  Mr. Taylor
  One has been made to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Representations about mergers under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading would usually be made to the DGFT in the first instance so that he could include them in his advice to my right hon. Friend.

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Export Guarantees Advisory Council(a) holds public meetings, (b) conducts public consultation exercises, (c) conducts consultation exercises with outside
  612
  interests, (d) publishes a register of members' interests, (e) publishes agendas for meetings and (f) publishes the minutes of meetings; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37904]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Export Guarantees Advisory Council is a purely advisory body appointed under the terms of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. Its function is to advise the Secretary of State, at his request, in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of his functions under the Act. Its members receive no remuneration.

  The answers to the specific questions are no in every case except that in respect of (d); the Export Credits Guarantee Department's annual report lists the main interest of each of the advisory council members. A full register of interests is not published.

  Office of Electricity Regulation (Sponsored Bodies)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Electricity Regulation(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary; [37905]

  (2) what is the statutory base of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Electricity Regulation; and if they (a) publish their advice to OFFER, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37906]

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 14 electricity consumers committees, which are independent bodies established under section 2 of the Electricity Act 1989. Section 52 of the Electricity Act requires each committee to report annually to the Director General of Electricity Supply and to include a statement on all the matters on which the committee has advised the director during that period. Section 52 enables the director to publish the reports of the consumers committees. In practice he has done this by incorporating them into the Offer annual report, which is published and laid before Parliament. Schedule 2 of the Act requires that the meetings of the committees, with certain exceptions, shall be open to the public and that agendas be published. Copies of the minutes of public meetings are available on request. Section 51 of the Act requires each committee to consult with and make representations to the relevant public electricity supplier. The consumers committees consult local consumer groups. A register of members' interests is not published.

  The National Consumers Consultative Committee was established under section 53 of the Act. Its statutory duty is to keep under review matters affecting the interests of electricity customers generally and to facilitate the exchange of information between the director and the consumers committees. Its membership is made up of

  613
  the chairmen of the electricity consumer councils. Details of the work of the National Consumers Consultative Committee appears in the Offer annual report.

  Departmental Bills (Payment)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of bills were paid on time by Government Departments and their agencies during the financial year 1995–96. [38855]

  Mr. Lang
  Government Departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and to publish the results in their departmental or annual reports. The following table lists, by Department, the proportion of bills paid within 30 days, or other agreed credit period, of receipt of a valid invoice for financial year 1995–96.

  The figures in the tables have been calculated using different monitoring methods and concerns have been expressed that these differences have made comparisons between Departments difficult.

  The Prime Minister therefore announced on 11 March this year that more consistent monitoring requirements were to be placed on Departments and that they were to publish their performance against strict targets in an annual league table. This would allow more valid comparison between Departments in addition to the year on year comparisons possible under the previous monitoring system.

  The new monitoring requirements have been in place since 1 June 1996 and the first league table of performance based on these requirements will be published in the autumn. It is currently the intention to publish the information annually thereafter, following the end of each financial year. All Departments should aim to pay 100 per cent. of invoices, including disputed invoices once the dispute has been settled, on time. No Department should fall below 95 per cent. for undisputed bills.

  The results for 1995–96 based on the previous monitoring procedures are:

  Departmental payment performance 1995–96

  Department

  Percentage of invoices paid on time

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  83

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  96

  Charity Commission

  88.8

  HM Customs and Excise

  94

  Cabinet Office

  84

  Central Statistical Office

  88

  Crown Prosecution Service

  94.3

  Ministry of Defence

  99.9

  Department for Education

  75.2

  Employment Department

  97.1

  Employment Service

  98.5

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  99.66

  Office for Standards in Education

  96.3

  Department of the Environment (incl. Office of Water Services)

  92

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  90

  Ordnance Survey

  91

  PSA Services

  100

  Health and Safety Executive

  93.8

  Office of Fair Trading

  96

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  93.5

  614

  Departmental payment performance 1995–96

  Department

  Percentage of invoices paid on time

  Forestry Commission

  86

  Office of Gas Supply

  99.8

  Department of Health

  95.2

  Home Office

  91

  Inland Revenue

  92.3

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100

  Office of the National Lottery

  89

  Lord Chancellors Department/The Court Service

  93.9

  Department of National Heritage

  91

  Department for National Savings

  99.2

  Northern Ireland Office

  96.6

  Overseas Development Administration

  90

  HM Paymaster General

  84.6

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  97.4

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  98.7

  Serious Fraud Office

  92

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (Wales)

  98.5

  The Scottish Office

  94

  Department of Social Security

  96

  Office of Telecommunications

  94

  Department of Trade and Industry

  93

  Department of Transport

  90.3

  HM Treasury

  86

  The Welsh Office

  95

  Export Initiatives
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new initiatives he is planning to secure business for the United Kingdom in(a) the middle east and (b) the far east; and if he will make a statement. [36381]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Through the overseas trade services organisation the Government spend more than £200 million a year on a wide range of export promotion services and support helping to secure business of UK companies across the world. For the markets of the middle east and the far east, my Department is supporting an extensive programme of trade missions, trade fairs, exhibitions, seminars, sectoral and market promotions, and is planning ministerial and other high-level visits with accompanying business delegations. Examples of initiatives include:

  (a) Middle east.

  A major exhibition in Bahrain in February 1997 to highlight British design excellence.

  A programme of Gulf update conferences through the UK to promote the Gulf as an export destination and to market the 14 DTI supported trade missions to the Gulf between autumn 1996 and spring 1997.

  A series of initiatives to encourage British business women to visit the Gulf and to access the extensive network of Arab women who own businesses in the region. My Department took a team of British business women to Saudi Arabia in March—to demonstrate that women can do business there.

  The Israel-Britain Business Council, a new forum for business, has been established and has now held its second meeting.
  615
  (b) Far east.

  Visits in September by the President of the Board of Trade to China, by myself to east Asia, and by Lord Fraser to south-east Asia, all with UK business delegations.

  Hosting the meeting of the Singapore British Business Group in October in the UK and supporting the first meeting of the British Philippines business group in Manila in September.

  Working with UK business to set up a British industrial centre in Japan, where British businesses can share facilities.

  Running a regular programme of "Key Contacts Japan" events where high-level UK-based Japanese contacts are introduced to quality British manufacturers.

  Supporting UK participation in over 100 trade fairs and trade missions throughout the region over the next six to nine months.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the book value of each research institute site of the research institutes of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council:. and who is the registered owner of each site. [37399]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Institute site

  Owner

  Net book value (£ million)1

  BBSRC2

  Institute for Arable Crops Research:

  Rothamsted experimental station

  Lawes Agricultural Trust

  30.4

  Long Ashton research station

  University of Bristol

  11.3

  Broom's Barn

  Lawes Agricultural Trust

  2.5

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research:

  Aberystwyth research centre

  University of Wales

  12.1

  North Wyke research centre

  Crown Commissioners

  2.0

  Bronydd Mawr research station

  Crown Commissioners

  0.8

  Trawsgoed research farm

  BBSRC

  2.8

  John Innes Centre

  John Innes Foundation

  28.2

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Part BBSRC; part Department of the Environment

  12.7

  Roslin Institute:

  Edinburgh

  Part BBSRC; part University of Edinburgh

  7.0

  Blythbank

  BBSRC

  1.5

  Babraham Institute

  BBSRC

  30.4

  616

  Institute site

  Owner

  Net book value (£ million)1

  Institute for Animal Health:

  Compton laboratory

  BBSRC

  34.0

  Pirbright laboratory

  BBSRC

  29.0

  Neuropathogenesis unit

  BBSRC

  2.0

  Institute for Food Research:

  Reading laboratory

  Reading University

  10.0

  Norwich laboratory

  BBBSRC

  9.6

  MRC

  National Institute for Medical Research

  MRC

  16.6

  Laboratory of Molecular Biology

  Addenbrookes Hospital NHS Trust

  1.5

  Clinical Sciences Centre

  Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust

  11.0

  NERC British Geological Survey

  Eskdalemuir

  NERC

  0.3

  Keyworth

  NERC

  8.3

  Hartland

  NERC

  0.2

  Exeter

  NERC

  0.2

  Murchison House

  Edinburgh University

  2.9

  Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  East Stoke

  NERC

  0.2

  Wareham

  Freshwater Biological Association

  nil

  Windermere

  Freshwater Biological Association

  nil

  Institute of Hydrology

  Wallingford

  NERC

  2.8

  Balquidder

  NERC

  0.0

  Staylittle

  Forestry Commission

  nil

  Stirling

  Scottish Metropolitan

  nil

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Furzebrook

  NERC

  0.3

  Merlewood

  NERC

  0.4

  Monks Wood

  NERC

  0.7

  Limegarth Wood

  NERC

  0.0

  Banchory

  NERC

  0.3

  Bangor

  NERC

  0.1

  University of Wales

  nil

  Bush

  NERC

  0.8

  Abergwyngregyn

  University of Wales

  nil

  Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

  Bidston

  NERC

  0.0

  Borough of Birkenhead

  0.5

  Victoria Dock

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  nil

  NERC Scientific Services

  NERC

  0.0

  British Antartic Survey

  Cambridge University

  5.0

  Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  Raglan barracks

  Department of Trade and Industry

  nil

  Citadel Hill

  Crown Estate

  nil

  Prospect Place

  City of Plymouth

  2.5

  Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

  Scottish Association for Marine Science

  Nil

  617

  Institute site

  Owner

  Net book value (£ million)1

  Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology:

  Oxford

  University of Oxford

  2.4

  Wytham

  University of Oxford

  0.0

  Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

  Scottish Enterprise

  Nil

  Southampton Oceanography Centre

  Associated British Ports

  430.2

  PPARC

  Royal Greenwich Observatory

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  5.2

  Royal Observatory Edinburgh

  PPARC

  7.4

  Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii

  University of Hawaii

  13.5

  Iaac Newton Telescopes, La Palma

  Government of Spain

  15.5

  1 Values are for land and buildings. 2Existing use values based on 1992 prices.

  3 Open Market values for alternative use.

  4 Depreciated replacement cost.

  Post Office
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to suspend the Post Office's statutory monopoly on delivery of letters under £1. [38854]

  Mr. Lang
  I wrote last week to the chairman of the Post Office initiating consultations on the implications of suspension of the monopoly. These consultations are continuing.

SCOTLAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each occasion in the last two months in which his Department has consulted fanners directly about policy development concerning the BSE and beef crisis; and if he will make a statement. [37363]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During May to July my Department has consulted directly with the beef industry on the following specific occasions:

  3 May: Mature beef assurance scheme

  6 June: Proposals for compulsory cattle passports

  10 June: Mammalian meat and bonemeal—proposed legislation (The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) (No 2) Order 1996)

  11 June: specified bovine material controls in abattoirs

  3 July: BSE accelerated slaughter scheme

  10 July: meat and bone meal proposed legislation

  11 July: Mammalian meat and bonemeal—proposed legislation (The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) (No 2) Order 1996)

  Where direct consultation with individual farmers is not possible, my Department works closely with the main representative bodies involved in the industry. I am particularly appreciative of the way in which the industry in Scotland has been co-operating throughout the BSE
  618
  crisis. Individual beef producers are kept abreast of developments, through the regular newsletter distributed by my Department.

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he has given to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in pursuit of its Doomsday 2000 initiative; and if he will make a statement. [37992]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The keeper and chief executive of the Registers of Scotland executive agency is actively assisting and co-operating with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in pursuit of the ScotLIS initiative, the Scottish version of Domesday 2000.

  The agency is currently chairing a core group of interested parties, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Scottish Homes, Scottish Enterprise and Ordnance Survey, which is considering how best to take forward the development of a national land information system for Scotland.

  Scottish Courts Administration
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the Scottish Courts Administration(a) holds public meetings, (b) conducts public consultation exercises, (c) conducts consultation exercises with outside interests, (d) publishes a register of members' interests, (e) publishes agendas for meetings and (f) publishes the minutes of meetings; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37908]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission does not hold public meetings, publish a register of commissioners' interests or publish agendas or minutes of meetings. The commission does hold public consultation exercises and consultation exercises with outside interests. It does so voluntarily in order to carry out effectively its statutory duty to keep the law under review and make proposals for its reform.

  Prison Service Targets
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set the Scottish Prison Service for 1996–97. [38628]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have set the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service the following targets:

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of prisoners unlawfully at large

  No 'A' category prisoners should escape.

  The number of escapes by 'B' category prisoners should be no higher than 2 per 1,000 prisoners.

  The number of escapes by 'C' category prisoners should be no higher than 2.5 per 1,000 prisoners.

  619

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of serious assaults on staff and prisoners

  The number of serious assaults on staff should be no higher than 3 per 1,000 staff.

  The number of serious assaults on other prisoners should be no higher than 10 per 1,000 prisoners.

  The amount of available opportunities for prisoners' self development

  To ensure that 400 prisoners have completed a cognitive skills programme and 100 prisoners have completed a sex offender programme during 1996–97.

  Average annual cost per prisoner place

  To keep costs within £27,392 per place available for use.

  The level of absence through staff sickness

  To reduce the average number of days lost per person per year through staff sickness to 16.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibition
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Association for Science Education to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [38230]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 25 November to Friday 29 November 1996.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chairman of the administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Tackling Drugs Together—Those Who Make it Possible", to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [38474]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 2 December to Friday 6 December 1996.

  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to 100 years of British mycology to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [38514]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 11 November to Friday 15 November 1996.

  House of Commons Staff Salaries
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the average annual salary, including where appropriate any overtime, on 620
  1 October 1971 of (i) (a) a Senior Library Clerk, (b) the highest paid Chef, (c) a Senior Clerk in the House of Commons and (ii) a ministerial car driver; if he will indicate in each of those cases what that salary would be today if it had been increased annually in line with inflation; and what is the current annual salary for each of those grades.

  Mr. Beith
  Figures for salaries of Commission staff prior to 1978 are not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since the establishment of the House of Commons Commission in 1978, staff salaries have been included in the Commission's annual reports. Figures for ministerial car drivers are a matter for the Cabinet Office. The earliest figures readily available are those for 1 April 1978.

  London-based salaries are as follows:

  Senior Clerk: £7,315–£9,235 p.a.

  Senior Library Clerk: £5,917–£8,879 p.a.

  Executive Chef: £9,980 p.a. (at 1 January 1980)1

  1 The Refreshment Department did not become a Department of the House until 1980 and staff salaries for that Department did not appear in the Commission's report until that for 1979–80

  Those Senior Clerks and Senior Library Clerks who performed additional night duty were paid an allowance of £1,555 p.a.

  Applying the inflation factors for 1 April 1978 (x 3.093) and 1 April 1980 (x 2.454), respectively, these figures become:

  Senior Clerk: £22,625–£28,619 p.a.

  Senior Library Clerk: £18,301–£27,463 p.a.

  Executive Chef: £24,490 p.a.

  The night allowance becomes £4,810 p.a.

  Current salaries for the above grades are as follows:

  Senior Clerk: £28,954–£43,802 p.a.

  Senior Library Clerk: £28,954–£43,802 p.a.

  Executive Chef: £28,954–£43,802 p.a.

  The current rate of night allowance is £4,010 p.a.

  In 1992 staff pay scales were radically restructured and they now include an element for performance-related pay so that strict comparison with the earlier pay scales is not valid.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a list showing the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37312]

  Mr. WIlletts
  In 1995–96 the number and value of contracts let to these consultancy firms, and their subsidiaries and associates, by the Cabinet Office including the Office of Public Service and its executive
  621
  agencies, the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office was as follows:

  Firms

  Total value (£)

  Contracts let

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1,147,000

  9

  KPMG

  928,000

  16

  Price Waterhouse

  292,000

  6

  Ernst and Young

  43,000

  3

  Deloitte and Touche

  180,000

  5

  Arthur Andersen

  41,000

  1

  Grant Thornton

  Nil

  0

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Nil

  0

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  130,000

  2

  Robson Rhodes

  Nil

  0

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37230]

  Mr. Willetts
  Several divisions and groups within the Office of Public Service and its agencies have Internet websites which provide electronic versions of published documents; these include the Civil Service Employer Group, citizens charter unit, Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Ministers also have addresses on Internet.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for the Civil Service College executive agency for the current year. [38694]

  Mr. Freeman
  The key performance targets for the Civil Service College executive agency for 1996–97 are:

  to break even in accrual accounting terms;

  to earn £1,600,000 from consultancy work;

  to attract 2,400 students from the senior civil service;

  to attract 1,400 students from the private sector;

  to earn 83 per cent. of course evaluations in the two highest of six categories.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions during the current parliamentary Session his office has co-ordinated responses from his ministerial colleagues to parliamentary questions. [36110]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The reply that I gave to the hon. Member in answer to a previous question on this matter,Official Report, 2 April 1996, column 86, sets out the circumstances in which procedures for co-ordinating responses to parliamentary questions come into play. Such co-ordination takes place on an ad hoc basis, and advice is often sought, and provided, informally. I am not, therefore, able to give the hon. Member a figure for the number of times responses have been co-ordinated in the course of the current parliamentary Session.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what account he took of the research by York university, commissioned by his Department, in drawing up the Housing Benefit General Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996; [34333]

  (2) when he intends to publish the research commissioned by his Department into service charges in relation to supported housing; and if he will make a statement. [34334]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The proposed amendment would restate the current position concerning which service charges can be met by housing benefit on the basis that the service relates to the provision of adequate accommodation. It was proposed after a commissioner's decision in an income support case cast doubt on the meaning of binding case law on this point, possibly leading to unplanned housing benefit expenditure in respect of charges for personal services. Early results of research by the centre for housing policy at the university of York suggested that payments of housing benefit were already being used for this purpose, confirming the need to regularise the position. We expect to publish the final results of the research before the end of the year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 on(a) the availability of (i) sheltered accommodation, (ii) departments' supported accommodation where housing benefit is currently payable and (iii) residential accommodation provided by social services departments and (b) community care policy. [35688]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already advised the chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), that these regulations have been withdrawn pending an inter-departmental review of the funding of services in supported accommodation. This review will consider matters such as the impact of the proposed legislation on accommodation supply and community care policy.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list as a proportion of all pensioners those(a) pensioners, (b) single male pensioners aged under 75 years, (c) single female pensioners aged under 75 years, (d) single pensioners aged under 75 years, (e) pensioner couples aged under 75 years, (f) single male pensioners aged 75 years and over, (g) single female pensioners aged 75 years and over, (h) single pensioners aged 75 years and over and (i) pensioner couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years and over receiving income from occupational pensions; and if he will provide figures for the mean and median amount received for the latest year for which figures are available. [36257]
  623
  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion with income from occupational pensions (per cent.)

  Mean amount (£ per week)

  Median amount (£ per week)

  All pensioner units

  62

  73.60

  38.60

  Single male pensioners under 75

  50

  180.80

  141.60

  Single female pensioners under 75

  64

  51.00

  29.20

  Single pensioners under 75

  61

  58.10

  31.00

  Pensioner couples with head under 75

  74

  100.10

  60.60

  Single male pensioners 75 and over

  61

  164.10

  132.40

  Single female pensioners 75 and over

  49

  42.60

  21.30

  Single pensioners 75 and over

  52

  49.00

  23.80

  Pensioner couples with head over 75

  66

  81.40

  44.10

  1 These results are based on a relatively small sample size. Therefore these results should be treated with a higher degree of caution than usual.

  1. Proportions are rounded to the nearest whole percentage, amounts are rounded to the nearest 10p.

  2. Information is based on the family expenditure Survey 1993 and the GAD survey of occupational pension schemes. All amounts are in July 1993 prices.

  3. A pensioner unit is defined as a single pensioner over state pension age (SPA) and a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA. To provide consistency the age of the head has been used to define the age of the couple.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claimants for family credit in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36335]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 17 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of claimants for Family Credit (FC) in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years.

  The information is not available in the format requested. The FC computer system holds records of the total number of claims received, awarded and disallowed on a national basis. Statistics are available which provide the number of families in receipt of FC within a BA office area on a given date. These offices do not correspond to constituency boundaries or to specific geographical areas.

  Details relating to FC claims are normally destroyed after 18 months, therefore the information is available from 1993 only. The statistics available are shown in the attached Annex.

  I hope you find this reply useful.
  624

  Families in receipt of Family Credit at that date

  Date of Scan

  BA office-Crewe

  Cheshire

  20 August 1993

  1,393

  13,895

  15 April 1994

  1,455

  14,686

  10 November 1994

  1,563

  15,553

  13 April 1995

  1,676

  16,252

  10 November 1995

  1,785

  17,503

  16 February 1996

  1,862

  18,164

  7 June 1996

  1,966

  19,380

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment. The BA office at Crewe includes details for Nantwich.

  Cheshire covers the following BA officesi:-Chester, Crewe, Ellesmere Port, Hyde, Macclesfield, Manchester-Sale, Northwich, Stockport, Warrington, Widnes and Wilmslow.

  Whilst these offices will primarily deal with their relevant part of the Cheshire County, they may also service parts of neighbouring counties. It is not possible to separate the figures presented and exclude any customers in receipt of Family Credit in those other countries.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage and number of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples have a total income of at least £125 per week; and what percentage and number of pensioner couples have a total income of at least (i) £200 per week and (ii) £250 per week. [36823]

  Mr. Heald
  The number of single pensioners with gross income of at least £125 per week is 1,200,000, or 28 per cent. of all single pensioners. The number of pensioner couples with gross income of at least £125 per week is 2,250,000, or 85 per cent. of all pensioner couples.

  The number of pensioner couples with gross income of at least £200 per week is 1,150,000, or 43 per cent. of all pensioner couples. The number of pensioner couples with gross income of at least £250 per week is 800,000, or 29 per cent. of all pensioner couples.

  Notes:

  1. Income is measured as gross income before housing costs.

  2. Information is based on the family expenditure survey 1993. All amounts are in July 1993 prices.

  3. The numbers of pensioner units are rounded to the nearest 50,000. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage.

  4. A pensioner couple is defined as a couple where the head, or husband is over state pension age.

  Doctors' Fees
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the(a) current hourly rate and (b) current payment per half-day session for fee-paid part-time doctors. [36908]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 1 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what is the (a) current hourly rate and (b) current payment per half-day session for fee-paid part-time doctors.

  Examining doctors are paid £30.70 per hour, and £107.45 per half-day session of 3.5 hours.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Medical Examinations
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of appointments for a medical examination for the all-work test of incapacity which are lost in each half-day session. [36910]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 17 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what is the average number of appointments for a medical examination for the all-work test of incapacity which arc lost in each half-day session.

  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Separate figures are not available in respect of the All Work Test. However, figures are available for all medical examinations for Incapacity Benefit. In the first six months of this year an average of 1.15 appointments per session were lost. The majority of these appointments will have been for the All Work Test, with a small proportion being in respect of the Own Occupation Test.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 345, about the cost of answering written questions, what work would be necessary to collate the information requested. [37513]

  Mr. Burt
  The examination of over 12,000 files dating back to 1989–90.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent action the Government have taken to tackle discrimination against disabled people. [37155]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes discrimination against disabled people unlawful in employment, access to goods, facilities, services and premises. These areas of the Act come into force on 2 December this year.

  I have today laid the Disability Discrimination (Services and Premises) Regulations before the House under part III of the DDA. These regulations relate to: insurance, where the way in which the Act operates needs to be qualified so that objective underwriting decisions are not restricted; guarantees and refundable deposits; education-related services; and people who have a power of attorney and act on behalf of a disabled person.

  I have placed in the Library copies of the analysis of responses to our recent consultation on these regulations. I have also placed in the Library copies of the National Disability Council's analysis of responses to its recent consultation exercise on proposals for a code of practice on the first of the rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises under the DDA.

  The council is to be commended for all its efforts in producing a code of practice to such a high standard so quickly after its creation.

  Meal Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the 15p limit on the allowable cost of a meal during working hours, stipulated under regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1978, was last increased; what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in restaurant meal prices since then; and if he will increase the limit by a similar percentage. [37841]

  Mr. Burt
  The 15p limit reflects the treatment, for tax purposes, of employees who receive luncheon vouchers. It has not been increased since its introduction in 1967. No estimate has been made of the increase in restaurant meal prices and we have no plans to increase the limit.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the latest year for which figures are available the distribution of child benefit expenditure among families with children, broken down into equal value income bands before and after housing costs. [37915]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The latest available information is in the table:

  Distribution of child benefit expenditure by equivalised income band, UK 1992–93

  Percentages

  Equivalised weekly household income (January 1993 prices)

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  £100 or less

  12

  28

  > £100 to £150

  26

  21

  > £150 to £200

  19

  18

  > £200 to £250

  15

  13

  > £250 to £300

  10

  8

  > £300 to £350

  7

  4

  Over £350

  11

  8

  1. Information in the table is derived from the 1992–93 households below average income dataset; 1992–93 figures are for two calendar years data combined.

  2. Income bands are based on the standard households below average income definition of income—weekly household disposable income adjusted for household size and composition (equivalised).

  3. Estimates are shown by £50 income bands except where figures would be unreliable due to small sample sizes. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Road Tax (Disabled People)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise the arrangement whereby people in receipt of the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance are exempt from payment of the vehicle road fund tax on their personal vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [37985]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering options for changes to the law relating to disabled vehicle excise duty exemptions to be introduced within the November budget. We are assured that, in the meantime, no disabled person will lose entitlement to free vehicle excise duty, even if they are affected by the disability living allowance changes.

  Motability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action has been taken by his Department in respect of the National Audit Office's study into Motability; and if he will make a statement. [38629]

  Mr. Burt
  The National Audit Office report has just been received and is now being studied by the Department.

  The motability scheme was founded in 1977 by the late Lord Goodman and Lord Sterling with all-party support. It is a unique example of collaboration between the public, voluntary and private sectors. This independent charity enables severely disabled people receiving mobility allowance—replaced by the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance from April 1992—or war pensioners mobility supplement to gain access to personal transport. Currently, over a quarter of a million disabled people enjoy the benefits of the scheme.

  The NAO report examines whether the scheme offers value for money to disabled people and how Motability monitors the quality of service the scheme provides. The report also looks at how the Department monitors Motability's activities against the conditions of the grant in aid provided. The NAO report concludes that the scheme provides good value for money to disabled people. It also notes that the Department has improved its oversight of Motability by setting out in a financial memorandum the accountability arrangements for the grant in aid towards Motability's administration costs, and holding six-monthly meetings to monitor progress.

  The NAO makes sensible recommendations for improvements in Motability's customer service and oversight of service providers. Motability has already begun to implement these recommendations and many are now in place.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  British Beef
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake discussions with major fast food chains in the United Kingdom to encourage them to revert to the serving of British beef. [36414]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have already had several productive discussions with representatives of those companies who have not reverted to the serving of British beef. We continue to do all that we can in consultation with the Meat and Livestock Commission to persuade such establishments to restore British beef to their menus.

  Roseclear
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into products with similar ingredients to Roseclear remaining on the market; and if he will make a statement. [36415]
  628
  Mrs. Browning
  We are assessing whether other amateur use products may present similar risks to consumers as Roseclear. In the light of this, we may require the manufacturers to carry out further safety studies.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of agricultural subsidy in the United Kingdom which went to(a) production, (b) non-production and set-aside and (c) organic farming for each of the last five years. [36416]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is contained in table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1995", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Crops
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance is available to develop uses for residual raw material from crops. [36417]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have funded research into industrial uses for crop by-products such as cereal and linseed straw, and there are grant-aided schemes which can be used to help projects in this area.

  Food Purity
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to provide consumers with information on the purity of the food they buy. [36418]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990 to label or advertise food in a way which is likely to mislead as to the nature, substance and quality of the food. Enforcement of these requirements is the responsibility of local authorities.

  Beef Processing (Job Losses)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of jobs lost since March in the beef processing industries on a regional basis. [36419]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Job losses resulting from the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis are being monitored by the Employment Service, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Reliable regional or sectoral analysis is not available, but it is estimated that nationally up to 10,000 jobs might have been lost across all sectors affected.

  Coastal Erosion (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance and advice his Department has given the Isle of Wight on coastal erosion in the last three years. [36420]

  Mr. Boswell
  In the last three years, the Ministry has provided the Isle of Wight council and all other coast protection authorities with(a) written guidance on the strategic approach to coastal defences and their environmental and economic appraisal, and (b) the results

  629
  of the Ministry's coast protection survey and of the commissioned research programme. The regional engineer has advised on individual proposals for studies and schemes, and approval for grant aid has been given to 13 such schemes and studies at an estimated cost of £4.2 million.

  EU Farm Holdings
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the distribution of payments under the common agricultural policy to EU farm holdings. [36421]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in having the EU's ban on the export of British beef lifted. [36422]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have agreed a framework for lifting the ban, based on objective scientific criteria. We are working hard to fulfil the conditions attached to the agreement to secure the earliest possible removal of the ban.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the ban on British beef exports to be fully lifted. [36423]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Florence agreement provides a framework for lifting the ban, with decisions based on objective criteria. We hope to be in a position by November to meet the necessary conditions for decisions to resume an export trade worth £530 million.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which directives with their relevant treaty articles have been quoted by official bodies of the European Community in respect of(a) restriction of inter-community trade in beef or derived foods and (b) prohibition of export of beef from the United Kingdom to any third nation not prohibiting its import. [24442]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Commission decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996, which prohibited both the dispatch to other member states and the export to third countries of British beef and beef products from the UK, and Commission decision 96/362/EC of 11 June, amending decision 96/239/EC and allowing the export of certain beef products from the UK under strictly controlled conditions, were based on Council directives 90/425/EEC and 89/662/EEC. The treaty base of both these directives is article 43 EC. This treaty provision allows the Council to adopt proposals relating to implementation of the common agricultural policy.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle from Cornish farms have gone for slaughter under the 30 months scheme in each week since it started. [36424]

  Mr. Baldry
  Numbers of cattle slaughtered under the over 30 months scheme by farm of origin are not available.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has received from animal welfare groups to his proposal to seek to add a protocol on animal welfare to the treaty of Rome. [36425]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's proposal has been broadly welcomed by the welfare groups. Some argue that we should go further—for example, by pressing for an amendment to the body of the treaty with explicit reference to animals as sentient beings. However, the addition of a protocol would create a legally binding obligation and so be sufficient to meet our objective.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on farm animal welfare. [36428]

  Mrs. Browning
  We continue to receive a high volume of comment on animal welfare issues.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the efficacy to date of the European common fisheries policy in conserving herring stocks in the British sector of the North sea. [36426]

  Mr. Baldry
  Fish stocks, including North sea herring, are not constrained by national boundaries, which is why international co-operation on their conservation is essential. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the creation of the common fisheries policy, the North sea herring stock was subject to a total moratorium due to overfishing. Since 1983 the stock has, under joint management by the EU and Norway, been able to sustain a viable fishery. However, in the light of new and urgent scientific advice, the European Commission, with the support of member states, has agreed a reduced total allowable catch with Norway and introduced an emergency regulation to halve the catches of North sea herring in 1996. This came into effect on 2 July. This swift action is a good example of the common fisheries policy working in a responsible way to conserve fish stocks for the long-term benefit of the industry.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made recently for improvements in the common fisheries policy that are aimed at conserving fish stocks and the livelihoods of those employed in the fishing industry. [36427]

  Mr. Baldry
  In December last year I launched the Fisheries Conservation Group, which brought together the industry, fisheries scientists and Fisheries Department experts to look at new ways to conserve fish stocks. Their findings were issued as a consultation document last
  631
  month and the European Commission have been kept in touch with developments as they prepared their own proposals on technical conservation.

  In addition, the CFP review group established in January 1995 by the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), has almost completed its work and is expected to report before the summer recess. I will give serious consideration to all constructive suggestions for improved fish stock conservation.

  The Government have already made it clear that it will be putting proposals to the intergovernmental conference to tackle the problem of quota hoppers. These proposals are designed to ensure that the economic benefits of UK quotas accrue to the UK's fishing communities.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next meeting his EU counterparts to discuss BSE. [36429]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will attend the Agriculture Council on 22 and 23 July and expects to discuss BSE during that meeting.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what warranties will be provided regarding freedom from BSE of cattle imported to the United Kingdom as herd replacements. [37720]

  Mrs. Browning
  The existing arrangements for the importation of cattle and other livestock from the European Community and from third countries already provide for a veterinary inspection to certify that the livestock are free from any clinical signs of disease. These arrangements are on-going and apply to animals imported now as herd replacements and imported in the past as herd replacements and will continue to apply for the future. Although BSE is present in a number of other countries the incidence is much lower than in the United Kingdom, and the certification requirements which are recommended by the international animal health code of the Office International des Epizoöties are much less stringent. Purchasers may, however, specify whatever warranty they wish when buying cattle, and should take veterinary advice before doing so.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of cattle that contracted BSE as a result of failures of animal feed producers to implement fully BSE-related control regulations in the production, distribution and supply of animal feed since 1989. [31251]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: No such estimates are available. It has however been estimated that the introduction of the ruminant feed ban prevented more than 150,000 cases of BSE.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results to date of the Weybridge study into possible maternal transmission of BSE. [32196]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The work being undertaken at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency will be published in the scientific literature in due
  632
  course. We have undertaken to make known any significant findings when the interim results of the experiment are evaluated.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the 10 most recent dates of birth of cattle confirmed since 1 January as carrying the BSE agent. [32097]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: As at 17 July, the 10 most recent dates of birth for BSE cases confirmed since 1 January 1996 are:

  28 October 1992

  31 October 1992

  31 October 1992

  01 November 1992

  03 November 1992

  05 November 1992

  12 November 1992

  01 December 1992

  05 December 1992

  31 December 1992

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent(a) antibody and (b) other research carried out at the central veterinary laboratory into the infectivity of BSE in the ileum indicates infectivity of BSE eight months prior to an animal displaying clinical signs of BSE. [32324]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]No PrP antibody test has been established that in BSE can specifically detect the altered protein in the ileum—assuming the protein to be a proxy for infectivity. Further work is planned in this area.

  Research at CVL into infectivity of BSE in the ileum has been confined to mouse bioassay of this tissue from cattle experimentally infected by oral dosing using a large dose of affected cow brains. Groups of infected cattle were then killed at sequential four month intervals and their tissues were sampled for bioassay of infectivity. Results of the study are incomplete, but so far infectivity has been detected in ileum of cattle from six months to 18 months after dosing. Those cattle which remained in the study developed clinical signs of BSE at 35 to 37 months after dosing. The results of assays started after 18 months post challenge are not yet available. Thus the studies indicate that, under these specified experimental conditions, infectivity is detectable by bioassay in mice from six months to at least 18 months after dosing.

  There is no evidence from the research or otherwise at present that infectivity and/or the altered PrP protein in BSE can be detected eight months prior to the onset of clinical disease.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the potential for securing an end to the European ban on beef on the basis of introducing post mortem tests in abattoirs for diagnosing the pre-clinical incidence of BSE in animals using ileum and or brain material; and what is his assessment of the costs and efficacy of such tests. [32309]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: It is impractical to use brain material for diagnosing pre-clinical BSE as the tests which exist are effective only

  633
  on clinically affected cattle, or on cattle that are about to develop clinical disease. Immunological tests using the ileum are still being evaluated.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the usefulness of cattle post mortem antibody testing for pre-clinical diagnosis of BSE which provides for results within 15 hours of testing taking place. [32320]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: Several potential diagnostic tests exist—some rapid, others slow—which are effective only on clinically affected cattle, or on cattle that are about to develop clinical disease within three to four months. Neither the specificity of PrP antibodies nor the sensitivity of the current diagnostic immunological methods allow detection of the accumulated disease specific protein in tissues at earlier stages of incubation.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing a national screening programme on the basis of amending current diagnostic procedures for BSE detection in abattoirs to include a three-month retrospective pre-clinical assessment of BSE infectivity. [32321]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: We see no benefit from doing this. Only three clinical cases of BSE have occurred since the beginning of 1995 in animals young enough to be eligible for human consumption under existing rules. The currently available diagnostic techniques do not identify cattle at the earliest stages of disease although the exact correlation between clinical symptoms, histopathology and infectivity in different tissues will not be established until the completion of the pathogenesis experiment currently under way at CVL, Weybridge.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned, and (b) evaluated concerning the survival of BSE infectivity through the rendering processes as used by Prosper De Mulder. [33141]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: Research into the inactivation of the BSE agent was commissioned jointly by MAFF, the EU and the European and UK rendering industry. The results were published in The Veterinary Record on 9 December 1995.

  Genetically Engineered Food
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards genetically engineered food. [36430]

  Mrs. Browning
  The UK has a well established and internationally respected system for the approval of novel foods including genetically modified foods. The safety of novel foods is assessed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, an independent body of experts set up to advise Agriculture and Health Ministers, and the need for labelling by the independent Food Advisory Committee.

  The Government support the concept of an EU regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients and are actively participating in discussions on the details.
  634
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the labelling of foods which have been subject to genetic engineering. [36432]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have accepted the advice of the independent Food Advisory Committee in this area, and have supported the proposed EC regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients. This would require special labelling for genetically modified foods where these may be significantly different from conventional foods.

  Bovine Offals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many breaches of the ban on specified bovine offals have occurred in abattoirs since 1 May. [36433]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Meat Hygiene Service is responsible for the day to day enforcement of the specified bovine material controls in licensed fresh meat premises. Between 1 May and 10 July the agency identified three breaches of the SBM legislation. It is following up each of these cases.

  As at 10 July, the State Veterinary Service had reported 599 unannounced inspection visits to abattoirs since the 1 May. Of these two 0.3 per cent. were unsatisfactory. Problems encountered related to a number of relatively minor infractions, such as incorrect record keeping and storage. Any case involving a serious breach of these provisions will be investigated with a view to prosecution.

  Birds (Insect Control)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the insect pest control benefits of certain species of bird; and if he will make a statement. [37366]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has commissioned no research on this subject and therefore has had none to evaluate.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many deaths amongst farmers and agricultural workers have been attributed to the use of organophosphate sheep dips and similar treatments since 1980. [37440)

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the suspected adverse reaction surveillance scheme, officials at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are aware of a total of four deaths in connection with OP sheep dips since the records were computerised in 1984.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated which shows a correlation between the use of organophosphate sheep dips and similar treatments, and the incidence of suicide amongst farmers; and if he will make a statement. [37439]
  635
  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  A three-year study by the institute of occupational medicine at Edinburgh university, to examine the neuropsychological effects of the use of organophosphate sheep dips, was commissioned jointly by the Department of Health, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, in November 1995. The study will seek to establish whether there are any links between abnormalities of the human nervous system and exposure to sheep dips.

  Animal Feed (Wood Flour)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he has made of wood flour as used in animal feeds; and if he will make a statement. [37914]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are not aware of the use of wood flour in animal feeds. The Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995 prohibit the use in compound feeds of wood, sawdust or other materials derived from wood if they have been treated with wood protection products. In addition under the Agriculture Act 1970, it is an offence to sell, or have in possession with a view to sale, any material which is deleterious to animals or, through the consumption of animal products, deleterious to human beings.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Pesticides Safety Directorate has revised its framework document since its launch as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. [38777]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate has revised its framework document with effect from 1 April 1996. The revised document, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House, reflects the changes and developments that have occurred since the directorate's launch as an agency three years ago. The changes will help the agency to build upon its record of success in the coming years.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the prior options review of the Central Science Laboratory. [38775]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the prior options review of the Central Science Laboratory, the Government have decided to seek the views of independent consultants. My Department has approached potential consultants and expects to make an appointment shortly.

  This further study will consider the options of retention in the public sector as an executive agency, contractorisation and privatisation. It is expected to be completed in October 1996.

  ADAS (Research and Development)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the 636
  outcome of the prior options review of Agricultural Development Advisory Service research and development. [38776]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the prior options review the Government have decided that all of ADAS's research and development functions are suitable for privatisation. I announced on 28 June 1995 at column 696 that most of ADAS's non-research and development functions would be privatised. The ADAS research centres will therefore form part of the body to be transferred to the private sector.

  My Department is now appointing financial advisers to assist us in managing the sale of all the ADAS functions which do not need to be retained in the public sector. The timing of the sale will be decided in the light of their advice.

  Slaughtered Cattle (Disposal)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement of 20 March,Official Report, columns 375–86, what research he (a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission into the effects on the water supply of the disposal of (i) offal and (ii) other waste from the slaughter of cattle on agricultural land. [23005]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 16 April, Official Report, column 466.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cash value of(a) imports and (b) exports of beef meat and beef meat products for the United Kingdom in each of the last three years for each trading partner. [29622]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Total imports and exports of beef meat and beef meat products, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, and for the United Kingdom's top 10 trading partners for each of the last three years, are as follows:

  Exports of meat and meat offal of bovine animals

  £ thousand

  1993

  19941

  19951

  Total all countries

  389,634

  500,744

  604,525

  of which to:

  France

  183,443

  221,674

  251,952

  Italy

  48,280

  59,892

  92,224

  Netherlands

  51,180

  58,747

  66,679

  Irish Republic

  19,516

  43,736

  55,876

  South Africa

  3,956

  9,440

  23,834

  Spain

  11,654

  20,851

  18,318

  Denmark

  5,301

  7,719

  17,263

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  11,478

  12,965

  17,150

  Germany

  10,441

  10,348

  9,144

  Portugal

  991

  2,985

  8,356

  Other

  43,394

  52,387

  43,729

  1 Provisional.

  637

  Exports of prepared and preserved beef

  £ thousand

  1993

  19941

  19951

  Total all countries

  8,273

  12,179

  11,711

  of which to:

  Irish Republic

  3,779

  4,237

  4,221

  Germany

  1,440

  2,708

  2,088

  France

  555

  1,060

  1,158

  Netherlands

  438

  466

  640

  Greece

  42

  693

  616

  Portugal

  1

  714

  432

  Spain

  316

  346

  406

  Sweden

  131

  205

  310

  Denmark

  31

  203

  279

  Belgium/Luxembourgg

  220

  235

  241

  Other

  1,319

  1,310

  1,323

  1 Provisional.

  Imports of meat and meat offal of bovine animals

  £ thousand

  1993

  19941

  19951

  Total all countries

  406,719

  323,456

  400,187

  of which from:

  Irish Republic

  180,262

  136,836

  158,787

  France

  29,258

  23,980

  32,841

  Zimbabwe

  31,764

  20,137

  30,296

  Australia

  30,921

  24,256

  25,623

  Argentina

  7,138

  10,442

  24,006

  Netherlands

  28,541

  27,032

  23,535

  Uruguay

  12,514

  11,808

  22,796

  Botswana

  17,417

  12,457

  17,682

  Namibia

  14,394

  16,117

  17,544

  Brazil

  13,992

  9,542

  11,740

  Other

  40,519

  30,851

  35,338

  Imports of prepared and preserved beef

  £ thousand

  1993

  19941

  19951

  Total all countries

  159,841

  148,905

  201,602

  of which from:

  Brazil

  86,036

  68,793

  85,533

  Argentina

  20,457

  22,121

  40,270

  Irish Republic

  24,652

  24,945

  35,837

  Mauritius

  3,180

  7,678

  8,215

  Zimbabwe

  8,536

  6,770

  8,085

  Uruguay

  4,511

  5,119

  7,674

  Netherlands

  1,199

  3,225

  6,262

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  2,137

  Botswana

  2,075

  1,931

  1,945

  United States of America

  77

  618

  1,477

  Other

  9,118

  7,705

  4,167

  1 Provisional. Bovine meat which is not separately identifiable is excluded.

  638
  Totals do not necessarily equal the sum of their components due to rounding.

  Gelatine
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been carried out on gelatine purified from cattle sources to indicate whether it might be contaminated with the infectious agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [31066]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Work has been published which has examined the effects of various of the several steps involved in making gelatine. This research indicates that each stage is likely to be able to reduce any infectivity. It is important to note, however, that the raw materials for gelatine production—from animals fit for human consumption and not including specified bovine materials—should not include potentially infectious material since infectivity has never been detected experimentally in any bovine tissue not covered by the current specified bovine material ban.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to act on the outcome of research concerning the treatment processes of(a) heating and (b) caustic soda used in gelatine purification in respect of the inactivation of BSE infectivity, funded by his Department, carried out at the neuropathogenisis unit, Edinburgh and published in the 1994 archives of virology, Vol. 139; and if he will make a statement. [33136]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: This experiment examined the reduction in infectivity of the BSE agent when exposed to caustic soda only and was therefore representative of one of the processes to which bone material is subjected in order to produce gelatine. A number of other steps are involved, including acid treatment, sterilisation and filtration, each of which contributed to the level of inactivation provided by the entire gelatine making process. The raw materials used to make gelatine do not include any tissues which have ever been found to harbour BSE infectivity. Information about all the processing steps was available to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee when it prepared its advice to Ministers on the safety of gelatine.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will match by way of a national top-up payment to farmers who have sold finished stock since 20 March, the sum agreed by EU Agriculture Ministers to be distributed to beef farmers in special difficulties. [36839]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: I have no plans to do so at the present time.

WALES

  Social Services Inspectors
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many social services inspectors were employed in each year since 1991 in Wales. [36507]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of social services inspectors employed by my Department for the years 1991 to date are as follows:

  1991: 7

  1992: 8

  1993: 8

  1994: 8

  1995: 8

  1996: 6

  Three additional inspectors will be appointed as set out in my answer of 4 July 1996, Official Report, columns 507–08

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37244]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department already makes some use of the Internet to publish major publications, and is considering extending its use more generally.

  Training for work expenditure 1995–96

  £ million

  TEC

  Starts

  Job outcome

  Disabled1 job outcome

  Disabled start1

  Disabled1 NVQ level 2–3

  Gwent

  0.786

  1.704

  0.325

  0.151

  0.035

  Mid Glamorgan

  0.539

  1.943

  0.242

  0.094

  0.082

  North-east Wales

  0.182

  0.987

  0.187

  0.047

  0.046

  Powys

  0.222

  0.463

  0.169

  0.087

  0.047

  South Glamorgan

  0.578

  1.922

  0.378

  0.178

  0.093

  Targed

  0.886

  1.743

  0.519

  0.262

  0.137

  West Wales

  1.026

  3.755

  1.240

  0.386

  0.307

  Total Wales

  4.219

  12.517

  3.059

  1.205

  0.747

  Source:

  TEC105B provisional 1995–96 out-turn.

  Note:

  1 These figures are for all disabled persons not only those"registered".

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums have been allocated by his Department to each TEC in Wales for those on training for work who gain an NVQ level 2/3 qualification(a) in total and (b) for youth trainees. [37386]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Expenditure 1995–96 £ million

  TEC

  Youth training NVQ level 2–3

  Training for work NVQ level 2–3

  Gwent

  1.381

  0.289

  Mid Glamorgan

  1.718

  0.410

  North East Wales

  1.562

  0.140

  Powys

  0.306

  0.141

  South Glamorgan

  0.902

  0.473

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 521, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37529]

  Mr. Hague
  The examination of over 17,000 files dated back to 1989–90.

  Source:

  POLIS.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums have been allocated by his Department to each training and enterprise council in Wales in respect of(a) those starting training for work, (b) those in employment for seven days or more following training for work (i) in total (ii) in respect of the registered disabled, (c) registered disabled starting training for work, (d) weekly allowances for youth training and (e) disabled people on a training for work programme gaining a national vocational qualification level 2–3 qualification. [37385]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested for parts(a), (b), (c) and (e) is contained in the following table. The amounts paid to youth trainees for weekly allowances are not collected centrally by the Welsh Office.

  Expenditure 1995–96 £ million

  TEC

  Youth training NVQ level 2–3

  Training for work NVQ level 2–3

  Targed

  0.895

  0.522

  West Wales

  2.536

  0.916

  Total Wales

  9.300

  2.890

  Source:

  TEC105B provisional 1995–96 out-turn.

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the estimated percentage of(a) men and (b) women, aged (i) 16 to 64 years and (ii) 64 years and over, who were obese for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [37369]
  641
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Health Promotion Wales carried out surveys concerning obesity in 18 to 64-year-olds in 1985, 1988, 1990 and 1993 and for 65 to 75-year-olds in 1993. The information is given in the following table. The 1996 survey is currently being undertaken and results should be available next spring.

  Per cent. of the population who were obese1

  1985

  1988

  1990

  1993

  Residents aged 18 to 64:

  Men

  7.2

  7.3

  7.9

  10.8

  Women

  14.5

  15.3

  16.7

  18.3

  Residents aged 65 to 74:

  Men

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10.1

  Women

  2—

  2—

  2—

  21.0

  1 Overweight or obese is defined as body mass index (weight (Kg)/(height (m))

  2 of 30 or more for males, 28 or more for females based on self reported weight and height.

  2 Not available.

  Bus Drivers and Conductors (Assaults)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a study of incidents of public service bus drivers and conductors in Wales suffering from assault in the course of their work, with a view to publishing guidelines to improve their safety. [37117]

  Mr. Hague
  There is already a programme of research into assaults on bus staff and passengers which covers Wales together with England and Scotland. The programme is overseen by a standing panel on assaults on bus staff.

  Guidance for bus operators is provided in the recently revised booklet "Protecting Bus Crews", published by the Department of Transport.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 10 largest industrial or commercial developments in Wales which resulted from inward investment since 1993; and, in each case, what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created and the average cost to public funds for each of these jobs. [37635]

  Mr. Hague
  All our dealings with inward investors are undertaken on a commercially confidential basis and we do not therefore publish details of individual projects except in cases where details of the project have been announced by the company itself. The following table contains details of the 10 largest inward investment projects, in terms of planned new jobs, which have been attracted to Wales since 1 January 1993 and which have been the subject of public announcements:

  Published figures for:

  Company

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planned new jobs

  RSA (£ million)

  LG

  1,700

  6,100

  1—

  ASAT

  42

  1,000

  17

  Newport Wafer-Fab

  230

  768

  1—

  642

  Published figures for:

  Company

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planned new jobs

  RSA (£ million)

  Ocean Technical Glass

  193

  750

  1—

  Aiwa

  25

  480

  5

  Ford Motor Company

  300+

  480

  1—

  Legal and General

  1—

  463

  1—

  Matsushita

  1—

  453

  1—

  Fenner

  12

  377

  1—

  Midland Bank

  1—

  370

  No support

  1 Not published.

  Details of the financial assistance offered to inward investors are commercially confidential. All such assistance complies with the rules of the relevant schemes and with EC state aid rules. The principal form of assistance offered in support of inward investment projects is regional selective assistance and where the amount offered is £75,000 or more, the total amount offered is published in "Labour Market Trends" in the quarter after the first instalment of grant is paid. Where such publication has already taken place, the relevant figure is included in the table.

  Most of the above projects are still in the process of being implemented and up-to-date information on the number of new jobs so far created by them is not held centrally.

  School Security
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make additional sums available to individual nursery, infant, primary and high schools for the purpose of adopting security measures against intruders; and if he will make a statement. [38090]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Funds have already been provided from my Department to enable eight schools in Wales to benefit from the Home Office's closed circuit television challenge. In addition, all the recommendations of the working group on school security, which included providing funding for security measures in schools, were welcomed and accepted by the Government and consideration is currently being given as to how best to implement them in Wales.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for Wales of the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the working group on school security regarding the provision of additional long-term funding specifically allocated for improving school security. [37846]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Funds have already been provided from my Department to enable eight schools in Wales to benefit from the Home Office's closed circuit television challenge. In addition, all the recommendations of the working group on school security, which included providing funding for security measures in schools, were welcomed and accepted by the Government and consideration is currently being given as to how best to implement them in Wales.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the Environment Commissioner of the European Commission concerning the lawfulness of expenditure on the Cardiff bay barrage, in the light of the Lappel Bank judgment at the European Court of Justice; [37984]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the European Court of Justice judgment on the Lappel Bank case on the status of the Cardiff bay barrage scheme; [37990]

  (3) what independent legal advice he (a) has received and (b) proposes to commission on the impact of the Lappel Bank judgment on the exclusion of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest from the lower Severn estuary special protection area; if he will re-insert it into the SPA; and if he will make a statement. [37987]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has been in regular consultation with the European Commission about the development of the Cardiff bay barrage. The Commission have accepted the UK Government's view that the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage is justified for reasons of overriding socio-economic interest. Furthermore, they are satisfied that the compensation measures under way meet the requirements of article 6(4) of Council directive 92/43/EEC. The European Court of Justice's judgment on Lappel Bank does not, therefore, have any implications for the Cardiff bay barrage.

  Beef
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available top-up payments to producers of clean beef carcases under 30 months of age; and if he will make a statement. [38091]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Top-up payments of £23.13 and £19.70 per animal under the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes respectively will be made this summer. In addition a further £29 million is being made available to help beef producers and we are considering in consultation with the Welsh farming unions how to put this to best use.

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the Gwent health authority's report into the appointment of a senior manager in January; if he was consulted on the decision not to proceed with the report's publication on 12 July; if he has received a report back from his special independent observer on the working party of non-executive directors; and if he will make a statement. [37983]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The report was not published on legal advice and, since this was a decision for the authority to take, I was not consulted. The independent adviser does not report to me but provides advice to the sub-committee inquiring into the appointment and my Department is being kept informed of her views which are of necessity confidential. I support the authority's determination to publish a full and correct account and this will be done with as little further delay as possible.

DEFENCE

  Military Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the advice given to individuals liable to military service who have sworn allegiance to the Crown but whose domicile subsequently becomes independent of the United Kingdom. [36921]

  Mr. Soames
  Since the UK does not have conscription into the armed forces, on the basis that all those joining the services do so voluntarily, the question of liability for military service arises only for those members of the reserve forces with a residual call-out liability. No advice is provided to reservists whose domicile subsequently becomes independent of the UK.

  Parliamentary Question
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 441, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37521]

  Mr. Soames
  The examination of over 27,500 files dating back to 1987–88.

  Residential Property
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties there are in the Ministry of Defence's stock of residential property; what is the current average rent; how many are detached single storey dwellings and what is their average rent; and how many properties are empty. [37695]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns 73,873 properties, including civilian dwellings, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some 14,498 of these are currently empty. Average weekly rents, which are set by the independent armed forces pay review body and are based on the most commonly occupied type of unfurnished accommodation, are £46.13 for officers and £30.10 for other ranks.

  There are 157 detached single storey dwellings, for which the average rent conforms with the figures given above.

  Service Men (Active Service)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 126, to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), if he will list those countries where (a) British service personnel categorised as loan service personnel are based and (b) training exercises involving British service personnel are being conducted. [37836]

  Mr. Soames
  British loan service personnel are currently based in the following countries:

  Angola

  Australia

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  645

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei

  Ghana

  Indonesia

  Italy

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  New Zealand

  Oman

  Portugal

  Saudi Arabia

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  South Africa

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe

  Training exercises involving British service personnel are currently being conducted in the following countries:

  Australia

  Belize

  Canada

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Jordan

  Netherlands

  Norway

  United Arab Emirates

  USA

  Market Testing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when market testing of support services in Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency took place; what the outcome was; and if he will make a statement. [37900]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was formed as an agency within the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1995. The separate organisations which came together to form the agency each had their own market testing policies in place before 1995 operating under the umbrella of the MoD competing for quality initiative. The Defence Research Agency, for example, had already undertaken the market testing of its engineering services and support services at a number of sites. This led to the implementation of a number of different arrangements involving a mixture of outsourcing and retention of restructured in-house services. In the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation, the support operations at several ranges have for many years been run on our behalf by contractors. I will be considering whether the entire support services division of DERA, known as DSSD, could be privatised; the feasibility of this,646
  including the possibility of incorporating some elements of support for the DTEO ranges which are not yet contractorised is currently being examined.

  Mr. Gordon Foxley
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar),Official Report, column 63, what actions his Department has taken against Mr. Gordon Foxley following the expiry of the time limits on payment on midnight 8 and 10 July. [38189]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Mr. Gordon Foxley did not contest the statutory demand, nor did he remit to my Department the sum adjudged by the court to be due by way of compensation in respect of his actions. As a result, my Department has taken appropriate legal action. I regret that, for legal reasons, I am unable at this stage to disclose what that action is.

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the capability of the joint rapid deployment force. [38804]

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are committed to the joint rapid deployment force which will become operational on 1 August. Our amphibious capability will play a key role in that force: the Royal Marines' ability to mount amphibious operations is critically dependent on the landing platform docks, currently HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. Both vessels have given long and distinguished service, including in the Falklands campaign, but will soon be approaching the end of their operational lives. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to announce that I am today placing a contract with GEC Marine to design and build two replacement ships at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness. The new LPDs will be called HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. They displace 13,000 tonnes, have a maximum speed of 18 knots and have a crew of just over 320. They can carry up to 650 troops, a range of vehicles, including tanks, and eight landing craft. They also have a flight deck that can accommodate two EH101 helicopters or one Chinook. They are expected to enter service early in the next decade. This order will be warmly welcomed by the Royal Navy and will also be good news for Barrow and for the many subcontractors throughout the UK, providing weapons systems, marine equipments and other components for the ships. The order, worth more than £450 million to GEC Marine and its sub-contractors, will help to sustain some 2,000 jobs in the UK.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of service married quarters accommodation are currently under construction; and at what cost to his Department. [37738]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: Some 53 officers' married quarters are currently being demolished and rebuilt at an estimated cost of £4.5 million.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of constructing new married quarters at Catterick garrison. [37737]
  647
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: The provision of 86 quarters at Belton park, Catterick, at the end of last year cost £4.7 million. Further plans to demolish and rebuild 529 quarters at Pleasantdale, Leadmill and Waitwith/Warell estates will cost in the region of £33 million.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries to detect fraud by cross-checking his Department's payroll with details of those claiming benefit he has undertaken; when these exercises took place; and how many staff were(a) suspended, (b) dismissed and (c) prosecuted as a result. [37705]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: None. The Ministry of Defence has neither the information nor the responsibility to make such checks. However, it would respond to inquiries made by the Benefits Agency if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual might be involved in benefit fraud.

  Britannia
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the programme for Her Majesty's yacht Britannia up to decommissioning. [37722]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's yacht Britannia is to be decommissioned in 1997. Until then, she will fulfil an active programme in support of the royal family's commitments at home and abroad, and of promotion of British commercial interests overseas. However, as with all Royal Navy vessels, we do not provide details in advance of Britannia's programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations the Governor of the Bank of England held with him in drawing up the Maastricht proposals for a European central bank; and if he consented to those proposals. [37825]

  The Prime Minister
  The predecessor of the existing Governor of the Bank of England was a member of a committee which compiled the so-called Delors report on economic and monetary union, published in April 1989. Although influenced by this report, the plans for economic and monetary union set out in the EC treaty as amended at Maastricht were the result of negotiations between member states' Governments and were ratified according to national constitutional requirements. In particular, protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty requires Parliament and the Government to give consent to the United Kingdom's participation in the third stage of economic an monetary union, on the terms contained in the treaty, before the United Kingdom would be able to take part. The Government have stated that they will seek to participate in the third stage only if they believe that it would be in the national interest to do so, on the basis of a full assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom at the appropriate time.
  648

  Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps he will take in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that decisions of the EU, the European system of central banks and the European Court of Justice concerning monetary and exchange rate policy are not binding on the United Kingdom; [37829]

  (2) if he will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that no restriction, with special reference to the role of the Bank of England and EU institutions, is placed directly or indirectly on the power of the United Kingdom Government to determine monetary and exchange rate policy. [37828]

  The Prime Minister
  Protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland states that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the protocol states that the United Kingdom would"retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law"
  were it to notify the Council of Ministers that it did not intend to move to the third stage. Paragraphs 5 and 8 of the protocol list those articles from the treaty and the statute of the European system of central banks from which the United Kingdom would be specifically excluded in these circumstances.

  As the Government's White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, "A Partnership of Nations", made clear, it is not expected that economic and monetary union will be discussed at the IGC. The Government have no reason to challenge that expectation, and will not be seeking to change the treaty arrangements relating to the United Kingdom.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an inquiry to examine(a) the reasons for the spread of BSE, (b) the use of animal material in feedstuffs, (c) the effectiveness of the measures taken to deal with the situation since 1986 and (d) the quality of the advice available to the Government on this matter. [38003]

  The Prime Minister
  No. These are essentially technical scientific issues which have been considered many times by the Government's own committee of independent scientific advisers, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. I have every confidence in the quality of the advice from SEAC.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36683]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July. [36685]

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

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the death of James Leo Nichols, a United Kingdom citizen; and if he will make a statement. [37477]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Together with our EU partners, we issued a statement on 5 July calling for a full and satisfactory explanation from the Burmese authorities of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death on 22 June of Mr. Nichols, who was a Burmese citizen. The statement also called for an investigation into Mr. Nichols' death by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Burma.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that health authorities consult community health councils on proposals to establish GP out-of-hours treatment centres; and if he will make a statement; [36191]

  (2) if he will ensure that community health councils are given the right to be formally consulted about the services commissioned from general practitioners; and if he will make a statement; [36189]

  (3) if he will make it his policy that health authorities consult community health councils on proposals to establish general practitioner out-of-hours treatment centres; and if he will make a statement. [36293]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the Community Health Councils Regulations 1996, health authorities are required to consult their local community health council"on any proposals which the Health Authority may have under consideration for any substantial development of the health service in the Council's district and on any proposals to make any substantial variation in the provision of such service".

  There is no explicit requirement for health authorities to consult CHCs about general medical services, which are the responsibility of general medical practitioners and governed by the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of general practitioners(a) born outside the EC and (b) who qualified outside the EC by region. [37147]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The latest available information is shown in the table. Data on country of birth of general practitioners is derived from General Medical Council data, which are incomplete and unreliable.

  Number of unrestricted principals who qualified outside the European Community by region at 1 October 1995

  Region

  Total number of unrestricted principals

  Number of unrestricted principals qualified outside EC

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,749

  550

  Trent

  2,555

  406

  650

  Number of unrestricted principals who qualified outside the European Community by region at 1 October 1995

  Region

  Total number of unrestricted principals

  Number of unrestricted principals qualified outside EC

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,932

  258

  North Thames

  3,776

  1,144

  South Thames

  3,640

  669

  South and West

  3,860

  111

  West Midlands

  2,799

  672

  North Western

  3,391

  770

  Total

  26,702

  4,580

  NHS Staff Morale
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into the factors underlying staff morale in the NHS. [37188]

  Mr. Malone
  It is the responsibility of local employers to ensure good morale is maintained within the national health service work force. The NHS executive maintains a national overview of human resource effectiveness in the NHS and commissions, and collaborates with, research studies into human resource management issues.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 585, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), if he will publish the information on hospital readmissions. [37505]

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall publish information on hospital re-admissions in the next "NHS Quarterly Review".

  Saquinivir
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into an extended access programme for saquinivir; and if he will make a statement. [37183]

  Mr. Horam
  Where different drug regimes are available, it is a matter for individual clinicians to discuss with patients and decide on the best form of treatment. We do not run extended access programmes in the United Kingdom.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has in respect of haemophilia and the hepatitis C virus to increase the resources for
  (a) reatment and support services for those infected,(b) research, (c) core funding to the Haemophilia Society to provide services and support on a continuing basis and (d) funding for recombinant products. [37875]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 15 July,Official Report, columns 376–77.
  651

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals in the Greater London area currently have facilities to incinerate their own clinical waste. [37861]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Purchasing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the research brief on alternative models for purchasing in the NHS on which he plans to seek tenders. [38033]

  Mr. Malone
  Work on primary care models of purchasing has already been tendered. There is, as yet, no commitment to support further research.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a public inquiry into the irregular payments made to senior officers at the Yorkshire regional health authority. [38320]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the ninth annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship. [38806]

  Mr. Horam
  The chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship has submitted the ninth report to Health Ministers and the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Copies will be placed in the Library. I am very grateful to the committee, and particularly the chairman, Sir Clive Whitmore, GCB CVO, for their valuable work in monitoring the agreements. The report shows that the industry has continued to honour its commitments.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the business case for a multi-storey car park at the Royal Victoria infirmary was received; when a partner company was selected; when the proposals was submitted for private finance initiative approval; and when he expects to announce the commencement of construction. [38093]

  Mr. Horam
  The full business case for this development was received by the former Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority in August 1994. A partner company was selected in March 1993. The proposal was submitted for private finance initiative approval and it was approved by the national health service executive in February 1995. The Royal Victoria and Associated Hospitals national health service trust expects to announce commencement of construction shortly.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has received from the German 652
  Government to support allegations that the slaughter measures originally proposed by the British Government in March in respect of BSE were inadequate on health grounds. [31819]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The Government's bovine spongiform encephalopathy eradication plan was approved unanimously by the Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee on 19 June and adopted unanimously by the European Council at Florence on 21 June. The Prime Minister made a full statement to the House on 24 June, Official Report, columns 21–24.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Traditional Engineering Apprenticeships
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hours are spent (a) in the classroom studying the theoretical subjects and(b) gaining practical experience under the traditional engineering apprenticeship. [37077]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available.

  School Security
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of expenditure within the 1997–98 grant for education support and training programme will be allocated to the improvement of school security. [37438]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have accepted all the recommendations of the working group on school security, including the need for additional funding. This will be made available through the GEST programme from 1997–98 as indicated in the Department for Education and Employment circular 13/96 issued to LEAs on 12 July. Funding levels within the 1997–98 GEST programme will be determined as part of the public expenditure survey and announced after the Budget. A copy of the circular 13/96 has been placed in the Library.

  Children (Mobility Impairments)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to secure access to nursery education for children with mobility impairments. [3726]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Proposals in the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill and the associated requirements of grant will ensure that all children, including those with disabilities, have the opportunity to experience good quality nursery education.

  Departmental Costs
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the total aggregate costs to her Department of administration, oversight, audit and other regulation of each of the non-departmental public bodies, agencies and similar bodies sponsored by her Department. [37503]
  653
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The costs of overseeing the bodies sponsored by the Department cannot easily be disaggregated from the costs of related activities. However, estimated total aggregate costs of a recurring nature for the 1996–97 financial year in respect of the Department's oversight of the Employment Service, the Teachers' Pensions Agency and the 25 non-departmental public bodies and similar bodies sponsored by the Department are £1.4 million.

  Teachers (Redundancies)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have been made redundant in each year since 1979. [37752]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified(a) maths, (b) English and (c) science teachers there were in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools, in each year since 1979. [37753]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about the qualifications of all secondary teachers is available only from the secondary school staffing surveys, which were conducted in 1984, 1988, and 1992. The number of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England who had a post A-level qualification in one of the subjects requested was as follows:

  Thousands

  Year

  Maths1

  English1

  Science1

  1984

  47.9

  54.6

  n/a

  1988

  42.0

  45.7

  49.6

  1992

  38.1

  40.1

  46.2

  1 Some teachers counted in more than one of the three subjects listed.

  Primary teachers are generally trained to teach the full range of the primary curriculum.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give the approximate expenditure expected to be incurred prior to the end of July 1996 in relation to the scheme for under-five pre-school settings by(a) her Department, (b) Capita Managed Services, (c) each of the education authorities now operating phase 1 of the scheme, (d) inspection activities, (e) surveys or investigations
  and (f) information. [38089]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, the following sums have been paid to the local education authorities operating phase 1 of the scheme:

  Norfolk LEA: £2,266,668

  Wandsworth: £863,600

  Westminster: £358,318

  Kensington and Chelsea: £255,750.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 20 February, Official Report, column 120, to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, South
  654
  (Mr. Hall) on 26 June, Official Report, column 758, to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) on 7 March, Official Report, column 348, to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 19 April, Official Report, column 621 and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 16 July, Official Report, column 466.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the tender documents received by the Office for Standards in Education for the main contract for inspection of(a) nursery settings in the area of the four education authorities receiving nursery vouchers and (b) other settings elsewhere which she expects to participate in the scheme after April 1997. [38088]

  Mr. Squire
  I understand the tenders received by Ofsted for the administration of the contracting for the inspections of private and voluntary sector providers in the nursery education voucher scheme are still under evaluation. It is inappropriate to release information regarding commercially sensitive pricing.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a list of the surveys, investigations or evaluations which have been commissioned in respect of the scheme for nursery vouchers, and for each give(a) the cope and purpose of each investigation, (b) the terms of reference, (c) the questions asked, (d) the body or organisations (i) commissioning and (ii) undertaking the study, (e) the cost, (f) the body providing the finance and (g) the date or planned date of publication. [38087]

  Mr. Squire
  I gave details of research projects relating to phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 16 July,Official Report, column 466. The two surveys were commissioned by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Department, and undertaken by the British Market Research Bureau International. I am arranging for copies of the questionnaires employed to be placed in the Library. The analyses of data on voucher issue and redemption are being conducted internally.

  Tenders for a longitudinal research study of effective pre-school education are currently being considered. Details will be announced if and when a contract results.

  In addition, the nursery education voucher scheme comes within the ambit of the Department's internal audit division and will be reviewed in the usual way.

  Langham School, Haringey
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future of Langham secondary school, Haringey.[38773]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following letter was today sent by an official of the Department to the chairman of the governing body of Langham school, Haringey:I am directed by the Secretary of State to thank you for your letter received on 14 June 1996 giving the governing body's response to Mr. Stark's letter of 9 May 1996, which consulted you on a proposal to provide for Langham School to be conducted by an Education Association.

  655
  The Secretary of State has considered carefully all the responses she has received, including the representations made by the school's governors and the chief education officer of Haringey when they met with the Minister for Schools, Mr. Squire on 2 July.
  The Secretary of State notes that the Governors have a clear sense of purpose and show dedication to the school. She notes that they have taken a firm grip on finance and management, and that in June they appointed a substantive head teacher and deputy head teacher. She also notes that in the past few months there have been encouraging signs of improvement at the school, including a sharp fall in permanent exclusions, an improvement in the key stage 3 SAT results, and an increase in the proportion of pupils entered for GCSEs. She also notes the Governors' assurances that measures are in hand to improve the quality of teaching, including where necessary competence proceedings. She has also noted the assurances from Haringey LEA that it will provide continued support to underpin improvements at the school.
  Therefore the Secretary of State has decided not to transfer Langham School to the conduct of an Education Association at the present time. However, the Secretary of State's power to transfer Langham School to the conduct of an Education Association remains in force until such time as the school receives an HMI report stating that it no longer requires special measures. The Secretary of State will continue to watch carefully developments of the school and will pay particular attention on to the report of the next HMI monitoring visit, which we understand is likely to be in November.
  The Secretary of State remains concerned by one aspect of the responses from the Governors and LEA. In the earlier stages of consultation the chief education officer of Haringey contested the validity of the HMI monitoring report of March 1996. Subsequently, however, the chief education officer has said that standards of teaching had in fact fallen sharply between November 1995 and March 1996, but has argued that remedial measures had begun to remedy the situation by the time of the March 1996 HMI visit. The Secretary of State is disappointed that the governors and LEA did not make this complete view of the position clear to her much earlier, especially since they were given the opportunity to do so. In particular, the Secretary of State considers that the action of Haringey LEA in impugning the validity of the HMI monitoring report was unjustifiable and reprehensible.
  The Secretary of State believes that Langham School and others in its position can recover only if their governors and local education authorities are open in their reports on the situation. She is concerned that this has not happened at Langham, and proposes that you and the chief education officer of Haringey meet the Minister for Schools, Mr. Robin Squire, at this Department to discuss this further. A meeting has been arranged for 3.00pm this afternoon, Thursday 18 July.
  I am also writing in similar terms to the Director of Education Services at Haringey Council, the Head Teacher of Langham School and the Chief Executive of the Funding Agency for Schools.
  N J Sanders
  Director, School Funding and Effectiveness and Teachers

  Self-employment
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage self-employment in rural areas. [38774]

  Mr. Paice
  Since the issue of the White Paper "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside" in October 1995, we have worked closely with the Rural Development Commission, RDC, and the Consortium of Rural Training and Enterprise Councils, CORT, to evaluate possible new arrangements to encourage business start-ups in rural areas.

  The Government continue to provide a wide range of services for people, including those living in rural areas, who are either already in self-employment or are considering starting up in business. The services are used
  656
  extensively by people who live in rural areas, but there is scope to improve access for people who live in remote areas. Consequently, we intend to strengthen the delivery of these services in rural development areas through:

  (a) local projects contributing to a national focus for good practice and innovation in promoting self-employment in emote rural areas;

  (b) a new brochure for self-employed people living in remote rural areas, outlining what help is available through trainin and enterprise councils—TECs—colleges, business links and other agencies;

  (c) a conference for TECs and their partners on effective strategies for promoting self-employment in remote rural areas, and

  (d) increased attention to the needs of remote rural areas when greeing plans for support services for self-employed people.

TRANSPORT

  Maritime Skills Report
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the report of the study into the requirement for United Kingdom maritime skills. [38856]

  Mr. Norris
  The report, "A Study of the UK Economy's Requirements for People with Experience of Working at Sea" commissioned jointly by the Department of Transport, the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Society has been published today. I have placed copies of the report in the Library.

  The Government have long recognised the importance of trained seafarers for defence and economic reasons and provides targeted support for Merchant Navy training, principally through the Government assistance for training and the development of certificated seafarers schemes.

  The Government will consider the report's findings very carefully. The shipping and related shore-based industries will also want to consider how best to meet the potential problems highlighted in the report.

  Rail Franchising
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the subsidy requirements of the railway franchises which have so far been let fall below the claim made by British Rail for financial support less any administered profit; and if he will list the reductions for each franchise over the next seven years. [35986]

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows the reductions in support for passenger rail services required by private sector franchisees compared with the BR budget, excluding budgeted administered profit. The grant figures for franchisees include costs associated with the substantial additional investment in rail services to which they are committed. Because the BR figures exclude administered profit, this comparison makes no allowance for the additional benefit to the taxpayer of transferring financial risk from the public to the private sector through franchising. Nonetheless, the figures show that, after an initial increase, the net financial burden on the taxpayer will fall by nearly £200 million by the seventh year.
  657

  £ million

  Franchise year

  BR budget

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  South West Trains

  65,940

  -4.632

  -5.275

  -7.561

  -12.527

  -17.189

  -22.340

  -25.668

  Great Western

  45.690

  15.185

  10.943

  6.279

  0.409

  -5.146

  -8.180

  -10.456

  Inter City East Coast

  56.890

  9.497

  -4.139

  -23.157

  -42.399

  -51.589

  -55.092

  -56.890

  Midland Main Line

  10.480

  7.001

  -3.168

  -8.555

  -9.696

  -11.143

  -13.088

  -14.888

  Gatwick Express

  -3.930

  -0.597

  3.930

  -3.917

  -5.727

  -6.551

  -7.309

  -7.794

  Network South Central

  93.030

  -6.362

  -22.449

  -43.063

  48.138

  -51.356

  -56.346

  -58.388

  London, Tilbury Southend

  30.670

  -1.180

  -4.064

  -6.673

  -8.143

  -9.523

  -10.819

  -12.035

  Chiltern

  16.470

  0.052

  -3.474

  -4.613

  -7.870

  -10.896

  -12.348

  -13.600

  Total

  315.240

  18.964

  -27.696

  -91.260

  -134.091

  -163.393

  -185.522

  -199.719

  The BR budget is the latest available. For GW and SWT it is the revised 1995–96, for the others the preliminary 1996–97.

  Positive numbers indicate price increases, negative numbers price decreases.

  The BR budget figure for South West Trains and Great Western refers to the final 1995–96 budget, since these two franchises began operations during the financial year 1995–96. The remaining BR budget figures refer to the preliminary 1996–97 budget, which is still subject to negotiation between the BR Board and the franchising director.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young,

  Number and value of contracts let during 1995–96

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  Price Waterhouse

  Ernst and Young

  Deloitte and Touche

  Arthur Andersen

  Grant Thornton

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  Robson Rhodes

  Total number

  Total value £

  Privatisation

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2,680,250

  Market testing

  1

  1

  17,900

  Management advice

  0

  0

  Accounting

  1

  1

  2

  17,600

  Audit

  4

  2

  2

  8

  198,776

  Consultancy

  2

  1

  1

  7

  196,316

  Other

  1

  1

  80,000

  Total

  4

  7

  4

  6

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  26

  3,190,842

  Number and value of contracts let during current financial year to June 1996

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  Price Waterhouse

  Ernst and Young

  Deloitte and Touche

  Arthur Andersen

  Grant Thornton

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  Robson Rhodes

  Total number

  Total value £

  Privatisation

  2

  2

  202,000

  Market testing

  0

  0

  Management advice

  0

  0

  Accounting

  0

  0

  Audit

  1

  1

  37,541

  Consultancy

  1

  1

  1

  3

  13,526,150

  Other

  1

  1

  35,000

  Total

  2

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  3,800,691

  1 One contract includes a joint award with a contractor not listed in the question.

  Rail Ticket Sales
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a review of rail ticket sales following the research findings of the Consumers Association relating to the compliance of train operators with their licence obligations in respect of ticket advice, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will fine those companies found to be in breach of their licences. [37845]

  Mr. Watts
  The enforcement of licence obligations is a matter for the independent rail regulator. He has said that the intends shortly to launch a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the practical application of train operators' obligations on impartial ticket retailing.
  658
  Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37320]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is set out in the following tables.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if "grandfather rights" under the requirements of the second EC directive on licences will be revoked from 1 January 1997 for all existing lorry licence holders when they apply to renew a licence. [38182]

  Mr. Norris
  We propose that existing holders of group 2 driving licences should be able to renew their licences as long as they continue to meet present eyesight standards. Drivers who cannot meet these standards, but who have been allowed to continue driving under "grandfather rights" will also be able to renew their licences if they are regular drivers and have not been involved in an accident where eyesight might have been a factor. These proposals will shortly be the subject of consultation.

  Trans-European Transport Network
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in reaching the necessary European Parliament and Council co-decision on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. [38857]

  Mr. Watts
  Negotiations to agree a suitable text for the transport TENS guidelines have reached a successful conclusion. The text of the agreement was deposited before the Scrutiny Committee of the House, and that of another place, on 12 July. It was adopted formally by the Council by means of the written procedure on 16 July, and on the same day by the European Parliament after a formal debate.

  Adoption of the guidelines means that member states can now proceed to decide on the allocation of the TENS funds available for transport projects in 1996. The TENS financial assistance committee, which is composed of representatives of member states, is to meet to determine this allocation on 25 July.

  North Circular Road
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the various contracts to upgrade the A406—north circular road—at Sterling way, Fore street, Angel road and Lea valley viaduct to be completed; what steps he is taking to overcome the delays announced on some of them; and if he will make a statement. [36843]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 18 July 1996:

  As you know I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the A406 London North Circular Road.

  There are three adjoining contracts to improve this road between Stirling Way and Hall Lane. Contract A, the Fore Street Underpass section, is expected to be completed in December 1997, Contract B, the Angel Road Viaduct section, is scheduled for completion in December 1996 and Contract C, the Lea Valley section should be finished in August this year.

  Delays have been caused by several factors including having to contend with uncharted essential utility service pipes and cables, unexpected ground conditions and unforeseen obstructions encountered during piling work. To try to overcome some of the problems, the Contractors are working longer hours, increasing resources and reviewing their methods and sequence of construction.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how far negotiations have proceeded with the London borough of Enfield regarding compensation for the removal from Pymmes park, N18 of a cedar tree as part of the compulsory purchase of licence land relating to the widening of the A406 at Sterling way—north circular road; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current replacement offer from the Highways Agency; what further compensation is due as a result of the compulsory purchase order procedures and carrying out of highway and other works in the vicinity of Pymmes park; and if he will make a statement. [36844]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  660
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 18 July 1996:

  As you know, The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the compensation being claimed by Enfield Borough Council in respect of land taken from Pymmes Park for the widening of the A406 North Circular Road.

  The plot of land on which the cedar tree was located is required under an essential licence for the purpose of providing the contractor with working space for the duration of the adjacent roadworks. The District Valuer has reached agreement with the Council on the compensation payable for the use of this land and the Highways Agency propose to arrange for this to be settled shortly. The Council have not raised the possibility of submitting a further claim in respect of the loss of the tree itself.

  The major part of the land taken at Pymmes Park is required for the permanent works and is proceeding on the basis of an exchange of land. The Highways Agency is arranging for the former Willoughby Gas Works Site to be upgraded and given to the Council as replacement pubic open space for that which has been lost as a result of the highway scheme.

  Lighthouses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with(a) the Lights Advisory Committee, (b) the Marine Safety Agency, (c) Trinity House, (d) the Northern Lighthouse Board and (e) the Commissioners for Irish Lights concerning the advisability of constructing lighthouses in particular locations; and if he will make a statement. [37264]

  Mr. Norris
  All significant changes to the provision of aids to navigation around the coasts of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, proposed by the general lighthouse authorities, are discussed with the Lights Advisory Committee and the Marine Safety Agency. Recent discussions have been held regarding the provision of leading lights at Corlis Point—Shannon estuary—by the commissioners for Irish Lights, construction of a major light at Haskeir island and minor lights at Monach and Gasker islands in the deep water route west of the Hebrides and marking of the south eastern extremity of the 8 m islet to the west of Eileanan Dubha by the Northern Lighthouse Board.

  Cycling Accidents (Children)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children received head injuries in cycling accidents in each of the past five years. [38234]

  Mr. Norris
  National statistics are not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children(a) died and (b) were injured in cycling accidents in each of the past five years. [38233]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Child casualties (0 to 15 years in cycling accidents)1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Child fatalities

  50

  48

  37

  42

  48

  Child injured

  8,132

  7,677

  7,349

  8,033

  8,085

  Total child casualties

  8,182

  7,725

  7,386

  8,075

  8,133

  1 The child casualties relate to those killed or injured while cycling and exclude children injured in cycling accidents who were not cycling.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Queen's University, Belfast
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many actions have been brought by the Fair Employment Commission against Queen's university, Belfast in each of the last 10 years. [36600]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland was established on 1 January 1990. Since that date, the commission has provided limited assistance to 35 complainants involving Queens university, Belfast.

  The breakdown of cases lodged by calendar year is as follows:

  Year

  Cases lodged

  1990

  4

  1991

  2

  1992

  10

  1993

  11

  1994

  5

  1995

  3

  1996

  10

  1 To date.

  Drumcree, Portadown
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if razor wire is being used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army at Drumcree, Portadown; and if he will make a statement. [37162]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The use of barbed wire in the Drumcree area was an operational decision taken by the Chief Constable and a direct result of the public order situation prevailing at that time. The security forces did not use razor wire.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if armed forces are deployed on the line between Drumcree cemetery and the Derryonville road, Portadown. [37127]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Army was deployed in support of the RUC operation in the Greater Portadown area.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requirements are placed on members of the RUC to display their service numbers when on duty; for what reasons RUC officers serving at Drumcree parish church since Sunday 6 July have not been displaying their service numbers; if he will make arrangements to ensure that all officers of the RUC display service numbers when on duty; and if he will make a statement. [37160]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The display of service numbers is a matter for the Chief Constable. RUC directions require constables and sergeants to wear their service number on the epaulettes of all outer garments when in uniform. Officers of inspector rank and above display rank only on their epaulettes when in uniform.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets have been fired in the vicinity of Drumcree, Portadown since Sunday 6 July; how many civilians have been injured by the use of these bullets at Drumcree; and how many of the bullets have been fired at close range. [37161]
  662
  Sir John Wheeler
  Plastic bullets are not in use in Northern Ireland, but 90 plastic baton rounds were fired in the Portadown sub-divisional area between 6 am on Sunday 7 July and noon on Thursday 11 July. Four persons are alleged to have been injured as a result. The RUC has strict guidelines governing the use of plastic baton rounds, including the range of fire; their usage is carefully monitored as a matter of policy.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure the primacy of the RUC in operations in Portadown and district. [37128]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The fact that the police have complete primacy in operational matters has been well established throughout Northern Ireland.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his proposals for reducing the number of education and library boards will be implemented. [37217]

  Mr. Ancram
  In my statement of 25 June, I undertook to consult the education and library boards before finalising a date for the implementation of the new structure. Those consultations are continuing.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay his policy of appointing representatives to education and library boards. [37221]

  Mr. Ancram
  The present arrangements for appointments to education and library boards are set out in schedule 2 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money will be saved under his proposals for reducing the number of education and library boards; and if he will itemise the savings. [37168]

  Mr. Ancram
  My estimate is that the restructuring will save approximately £2 million, of which one half is expected to come from a reduction in senior management structures and central service functions and one half from efficiencies in the delivery of executive services. These estimates will be updated as detailed planning proceeds for the implementation of the new structure.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent to which his proposals for reducing the number of education and library boards ensure greater uniformity of provision for comparable schools. [37220]

  Mr. Ancram
  One of the objectives in reducing the number of education and library boards from five to three is to reduce the number of different school funding formulae presently used by the boards and to develop, in conjunction with the newly restructured boards, a greater uniformity of approach in allocating resources to similar schools under the local management of schools funding arrangements.

  Creches
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure on creche provision in further education in each of the last five years. [37165]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure on creche provision has been an integral part of capital works at colleges of further education and is not separately identifiable.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 68, on parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37537]

  Sir John Wheeler
  To collate the information for the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office would require the examination of over 11,000 files dating back to 1989–90.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, columns 613–14, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37536]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The method used by the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office would be an examination of over 15,000 files dating back to 1987–88.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation papers he has produced on the policy of incorporation of further education colleges; and if he will make them available. [37201]

  Mr. Ancram
  The planning and funding system for further education colleges has been discussed widely as part of the work of the review group on further education which reported in 1992 and as part of the review of educational administration from 1993 to 1995. The documents relating to these reviews are widely available. Since the announcement of incorporation in September 1995, the planning process has involved widespread dialogue and consultation with education and library boards, colleges, governors and unions. There will also be a period of formal consultation following the publication of the draft order.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which further education colleges involve students in their managing bodies. [37209]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Belfast institute of further and higher education is the only further education college whose constitution specifically provides for student representation on its governing body.

  Full-time Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of young people are full-time students for each year group in the age cohort 16 to 25 years and for the cohort as a whole. [37203]
  664
  Mr. Ancram
  Information in respect of Northern Ireland domiciled students in 1994–95 is set out in the table:

  Age

  Estimated full-time students as percentage of home population

  16

  75

  17

  62

  18

  48

  19

  36

  20

  32

  21

  23

  22

  14

  23

  8

  24

  5

  25

  3

  16 to 25

  30

  Graduates (Employment)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statistics he collates on the number and percentage of graduates obtaining employment after leaving Northern Ireland higher education establishments. [37205]

  Mr. Ancram
  Data on the first destinations of students qualifying at higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom are collated by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and the standard tabulation breaks employment into paid full-time permanent employment in the UK, other employment in the UK, and employment overseas. Further breakdowns by age, sex, subject of study, standard industrial classification of employer, standard occupational classification, and geographical region of employment can be produced.

  Book Allowances
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, by institution, the number and value of book allowances made available to students in further education. [37213]

  Mr. Ancram
  No specific book allowances are made available to students in colleges of further education in Northern Ireland. Colleges' delegated budgets, which are allocated by education and library boards on a formula funding basis, include provision for expenditure on books.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37238]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of Finance and Personnel has had a presence on the Internet since May 1995 and provides an electronic publication service for Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Each Department has identified a senior official who is responsible for co-operating with departmental business managers to determine which publications should be published on the Internet.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the charge of the firm, Capita, for administering the nursery voucher scheme in Northern Ireland; and what will be the cost per voucher. [37167]

  Mr. Ancram
  No contract has yet been entered into with any firm for the administration of the voucher scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the estimated percentage of(a) men and (b) women, aged (i) 16 to 64 years and (ii) 64 years and over, who were obese for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [37367]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland health and activity survey, which was published in April 1994, provides data on obesity in Northern Ireland in 1992. This information is given in the following table in the age groups used in the survey. Data on obesity for other years since 1979 are not available.

  Per cent. of the population who were obese in 1 1992

  Aged

  16–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65–74

  Men

  3

  9

  25

  18

  25

  23

  Women

  16

  15

  23

  30

  33

  23

  1 Obese is defined as Body Mass Index (weight (KG)/height (m))2 of 30 or more for males and 28.6 for females.

  Incorporated Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the interim report of the Department of Education and education and library boards working groups and the guidance documents relating to incorporation of further education colleges. [37202]

  Mr. Ancram
  The interim report is an internal document prepared by a working group for use by colleges and education and library boards in taking forward various issues relating to the transfer of responsibilities. It was not intended for publication. A guidance document is currently being prepared for publication and will be widely available.

  Further Education Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what analysis he has conducted of the characteristics of students entering further education; and if he will make a statement. [37208]

  Mr. Ancram
  Analysis which has been conducted on the profile of further education students has related to all such students, rather than entrants alone. This indicates that, in 1994–95, 71 per cent. of further education enrolments were part-time; 60 per cent. were female; 52 per cent. were aged 19 years or under and 34 per cent. aged 26 years or over; 25 per cent. were studying "science only" subjects and 42 per cent. "arts only"; and the breakdown of enrolments by course was A/AS level 11 per cent. GCSE 15 per cent., Business and Technician 666
  Education Council 17 percent., city and guilds 17 percent., Royal Society of Arts 18 per cent., professional bodies 6 per cent., others 16 per cent.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Wothington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will express expenditure on student awards as a percentage of the Northern Ireland gross domestic product in each of the past five years. [37206]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Expenditure on student awards

  107.7

  131.3

  141.5

  131.9

  130.8

  As percentage of Northern Ireland GDP2

  0.97

  1.13

  1.15

  1.00

  n/a

  1 Provisional.

  2 Northern Ireland gross domestic product figures are expressed in calendar year terms.

  Staff-student Ratios
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list staff-student ratios in(a) further education and (b) higher education for the past five years. [37212]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland average staff-student ratios in further education colleges for the five years ending 1994–95 are as follows:

  1990–91: 1: 12.21

  1991–92: 1: 13.24

  1992–93: 1: 13.15

  1993–94: 1: 13.65

  1994–95: 1: 13.68.

  The figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  The staff-student ratios for higher education are as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Universities

  1:14.5

  1:15.6

  1:15.7

  1:16.4

  1 1: 14.4

  Colleges of education

  1:10.7

  1:10.6

  1:11.5

  1:12.0

  1:13.1

  1 The ratio for universities in 1994–95 is not comparable with the ratios for earlier years, because of a change in the basis of the count of staff in 1994–95.

  Voluntary and Community Sector Funding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has relating to the ring fencing of the funding of adult and community education in the voluntary and community sectors; and if he will make a statement. [37259]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The funding of adult and community education is not ring fenced and there are no plans to change this. Adult and community education in Northern Ireland is an integral part of normal further education provision and this will remain the case following the planned incorporation of further education colleges.
  667
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action to discuss continuing financial support for the(a) community and (b) voluntary sectors; and if he will make a statement. [37260]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action on 30 May 1996 to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the voluntary and community sector, including funding for the sector. The Government remain committed to working in partnership with the sector and to continuing to support it so far as the inevitable constraints upon the availability of resources permit.

  Child Benefits
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and value of child benefits payable to those past the minimum school leaving age in each of the last five years. [37164]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is presented in the table.

  Number of children past school-leaving age in receipt of child benefit and amount payable 1

  Amounts of benefit payable (£) 3

  Number of children past minimum school leaving age 2

  First child

  Subsequent child

  1991

  43,540

  8.25

  7.25

  1992

  44,052

  9.65

  7.80

  1993

  45,254

  10.00

  8.10

  1994

  45,864

  10.20

  8.25

  1995

  47.814

  10.40

  8.45

  1 Child benefit is normally paid up to the age of 16 but may be paid up to the age of 19 if the child is in full-time non-advanced education.

  2 At 31 December for each year.

  3 At April for each year. Total child benefit expenditure on 16 to 18-year-olds is not available. Child benefit is accounted for as a whole and is not apportioned between different age bands.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in 1996–97. [38771]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1996–97 the following key performance targets have been set for the agency:

  To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared with 1995–96.

  To dispatch 94 per cent. of registration books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.

  To dispatch 92 per cent. of refunds of vehicle excise duty in 10 working days from receipt.

  To dispatch 93 per cent. of vehicle excise licences in five working days from receipt of postal applications.

  To dispatch 93 per cent of duplicate vehicle registration books in six working days from receipt of applications.

  To dispatch 93 per cent. of ordinary driving licences in 10 working days of receipt of applications.

  To dispatch 96 per cent. of vocational driving licences in 10 working days from receipt of applications.

  668

  To dispatch 95 per cent. of provisional driving licences in 10 working days from receipt of applications.

  To dispatch substantive replies to 95 per cent. of written inquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in three working days from receipt.

  To limit maximum waiting time at local vehicle licensing offices so that 95 per cent. of customers are attended to within 23 minutes during peak periods-the first eight and last two working days of each month—and within 10 minutes at other periods.

  To limit the error rate—errors on any item sent out by the agency—to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total agency output.

  Valuations and Lands Agency
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Valuation and Lands Agency in 1996–97. [38772]

  Sir John Wheeler
  For 1996–97, the following key performance targets have been set for the agency:

  (1) To complete 40,000 rating cases—equivalent to 22,000 work units.

  (2) To complete 24,600 client service cases—equivalent to 20,050 work units.

  (3) To have met by 31 March 1997, all 1996–97 non-domestic revaluation project milestones as specified in the business plan.

  (4) To have completed by 31 December 1996 the action plan activities implementing the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny on Government-owned land.

  (5) To achieve a productivity for case working valuers of 327 work units.

  (6) To achieve at least a 2 per cent. efficiency saving on the 1995–96 allocation in real terms.

  (7) To reduce the unit cost of casework by 3 per cent. in real terms.

  (8) To issue 94 per cent. of certificates for rating cases subject to backdating within 12 months of the events giving rise to revisions of the valuation list.

  (9) To achieve a standard in rating valuations such that 88 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within (plus) + or (minus) —10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  (10) To complete 85 per cent. of rating appeals within six months of receipt.

  (11) To complete 93 per cent. of a representative sample of client services casework within agreed time limits.

  Full details are set out in the agency's corporate and business plans, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiries to detect fraud by cross-checking his Department's payroll with details of those claiming benefit he has undertaken; when these exercises took place; and how many staff were(a) suspended, (b) dismissed and (c) prosecuted as a result. [37707]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alex Wylie and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.
  669
  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Frank Field dated 17 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the detection of social security fraud by cross-checking Department's payroll with details of those claiming benefit.
  The Social Security Agency has not carried out any data matching exercises where Departmental payroll information has been cross-checked against benefit details. Northern Ireland Departments currently respond to enquiries made by the Agency's Fraud and Prosecutions Branch and relevant information appropriate to an investigation is provided where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual member of staff has been involved in benefit fraud. No separate records are kept on these cases.
  670
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people aged 65 years or over were engaged in full-time or part-time education(a) in
  1990–91 and (b) at the latest available date; and what percentage this represents of the age group. [37204]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1994–95, some 600 Northern Ireland domiciled students were aged 65 or over; this represents 0.3 per cent. of the age group. Reliable information for 1990–91 is not available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Prisoners' Earnings Act,

Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Act,

Security Service Act,

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

Noise Act,

Energy Conservation Act,

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act,

Party Wall etc. Act,

Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act,

Railway Heritage Act,

Education (Scotland) Act,

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Act,

Henry Johnson, Sons & Co., Limited Act,

Belfast Charitable Society Act 1996.

Universities: Funding
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the private finance initiative is a sufficient substitute for the 1995 November Budget cuts in capital funding for universities, particularly in relation to equipment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, many institutions already attract considerable private finance. I hope they will continue to find further sources of finance in the private sector, including through the private finance initiative. It has been shown to be applicable to some equipment deals as well as to large infrastructure projects. In addition, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has been asked to have particular regard to equipment needs in allocating grant to universities and colleges.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which indicates that he appreciates to some extent that there are problems with PSI in the universities. Does he appreciate that, as a result of the November cuts, not only are universities having to reduce further the staff-student ratio, but they are also
992
having to postpone many plans for equipping teaching rooms with up-to-date, state of the art computer-based learning techniques, which to some extent could have alleviated the reduction in staff-student ratios? Is the Minister further aware that British industry is now beginning to fear for its future competitiveness as a result of some of the difficulties being faced in science departments?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we understand the concerns of industry and of the universities. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set up the two joint DfEE higher education sector working groups to collate evidence from the higher education sector about the impact of levels of public funding on institutions and obviously to consider the private finance initiative in the higher education sector. We shall take evidence from the higher education sector about the impact of the levels of public funding on the universities and colleges very much into account in the Government's review of their spending plans this autumn. I have to say that that will be done along with all other relevant considerations.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that in the light of what he said about spending priorities, money must be distributed sensibly? Is it not a mistake to cut equipment grants, which prevent British industry from co-operating fully with British universities, forcing British industry to seek foreign universities for the base of their development when this money could be saved by stopping third-rate students going to fourth-rate universities to read fifth-rate subjects?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's views. I believe that we all read them in the House Magazine only this week. I disagree with the general thrust of his point. We have a great deal to be proud of in the expansion of the higher education sector, which is now being made available to about 30 per cent. of 18 year-olds. The reduction in capital of about £100 million between 1995–96 and 1996–97 is pretty small compared with the £1.6 billion of capital investment financed by the universities in recent years. As my noble friend made clear, we have to take all other considerations into account in deciding on priorities in public spending. That we shall do this autumn.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister's response, is he aware that some of us are concerned not only by the severity of the cuts but the fear that they may be applied too indiscriminately? Is it not in the national interest that the Government go out of their way to favour some of the world-class institutions that we have in this country so that they can remain world class?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a matter for the funding councils themselves to decide the priorities between the universities. I do not believe that any representatives of the higher education sector in this House would think it right that the Government should interfere in deciding those particular priorities.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the effect that this may have on the recruitment of overseas students whose fees are already very welcome in the universities? If they are not using really up-to-date equipment and so on, does the Minister agree that that may have an effect afterwards on our trade with foreign countries as regards the influence on sales to industry abroad? Does the Minister further agree that overseas students have been very good ambassadors in the past?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness. It is quite right that we should encourage overseas students to come to our universities. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there has been an increase in the number of overseas students in our universities, despite the fears expressed by the party opposite when we increased the fees that such students have to pay.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the shift from capital to current funding that the PFI implies requires a higher income stream from either private or public funds in future? Does he accept, therefore, that British universities will be required to charge their students fees if that is what the Government wish to do with their future capital funding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I have made clear to the noble Lord on another occasion, it is open to the universities to charge top-up fees, should they wish, but we see no need for them so to do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the PFI takes a good deal of time to put in place and carries with it considerable expense in terms of legal and professional costs? Therefore, since the Treasury and the CVCP are still considering the scope for PFI in the universities, is it reasonable to delay the major capital cut until there is time for PFI to be put sensibly in place, whatever its merits?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. We accept that PFI will take time to develop and that there is much that needs to be learnt. The funding council for England and the other funding councils are engaged in a number of pathfinder projects. This year there are approximately 12 projects worth of the order of £120 million, and there will be more next year. I am sure that the institutions themselves will look at those very carefully.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the second largest university in the United Kingdom, the University of Wales, having made inquiries I have been unable to discover a single PFI project that is either under way or completed? Does that not provide powerful evidence that the PFI alone cannot solve the current financial problems of the universities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. I believe it is evidence that the University of Wales should take advice from the appropriate funding council and consider the various pathfinder projects that it is considering. As I made clear
994
in response to an earlier question, there are 12 pathfinder projects in existence worth approximately £120 million, and there will be more next year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend not be too hasty in sweeping aside the views expressed behind him both by my noble friend Lord Beloff and my noble friend Lady Park?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I try not to sweep aside the views of my noble friends, whose support has been very useful on a number of occasions. I hope I made clear in response to a question from the other side of the House that we would take into account all the evidence in our annual review of public expenditure. Obviously, we will take into account the views expressed by Members on both sides of the House.
Lord Winston: My Lords, while I am aware that I may be told not to believe everything that I read in the newspapers, in view of the recently stated concerns of Mr. Kenneth Clarke about the PFI in the health service, why should there be any greater optimism about the PFI in education which does not have the advantage of being able to generate a proper income stream?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have already seen some evidence of PFI projects in universities. There is a PFI project at the University of Greenwich called BOOT, the build, own, operate and transfer project, which demonstrates the success of such schemes. I believe that it is open to the institutions and the funding councils to take forward these projects and see what they can develop.

Legal Aid Costs and Income Support
3.18 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposal to require people on income support to contribute to their legal costs is to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no. My proposal that all legally-aided persons should pay a small minimum contribution if they pursue a civil court case against another party does not fall within the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. While clearly it is technically correct, does he agree that since this may affect decisions on income support, including decisions on its correct level, the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee is well worth having? Before the noble and learned Lord assures the House that people on income support can afford to pay these contributions, can he list all the other deductions that they may suffer at the same time?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are provisions for a number of deductions to be made at source in respect of such benefit, the main idea being to

995
secure, for one reason or another, particular matters for the claimant. For example, amounts may be directly deducted in respect of payments to utility companies, mortgage companies, the Child Support Agency and the like. It is not my intention that this particular matter should be the subject of a direct deduction. My present intention is not to go down that particular road. So far as concerns the level of income support, that is a matter on which the Social Security Advisory Committee would have a locus. That is a rather more general matter than the matter with which I am particularly concerned.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that in 1991, when free legal aid was available not just at income support level but at 20 per cent. above that level, his own department's eligibility review flatly turned down minimum contributions because they would operate as a deterrent to the most financially vulnerable either asserting or defending their legal rights, and that anyway the administrative costs would make it not worth while? Has there been any new research to justify what was unacceptable, as his department held in 1991, for those at 20 per cent. above income support level today becoming acceptable for those who are just at income support level?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, time has moved on since 1991. The costs of the scheme and information about it have of course been accumulated since. I have to take account of the fact that, for example, the Bar Council said in its answer to the Green Paper:
"Many cases are supported on legal aid which no reasonably well off and prudent individual would consider starting or continuing".
It is important that such matters are considered responsibly at the beginning. So far as concerns administrative arrangements, the proposals that I have made more recently are of a different kind altogether from the system which was operating in 1991. I am proposing that the system should depend to a great extent upon contracts in relation to representation for legal aid.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the success rate of legally aided civil actions is 92 per cent., as stated by Professor Zander in an article in The Times on 9th July? Can my noble and learned friend state also what is the amount of costs recovered to the benefit of the Legal Aid Fund as a result of those successful actions, and whether credit is given against the figures that have been announced to the House in relation to the total costs of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, where net figures are given, the deductions by way of repayment are of course included. I do not have the total figure in my head at the moment. It is, of course, as my noble and learned friend knows, in the Legal Aid Board's report. On the percentage success rate, the figure to which my noble and learned friend referred is one which of course includes many cases which are settled.
One of the problems with the present system is that even small or trivial cases which are started against an unassisted person can involve that person in costs which
996
make it uneconomic for the person to defend the case, whether or not it is one which, fought out to the end, would be successful. Therefore one has to take those figures with a degree of caution. When one looks at the cases which are fought out, the figure is much lower than 92 per cent.

Panchen Lama
3.23 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have had from the Government of China regarding the whereabouts and safety of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's nominee as Panchen Lama.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva has said that the boy is in good health and living with his parents under government protection. We and our EU partners are considering what further action to take on this difficult and sensitive issue.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which takes us a little further than was the position this past January. Is my noble friend aware that the Panchen Lama is only six years old and is thus probably in the unenviable position of being the youngest political prisoner in the world? Will my noble friend therefore go a little further and urge the Government of China to re-establish dialogue with the EU China Human Rights Dialogue which I gather has been suspended?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we, too, continue to be deeply concerned about the fate of the boy recognised by the Dalai Lama Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. We have raised our concerns with the Chinese authorities both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners. We shall continue to do so.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I must declare an interest as patron of the all-party Tibet group. Although I fully understand the Government's concern about the future of Hong Kong, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that some of the worst human rights abuses are taking place in Tibet and have been for some years? Do the Government agree with His Holiness the Dalai Lama who said in his speech on Tuesday this week in the Grand Committee Room that that amounts to cultural genocide? Will they take a most positive attitude to supporting His Holiness in seeking a negotiated settlement with the Chinese? After all, that is a practice which we have been seeking to encourage others to do as we have been doing in this place over many centuries.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as to the last aspect of the noble Lord's question about encouraging dialogue, which is the only way that a settlement will occur, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with the Dalai Lama yesterday. Once the Dalai Lama had described the situation in Tibet and expressed his concern

997
about the threat to the Tibetan cultural identity, my right honourable friend said that he had discussed that issue and human rights in China, including Tibet, with his Chinese counterpart in January. He also said that we would continue to raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities both bilaterally and with our EU partners. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary also stressed our hope that talks, without preconditions, between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, could begin without delay.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister referred to representations being made by us and through the EU. Has the matter been before the UN?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes, it has indeed been before the UN. At the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva towards the end of April, we co-sponsored with our EU partners a draft resolution on China which referred specifically to Tibet. We were most disappointed that Chinese attempts to block the resolution through a procedural device were successful. However, there was strenuous lobbying by the EU and other co-sponsors. I believe that the strength of the concern shown by Europe on this issue will have filtered through to China.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, what response have the Government given to Chinese warnings that this week's visit of the Dalai Lama would damage bilateral relations with China? Is not that a crude blackmailing tone that should be resisted? In the Minister's earlier reply I did not detect that a sufficiently robust response on this matter is being given to China.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that a robust reply was given, as is frequently done in such situations. The Dalai Lama is in the UK this week on a private visit as a guest of British Buddhist organisations. He is a distinguished spiritual leader who is widely respected throughout the world. We are not prepared to listen to China telling us that he cannot come here on a private visit.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is very sad that, like the Dauphin Louis XVII and the little princes in the Tower, the Panchen Lama is being kept in prison through no fault of his own, but only for being who he is?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I would agree—if we knew that he was being kept in prison. We just do not know. We are advised that he is under protection for his own benefit at the request of his parents. I cannot judge whether one should believe that or not.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the present sorry state of affairs has arisen by considering the late Panchen Lama? For instance, is it true that the gentleman was kept a virtual prisoner in Peking and was poisoned to death by the Chinese?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I cannot confirm a cause of death in Peking.

Helms-Burton Act and UK Trade
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take any action to counteract the effect of the United States Helms-Burton Act on United Kingdom trade.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we welcome the President's suspension for six months of the right to bring actions in United States courts. At the same time, we regret the President's decision not to suspend completely provisions which threaten companies doing legitimate business in Cuba. We will be discussing the details of the President's decision with the United States Administration. We shall need to consider in consultation with our European Union partners what action, if any, should be taken in the light of the President's statement.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, while that is all very well so far as it goes, is my noble and learned friend aware that the draconian legislation has serious extra-territorial provisions which are of a drastic nature and widely resented by the countries trading with Cuba; for instance, Canada, Mexico, other members of the European Union and ourselves? Will he ensure that the actions which Her Majesty's Government may consider are sufficiently robust as to have some effect on resisting interference with the free flow of international trade, in which we and the United States believe, and which is the objective of the World Trade Organisation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, certainly we hope that we have made clear to the United States authorities where we stand on the Helms-Burton legislation. As recently as last week, prior to the President's decision, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce made it clear that the United Kingdom Government deplored the action that had been taken.
We need to separate the two issues; first, the reform in Cuba, which the United Kingdom firmly supports, and, secondly, unilateral actions against United Kingdom companies and others, which we deplore. We cannot accept that in applying a principle of extra-territoriality the United States has the right to attack the interests of UK individuals and companies in order to impose its approach to foreign policy issues on its partners.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that today, in the light of the air accident reported this morning, we all find it difficult to say anything which may be regarded as critical of the United States. None the less, the matter is of the utmost seriousness, as the noble Viscount said. Has not the United States stated, when dealing with regimes which are not democratic in one way or another,

999
that the best way of encouraging those regimes to go in a sensible direction is, first, to trade with them and, secondly, to try to raise their standard of living? Other than the extra-territoriality issue, which is disgraceful, is not the problem that the United States is acting counter-productively as regards the future of Cuba and its relationship with the rest of the world?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, whatever the United States may or may not have said on previous occasions, it would appear that there is something of a trend within that country to go along this road. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that not only is the Helms-Burton legislation causing alarm but so also is legislation proposed in respect of Iran and Libya.
I too wish to emphasise that we would rather not have a dispute with the United States about this matter. We share its ultimate objective in securing a modern democracy and a proper regard for human rights in Cuba. We believe that the right way forward is to encourage it to trade and to bring about reform in that way. We are considering a number of options in terms of a possible review of entry permission procedures and steps which might be taken with our partners.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government remind the United States that 220 years ago it declared independence from us, that by virtue of that principle we are independent from it and that the doctrine of extra-territoriality is incompatible with that principle?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I doubt whether it is necessary for us to repeat that to the US. It has been said repeatedly. The view that it should be entitled to look to territoriality has been held vigorously by the US. There appears to be some indication that United States business is beginning to understand that there is a possibility of reciprocity which could be damaging to it. However, the United States must appreciate that if we act we have the prospect of acting not only on our own but with partners. For instance, if some of our partners were to consider introducing provisions along the lines of our own protection of trading interests, that might have a considerable effect.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, although those of us who take an interest in particular in Cuba are glad that the President of the United States has made a small move on the Helms-Burton legislation, it is having a most serious effect on a number of British companies? Is he further aware that it is of great importance that we should be able to uphold the principles of free trade with countries with which we have diplomatic relations and a normal international relationship? Will my noble and learned friend confirm that we are seeking for Cuba to move towards democracy and a free enterprise economy and that trading is the best way of achieving that particular aim?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I doubt whether any Member of your Lordships' House has done more than my noble friend in attempting to secure a normalisation of trading relations with Cuba. We support every effort that she makes in bringing that about. We are concerned not only by the fact that the President has taken limited action under Title 3 of the Helms-Burton Act but also by the fact that there is in place Title 4, which would exclude from the United States directors and their families and associates. Indication has already been given that two prominent British businessmen may be excluded from the United States. Equally, I wish to make it clear that we deplore that action but, in the first instance, any appeal against it is for the individuals concerned.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in delicate matters of this kind, which will clearly damage relations between us and the United States and its other trading partners and allies, is there not a procedure for prior consultation and discussion which would normally occur between other countries?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can confirm that prior to the introduction of the legislation, from the first stages of its proposal in Washington, we have pointed out that we would regard it as unacceptable because it relies on the principle of extra-territoriality. I regret that the political points that have been made and the strong action that has been taken by individual British companies which trade in both the United States and Cuba has not yet brought about what we consider to be a satisfactory outcome.
We shall maintain that pressure and hope that it will be maintained by our partners in the European Union and, in addition, Canada and Mexico, which are probably most affected. I trust that discussions will mean that when the six-month period comes to an end we will have achieved some resolution of this very thorny issue. We do not wish to fall out with the United States over this issue; we would prefer to trade normally.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of what my noble and learned friend has already said, can he give us an idea of how many British companies have been affected by United States threats under the Helms-Burton Act and how many companies have protested to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the DTI?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is difficult to give an indication of those which have protested to the DTI or to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They may consider that they have put themselves at risk of appearing on a United States' hit list if they indicated that they had an interest in the matter. In so far as I am aware, only two British directors of a Canadian company have been identified for an exclusion order from the United States.

Business of the House: Prorogation
3.39 P.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I have announced previously, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise on Thursday, 25th July for the Summer Recess and will resume on Tuesday, 15th October. It may be for the further convenience of the House to know that, again subject to the progress of business, it is intended that the House should meet to prorogue on the morning of Thursday, 17th October. It is further expected that a new Session of Parliament will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen in person on Wednesday, 23rd October.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 38 and 44
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion is to make it easier to arrange a number of items of business which have usual channels' agreement. At this stage in the Session, I am advised that it has not been unusual for the House to agree to such a Motion which allows for greater flexibility in the arrangement of the Order Paper and the consideration of legislation.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House rises for the Summer Recess.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long on this Motion; nor do I wish to move a formal amendment to it. But the Leader of the House will know that going through the House at the moment is a Bill called the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill. He will also know that in relation to that Bill, the Opposition, or at least this part of them, are not prepared to see the proper time limits on that Bill truncated in the way set out in the Motion.
Therefore, as I say, while I do not wish to amend the Motion formally, I wish to have the expressed consent and acceptance of the Leader of the House to the fact that discussions on the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill are continuing within the usual channels. If they are successful, no more will be heard from me. But if they are not successful, it will be necessary for the Leader of House to come back to the House in relation to that particular Bill and ask for a Motion in like terms to the one which he is moving now; in other words, I do not wish my position on that Bill to be prejudiced by the fact that I am not formally amending the Motion this afternoon. I hope that I make myself clear to the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Viscount will be aware, my colleagues have made our
1002
position very clear in relation to the same Bill. We would be firmly opposed to the Bill being dealt with over-expeditiously, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I very much hope that discussions on this matter will continue because we should be most firmly opposed to any question of trying to bounce the Bill through the House without giving it adequate consideration.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to confirm that the timing of consideration of the Bill to which they have both referred is still the subject of discussion through the usual channels. I hope that it may be possible to persuade both noble Lords and their colleagues that there need be no objection to completing the passage of that Bill next week.
However, the notice of forthcoming business which was circulated today indicates that only the Committee stage of the Bill is scheduled for Tuesday of next week. That is in order not to prejudge the outcome of further discussion through the usual channels which are proceeding. Therefore, I believe that I can give both noble Lords the assurance which they require.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offences in connection with venison dealing]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 18, line 24, leave out ("receive") and insert ("receives").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and the other amendments which stand in my name have all been discussed with the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills who is content that these amendments represent an accurate consolidation of the existing law.
Amendment No. 1 cures a minor defect in the consolidation which would have had the effect of making the offer to receive a carcass of an unlawfully killed deer an offence rather than, as at present, actually receiving such a carcass. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power of Commission to require return of number of deer killed]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert ("taken or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Since this Bill was considered by the Joint Committee, the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill has completed its stages in another place. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 make changes in the consolidation Bill consequential on the changes made on Report in another place to the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 48 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential amendment]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 31, line 2 at end insert—
("The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 (c.45)
.—(1) The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 39(3A) (exclusion of certain deer from provisions of that section), for the words "section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959" there shall be substituted the words "section 45 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996".
(3) In section 42A (definition of "animals for the purposes of sections 40 to 42), for the words "section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959" there shall be substituted the words "section 45 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Transitional, transitory and saving provisions]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 32, line 2, leave out ("and 3") and insert ("to 4").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (88) as first printed by the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 5, after 'programmes' insert '(together with any ancillary services, as defined by section 21(2))'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 22, 23, 25, 37 to 41, 52, 56 to 60, 78, 86 to 88, 97 and 98. I ask that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 and the group of amendments connected with it which adjust the provisions of the Bill with regard to additional and ancillary services. The amendments achieve three things. First, they ensure that the whole of the 10 per cent. of the capacity on each multiplex which can be devoted to additional services is available for services which are not connected to television or radio programmes. Ancillary services, electronic programme guides and conditional access data, in so far as they relate to television or radio programmes rather than additional services, will not count towards that 10 per cent. limit.
Secondly, the amendments make adjustments to the definitions of digital programme services and digital sound programme services and therefore to the boundary between programme and additional services.
Thirdly, though we have done the best we can in the Bill, and through these amendments, to cater for all foreseeable eventualities, technological developments are not always foreseeable. Amendments Nos. 3 and 60 allow the Government, by affirmative order, to amend the definitions of programme services and, therefore, what is counted as an additional service, in order to take account of such developments. Together with the order-making power already in the Bill allowing revision of the 10 per cent. limit on additional services, this gives a flexibility which may well prove necessary in dealing with this new technology.
In speaking to the amendments this afternoon, I propose to be as brief as I can be. In so doing, I hope that I will not be thought to be discourteous but rather that I shall enable the business to proceed appropriately and expeditiously. Needless to say, it is possible that some noble Lords may need to question what I say because I have been a trifle too speedy in my approach.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 1, 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.'.
3 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.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 1, 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)'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 5 to 10, 24, 48, 49, 54, 55 and 61.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 61 are technical. They are intended to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently require local delivery service licencees to obtain a multiplex licence. The other amendments fulfil the commitment made to the public service teletext licence holder, Teletext Ltd, that there should be no requirement to simulcast its existing analogue service on the capacity on the Channel 3/Channel 4 multiplex reserved for it. That would deny Teletext the opportunity to use the new technology to its fullest potential.
Instead, Teletext will be able to propose to the ITC a new service to be broadcast on the reserved capacity. It must meet the same general quality threshold required of the existing analogue service and be approved by the ITC.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Donoghue: My Lords, I thought long and hard about whether to speak on each of the amendments on the Marshalled List. However, after long consideration, I decided that that would not necessarily be the best and most optimum use of the time of the House. Therefore, perhaps I may just say a few words in general, as I believe that there are several blocs of amendments that will be taken very quickly.
1006
We on this side feel that whilst the Bill came first to this House and was very thoroughly considered, it has been thoroughly thrashed in the other place; indeed, it has been much changed and improved. The Government have been most helpful in a number of areas in promising changes which they have delivered. Broadly speaking, although we are not satisfied with everything—indeed, we are unhappy that there is not enough provision on quality; and we shall raise a number of points later in that respect—we would like to see the Bill go through expeditiously. We are happy to accept the will of the other place on the matter. I shall not, therefore, be speaking critically of every amendment placed before the House.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donoghue, on the first group of amendments and, indeed, as regards the approach to subsequent groups. However, I should like to raise one point with the Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify what will happen once the Bill has become enacted in terms of pursuing the aim of trying to ensure that, when digital terrestrial television is being developed, we as consumers will be able to enjoy the benefits of it with a single set top box.
In the autumn, after the Bill has become law, the DTI will produce, after consultation and much work, a statutory instrument in regard to such matters. That will be a vital statutory instrument. However, if it is not effective, there is a very real danger that digital terrestrial television will simply be dead before it gets off the ground and that its future will be handed over to the satellite operators.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister because I have a point to raise that I have not as yet mentioned to him. It is something that has just occurred to me. Some of us were given a most interesting and illuminating demonstration recently at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre of the BBC's technical achievements by which the corporation is able to forecast a tremendous increase in the use of digital television and indeed radio.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that it will be a very long time before we are able to enjoy such services in our homes, simply because the receiving instruments are not being manufactured in this country. I understand that Germany has started to manufacture them. There is, perhaps, a lack of liaison between those adventurous scientists who advise the BBC and those equally adventurous people in our own industry about the timing of this wonderful new development. Although we are now enacting the introduction of such technology, we must bear in mind the fact that such developments may not come into operation for quite a long time so far as concerns the viewers and listeners of this country.
If there is anything that the Government can do to expedite the production of receivers—I do not say subsidies, or anything like that—perhaps by simply telling those who might be able to help in our great manufacturing industry that here is a great opportunity for them, they will then be performing a public service.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, two most important points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and my noble friend Lord Renton. Perhaps I may deal with them in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is slightly ahead of the game in that I shall be dealing in the next group of amendments with conditional access systems. I should like to assure the noble Lord that I shall be slightly less brief than I have been hitherto. The crucial point is that the statutory instrument from the Department of Trade and Industry is due to be finalised in the autumn.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, I should say at once that it is a good one. As of last week, I understand that BBC television has been broadcasting digitally both in London and Newcastle. Two transmitters were broadcasting and I believe that there are two receivers which are able to pick up the information being distributed—you have to start somewhere. However, frivolity aside, when looking at the criteria under the Bill by which multiplex licences will be awarded, it is important to note that the ITC takes into consideration the steps that are being taken by potential licensees to promote the take-up of digital. That is within the structure of what is being legislated for and that is where my noble friend's point comes in.
Of course it is important that the receiver manufacturers, and the other suppliers of hardware, produce the necessary equipment to enable people to take advantage of this technology. Indeed, I have been encouraging manufacturers to embark upon that course of action. Some of the issues that we will be discussing in the next group of amendments dealing with single set top boxes will obviously have an important bearing on that matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
'(d) the public teletext provider,'.
6 Page 2, line 24, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.
7 Page 2, line 27, leave out '(c) or (d)' and insert 'or (c)'.
8 Page 2, line 36, at end insert 'and'.
9 Page 2, line 37, leave out from '5' to end of line 38.
10 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.'.
4 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 7, page 8, line 3, leave out 'the service' and insert 'all the multiplex services available in that area'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 12 and 151.
As I have already intimated, these amendments address an important issue and with the leave of the House I would like to speak to them at a little more length.
These three amendments are all intended to help to ensure that the consumer will have the opportunity to receive the greatest possible choice of broadcast services by buying a single piece of equipment.
As your Lordships will be aware, during Committee stage in another place, the Government issued a consultation paper on co-operation between digital terrestrial multiplex providers, and the single set top box. Conditional access is a major factor here. All terrestrial boxes must, under the terms of the European Directive on Advanced Television standards, be able to receive all terrestrial services transmitted in clear. However, without interoperability between different systems, it is possible that some boxes might be unable to receive all digital terrestrial pay-TV services.
To help to prevent this problem, and in the light of responses to our consultation document, two complementary measures have been taken. First, the Government have published a draft statutory instrument and draft Telecommunications Act licences implementing the conditional access provisions in the directive. The proposals will ensure that any broadcaster may obtain conditional access services from every provider of such services, and can thus make his programmes available through every digital terrestrial set top box, if necessary by transmitting them with more than one set of conditional access control information. This process, known as simulcrypt, does not involve mandating a common interface, which as Ministers explained in the Commons, would require seeking clearance from the European Union and, even if that were granted, would lead to substantial delay. The Government continue to believe that a mandatory common interface would discourage investment by allowing latecomers to free-ride on investment by those who have developed and subsidised set-top boxes.
The second measure is contained in Commons Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which the Government believe are an ingenious response to some of the competition law difficulties identified with proposals requiring collusion between multiplex providers. The amendments require the ITC to take into account, in

1009
awarding multiplex licences, not only applicants' plans to promote and assist the acquisition of digital terrestrial receiving equipment, but specifically their plans to encourage the roll out of equipment capable of receiving all digital terrestrial services. Applicants may choose to do this, for example, by coming to arrangements involving the voluntary incorporation of a common interface or through simulcrypt.
Finally, I should like briefly to explain Commons Amendment No. 151, which implements Article 2(c) of the directive, dealing with transmission standards. This goes beyond digital terrestrial and seeks to facilitate interoperability across all three delivery mechanisms—terrestrial, satellite and cable. The effect of that will be to allow manufacturers, should they so choose, to produce set top boxes, and later integrated receivers, capable of receiving all digital television services. It will also facilitate interconnectivity between boxes so that viewers with separate boxes for different means of transmission will be able quickly and easily to switch between, say, terrestrial and satellite services, using the same television set.
The directive mandates particular standards, but allows member states to select from various options within them. The amendment gives the ITC the power, if necessary and after consultation with all the relevant bodies, to select a particular set of options for use in broadcasts in the UK. I hope that that slightly longer explanation will have been helpful. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this, I feel, is the single most important policy issue in the Bill. It was quite properly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, at the beginning of our deliberations because the interconnectivity of set-top boxes and the whole question of universal access are crucial. It is important to ensure that from the beginning consumers do not have to buy a range of different set-top boxes to gain access. One box should be sufficient to gain access to different digital systems, otherwise there is a danger that whoever springs first and pre-empts the field may block out the others. One agent may, for example, produce a heavily subsidised box which gives access only to that system.
Much progress has been made on this since we first raised it at Second Reading in your Lordships' House. In particular, Amendment No. 151 is very helpful, but we still have to wait until we have the final DTI regulations. We on this side will scrutinise those regulations closely to make sure that the maximum interconnectivity is achieved.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I promise your Lordships that I shall not speak to every group of amendments. I am quite surprised at myself for doing so on the first two.
Amendment No. 151 is really very interesting. It states:
"The Independent Television Commission … shall do all that they can to secure that every licensed service uses a transmission system complying with",
the Council directive. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me whether that means that there will be a standard transmission system to be used by each licensed service. I can see the advantage of that. It would mean that the best system would be chosen and that there would not be varied performance by different licensed services. Does it mean that each licensed service shall use a transmission system complying with the Council directive? There is a slight distinction. If my noble friend is able to say which of the two things it means, it might be of help as guidance for the future.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the full explanation that he has now given. I apologise for the fact that I had confused Amendment No. 4 with the fourth group of amendments.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have expressed the view that this has been a step in the right direction. In response to the important question from my noble friend Lord Renton, I think that the strict reply is that both of the options that he described are valid.
We are moving into a world where the technology will be more or less entirely new. The precise form that that technology may take is not yet certain. Within the parameters of European legislation, various options are technically possible which may contain a degree of mutual exclusivity.
There are two problems that we want to avoid. One is clearly the problem that in some way or other, by adopting a particular technology, one broadcaster may effectively block out and exclude another broadcaster. The other—this state of affairs is very well illustrated in the video market—is that it is possible to mandate a standard which, given the benefit of hindsight, is perhaps not the best standard that could have been adopted because of the state of knowledge when the decision had to be taken.
We have endeavoured to provide an environment where the technology can lead in the marketplace. At the same time we have also endeavoured to provide what might be described as a safety net so that if it looks, for example, as if one player in the game may be using exclusive control of a particular form of technology to exclude all the others, he will not, in fact, be able to do that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 8, page 9, line 8, leave out 'the service' and insert 'all the multiplex services available in that area'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Inglewood.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 9, page 9, line 29, leave out 'and 8(2)(c) and (e)'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 28. These amendments were made in response to a request by the ITC to clarify the way in which the ITC shall consider the award of multiplex licences that have been "bundled". Amendment No. 28, again requested by the ITC, makes clear that all programme services must consist of at least 10 per cent. independent productions and a proper proportion of European programming.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 9, page 9, line 32, leave out 'and'.
15 Page 9, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'to' and insert in section 8(2), the reference in paragraph (d)'.
16 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'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
AWARD OF MULTIPLEX LICENCE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
'.—(1) The Commission may, when awarding a multiplex licence to any person, make the grant of the licence to him conditional on his compliance before the grant with such specified requirements relating to the financing of the service as appear to them to be appropriate, having regard to—

(a) any duties which are or may be imposed on them, or on the licence holder, by or under the 1990 Act or this Act, and

(b) any information provided to them under section 7(4)(g) by the person to whom the licence is awarded as to his projected financial position during the period for which the licence would be in force.

(2) Where the Commission determine that any condition imposed by them in relation to a multiplex licence in pursuance of subsection (1) has not been satisfied, section 8 shall (subject to subsection (3)) have effect as if the person to whom the licence was awarded had not made an application for it.
(3) Section 8 shall not so have effect if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a fresh notice under section 7(1) in respect of the grant of the licence.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. These amendments will enable the ITC to set financial conditions on the granting of the licence at the time the licence is awarded. If the potential licensee fails to meet these conditions, the commission can then cancel the award of the licence and simply proceed to the next applicant. This will give the commission greater flexibility in the licensing process for both analogue and digital services and will prevent needless rerunning of licence competitions if the potential licensee fails to deliver what he promised in his application before the licence is even granted.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out 'financial penalty' and insert 'specified financial penalty not exceeding whichever is the greater'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 36, 42, 72, 73, 74, 85, 94 and 96. These amendments fulfil a commitment made during Commons Committee. Amendment No. 18 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. 72 to 74 make the same arrangements with regard to radio multiplexes.
Amendments Nos. 36, 42, 85 and 94 allow the regulators, when determining a fine, to estimate the share of multiplex revenue which should be attributable to a particular service which has not been broadcasting for very long.
Amendment No. 96 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.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 11, page 10, line 41, after 'timetable' insert 'and other proposals'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 75 and 80.

1013
Amendment No. 19 has 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. 75 makes the same adjustment to the provisions covering radio multiplexes.
Clause 15(11) as presently drafted refers, incorrectly, to supplementary proposals submitted under subsection (4)(b). The correct reference is to subsection (4)(a). Amendment No. 27 corrects the error, and Amendment No. 80 does the same for radio.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 11, page 11, line 4, after 'services' insert 'or digital additional services'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.20. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 43, 44 to 46, 53, 71, 76, 77, 267, 273, 276, 277, 279, 281, 283 to 287, and 296.
These amendments make a number of technical adjustments to the arrangements for digital broadcasting, together with some consequential amendments to do with the creation of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. Rather than go into detail about each, I should be pleased to clarify any points which noble Lords might wish to raise with me.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 11, page 11, line 15, after 'broadcasts' insert 'or for the purpose of securing compliance with any other condition of the licence'.
22 Page 11, line 23, leave out 'or qualifying services' and insert 'qualifying services, programme-related services or relevant technical services'.
23 Page 11, line 34, after '(1)(j)'insert—
'(a)".
24 Page 11, line 34, leave out from 'the' to end of line 35 and insert 'qualifying teletext service'.
25 Page 11, line 35, 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.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 20.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 25.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 15, page 16, line 21, at end insert 'and in deciding whether to give his consent the Secretary of State shall have regard to any report made to him under subsection (1)(b) of section (Review of digital television broadcasting) and to any representations received by him on consultation under subsection (4) of that section.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 79 and 95.
These amendments fulfil a commitment I made in this House to place, on the face of the Bill, the arrangements for reviewing the prospects for analogue switch-off.
The effect is that the Secretary of State is under a duty to keep under review the progress of digital television broadcasting and so the prospects for switching off the analogue services. This hinges crucially on whether the existing terrestrial services—BBC1, BBC2, Channel 3, Channel 4, S4C and, soon, Channel 5—are available to viewers throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot switch off analogue services if the vast majority of people have not already switched to digital reception and similar arrangements are put in place for radio.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 15, page 17, line 13, leave out from 'plan' to end of line 14 and insert 'and supplementary proposals submitted under subsection (4)(a)'.
28 Clause 18, page 19, line 1, at end insert 'in relation to each service provided under the licence'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. I spoke to these with Amendments Nos. 13 and 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 19, page 20, line 14, after 'services' insert 'and qualifying services'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 inclusive. I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to speak at slightly greater length than I have done on the amendments immediately preceding this one because the issue gave rise to much debate during our deliberations in this House.
When the Bill left this House, it provided that the ITC, after consultation with bodies representing those with sensory impairments, would set out requirements

1015
for assistance in a code. However, following debates in another place, we have been persuaded of the case for putting targets on the face of the Bill to act, from the outset, as a strong signal to broadcasters. The aim of the Government's amendments is therefore to establish targets on the face of the Bill, set at a realistic level and applied to programme rather than multiplex providers.
Amendment No. 30 provides that by the tenth anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service: not less than 50 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by the ITC; and not less than 10 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio-description.
These target percentages will be amendable by order. They will be incorporated into the ITC's code, conformity with which will be a licence condition for all digital programme service licence holders. The ITC will monitor broadcasters' progress towards meeting these requirements during the lead period to ensure an ongoing commitment to their achievement.
In the light of the strength of argument, the Government reconsidered the position regarding sign language provision. The Secretary of State announced in another place during Report stage that she intends to introduce by order a 5 per cent. target for sign language at the earliest possible opportunity.
The ITC will identify, in consultation with broadcasters and bodies representing the interests of those with sensory impairments, any types of programming for which it would not be practicable to require the levels of subtitling, audio-description or sign language interpretation set out in the Bill. It will do this only after consulting bodies representing people with sensory impairments and broadcasters. It will then be able to set lower, achievable targets for such programmes. These exclusions will be the exception—I emphasise that—rather than the rule: the majority of programmes should be subject to the targets set out on the face of the Bill.
The Government also recognise that there are currently no requirements on Channels 3, 4 or 5 regarding sign language or audio-description. They therefore intend to apply the new code and targets to their digital simulcast qualifying services. This is given effect by subsection (1J) of Amendment No. 30.
I believe that these proposals represent real gains for viewers with sensory disabilities. Our proposals also recognise that many different types of programme service are likely to be broadcast on digital television, and provision of subtitling, signing or audio-description at the same level will be extremely difficult for some of these programme types. This is an important point. We must allow the necessary flexibility for a range of new services to develop on digital, otherwise the successful launch of digital terrestrial television will be jeopardised, with the loss of services to all viewers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government's amendment represents a slight slippage in the optimum
1016
achievements that were at one point in the Bill. However, I should like to take a positive rather than a negative approach. The progress made, represented by the amendment, is considerable and is much appreciated by the people concerned. I know that my noble friend Lord Ashley, who worked so hard and did so much to achieve what is in the Bill, accepts the practicality of the compromise.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we are in the not totally unusual position of agreeing with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Clause 19, page 20, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) 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.

(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.

(1C) 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 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,

1017

(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.'.
31 Page 20, line 21, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
32 Page 20, leave out lines 25 and 26.
33 Page 20, line 31, at end insert—
'(4A) In this section—
"programme" does not include an advertisement;
"qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.'.
34 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO CODE ABOUT
PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend subsection (1B) of section 19 by substituting for any percentage specified there a percentage specified in the order, and

(b) require the Commission to include in the code maintained under that section the requirement that in each week, at least a percentage specified in the order of so much of any digital programme service or qualifying service as consists of programmes which are not excluded programmes for the purposes of that section in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language is to be so presented or translated.

(2) In subsection (1) "qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.
(3) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.
(4) No order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
35 Insert the following new clause—
COMPLIANCE WITH CODE ABOUT PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
'.—(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code maintained by them under section 19 are observed in the provision of digital programme services and qualifying services.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a digital programme licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for requiring the holder of the licence, on entering into any such agreement as is mentioned in section 18(3)(a), to submit to the Commission proposals for ensuring that the code is complied with in relation to the provision of the digital programme service.
(3) Where the holder of a digital programme licence has submitted proposals to the Commission in accordance with a condition included in the licence by virtue of subsection (2) or has failed to comply with such a condition, the Commission shall, after consulting him, vary the licence so as to include in the licence such further conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the code in the provision of the digital programme service in question.'.
36 Clause 20, page 21, line 14, at end insert—
'(4A) Where, in the case of any multiplex service, the first accounting period of the holder of the multiplex licence throughout which the holder of the digital programme licence provides a digital programme service for broadcasting by means of the multiplex service ("the first period") has not yet ended, then for the purposes of subsection (3) the share of multiplex revenue attributable to the holder of the digital programme licence in relation to that multiplex service for the relevant accounting period shall be taken to be the amount which the Commission estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for the first period.'.
37 Clause 21, page 22, line 1, leave out 'or an ancillary service' and insert 'an ancillary service or a technical service'.
38 Page 22, line 3, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this Part'.
39 Page 22, line 6, leave out 'provided by means of a teletext service'.
40 Page 22, line 9, leave out from 'which' to end of line 10 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.'.

41 Page 22, line 10, 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.'.
42 Clause 24, page 23, line 40, at end insert—
'(4A) Where, in the case of any multiplex service, the first accounting period of the holder of the multiplex licence throughout which the holder of the digital additional services licence provides a digital additional service for broadcasting by means of the multiplex service ("the first period") has not yet ended, then for the purposes of subsection (3) the share of multiplex revenue attributable to the holder of the digital additional services licence in relation to that multiplex service for the relevant accounting period shall be taken to be the amount which the Commission estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for the first period.'.
43 Clause 25, page 24, 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 15 and sections 17 and 18 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,'.

44 Page 25, line 6, leave out 'qualifying service' and insert 'service specified in section 2(3) corresponding to the qualifying service ("the corresponding analogue service")'.
45 Page 25, line 7, leave out 'that service in digital form' and insert 'the qualifying service'.
46 Page 25, line 10, leave out 'qualifying' and insert 'corresponding analogue'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 46 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with various other amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 46.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 26, page 25, line 46 at end insert—
'(2A) No payment shall be required by the BBC in respect of the broadcasting pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of programmes provided by them under section 58(1) of the 1990 Act.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 130 inclusive, 139 and 140, 180, 266, 268 and 269, 278, 280, 282 and 293.
The group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 47 deals with matters relating to S4C and Channel 4. Amendment No. 47 is a technical amendment. S4C is required by Clause 26(1)(b) to simulcast those Welsh language programmes provided to it free of charge by the BBC under the terms of Section 58 of the 1990 Act. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendment provides that the BBC may not require payment in respect of those simulcasts.
The rest of the amendments fulfil promises I made during discussion in this House of the parts of the Bill relating to S4C and Channel 4. They are designed to empower the Welsh authority to establish or participate in companies involved in television or radio broadcasting so that they can realise the full benefits of the digital revolution.
Finally, Amendment No. 127 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.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to express our appreciation for the amendments relating to S4C. We raised these issues in the House. Our concerns have been met on almost every point. I should like the department and the Minister to know that that is appreciated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
THE QUALIFYING TELETEXT SERVICE
'.—(1) If the public teletext provider has notified the Commission under section 2(4A) of his intention to provide a teletext service for broadcasting in digital form as a
1020
qualifying service, he shall submit to the Commission his proposals for providing that service in compliance with the requirements specified in subsection (3).
(2) The Commission shall give their consent to the provision of the service unless it appears to them that the proposed service would not comply with the requirements specified in subsection (3).
(3) The requirements referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—

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

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

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

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

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

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

and they may include those conditions in an) other licence under which the analogue service is subsequently provided.
(5) Sections 6 to 12 of the 1990 Act (general provisions relating to services licensed under Part I of that Act) shall apply in relation to the qualifying teletext service as they apply in relation to the analogue service, but as if the reference in section 12(1)(b) of the 1990 Act to the Commission's functions under Chapter II of Part I of that Act included a reference to their functions under this Part.
(6) In this section—
"the analogue service" means the service referred to in section 49(2) of the 1990 Act,
"the relevant licence" means the additional services licence (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) under which the analogue service is provided.'.
49 Clause 27, page 26, line 3, after 'Authority' insert 'or the public teletext provider'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
DIGITAL BROADCASTING OF GAELIC PROGRAMMES
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the Commission to include in any multiplex licence granted in respect of one frequency to which section 25 applies such conditions relating to the broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic for reception wholly or mainly in Scotland as may be specified in, or determined by them under, the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order require the holder of a multiplex licence ("the holder"), in complying with any such conditions, to broadcast programmes in Gaelic supplied by each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4) ("the suppliers") amounting to such minimum number of hours (if any) of transmission time per year as may be specified in the order in relation to that supplier.
(3) For the purpose of enabling the holder to comply with any such conditions and any obligation imposed by virtue of subsection (2), it shall be the duty of each supplier to provide the holder, free of charge, with such programmes in Gaelic which have been broadcast by the supplier as the holder may request.
(4) The suppliers are—

(a) the BBC,

(b) the Channel Four Television Corporation,

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

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

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

(a) before 1 January 1993, or

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

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

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

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

and shall have regard to any comments made as a result of such consultation.
(8) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) In this section "Gaelic" means the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. The amendment will increase the amount of Gaelic television programmes broadcast in peak time in Scotland. It places an obligation on the ITC to ensure that the operator of the third digital multiplex service carrying S4C and Channel 5 includes in Scotland a minimum of half-an-hour in peak time of Gaelic programmes every day as part of the overall service. The amendment also places an obligation on the existing broadcasters of Gaelic programmes to make available, free of charge, Gaelic programmes which they have previously broadcast for retransmission as part of the digital multiplex service.
The new measures will significantly increase the amount of Gaelic programming available in peak time in Scotland and I am sure that they will be warmly welcomed by the Gaelic speaking community.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to know that I received a letter from the Gaelic Television Committee which asks me to convey our appreciation for the progress made. Overall it is a considerable step in the right direction. It would be untrue to say that we are totally satisfied; we will have demands in the future. But it is such a rare occasion to be able to read such a letter to the Minister that I felt I should do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING
'.—(1) For the purpose of considering for how long it would be appropriate for television broadcasting services to continue to be provided in analogue form, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall keep under review the extent of—

(i) the provision in the United Kingdom of multiplex services,

(ii) the availability in the United Kingdom in digital form of the services specified in section 2(3), S4C Digital, the qualifying teletext service, and the television broadcasting services of the BBC, and

(iii) the ownership or possession in the United Kingdom of equipment capable of receiving the services referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) when broadcast or transmitted in digital form,

and the likely future extent of such provision, such availability and such ownership or possession, and
(b) shall, on or before the fourth anniversary of the day on which the first multiplex licence is granted under section 8, and at such time or times thereafter as he thinks fit, require the Commission and the BBC to report to him on the matters referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) If the Commission or the BBC are required to submit a report under subsection (1)(b), they shall submit the report within twelve months of the date of the requirement.
(3) Before making any report under subsection (1)(b), the Commission shall consult—

(a) the holders of all multiplex licences.

(b) the holders of digital programme licences who are providing digital programme services which are being broadcast,

(c) such other persons providing services licensed by the Commission under this Part or Part I or II of the 1990 Act as the Commission think fit, and

(d) the Welsh Authority;

and the Commission shall include in their report a summary of representations made to them by the persons consulted.
(4) For the purpose mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall, on requiring reports under subsection (1)(b), consult—

(a) such persons appearing to him to represent viewers as he thinks fit, and

(b) such other persons as he thinks fit,

in connection with the matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) and also, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, as to the likely effects on viewers of any television broadcasting service ceasing to be broadcast in analogue form.
(5) In this section "television broadcasting service" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1990 Act.'.
52 Clause 33, page 27, line 39, at end insert—
"ancillary service' has the meaning given by section 21(2);'.
53 Page 27, 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);'.
54 Page 28, line 9, at end insert—
"public teletext provider' has the meaning given by section 2(4B);'.
55 Page 28, 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;'.
56 Page 28, line 14, at end insert—
"technical service' has the meaning given by section 21(3)'.
57 Clause 34, page 28, line 45, after 'sound' insert '(together with any ancillary services, as defined by section 57(2))'.
58 Page 29, line 1, after 'include' insert—
'(a)".
59 Page 29, 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'.
60 Page 29, 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.'.
61 Page 29, 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)'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 61 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 61.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
62 Clause 35, page 29, 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'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 70 inclusive, 81 to 84 inclusive and 89 to 93 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 135, 137, 275 and 291.
1024
This group of amendments makes various largely technical adjustments to the provisions in the Bill covering digital radio. Again, with your Lordships' permission, rather than go into detail about each, I will be happy to provide any clarification in response to questions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
63 Clause 39, page 34, 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'.
64 Clause 42, page 37, line 4, leave out 'digital capacity of 256 kilobits per second' and insert 'an amount of digital capacity specified in the direction'.
65 Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) in relation to any simulcast radio service, the Secretary of State shall consult the Authority as to the amount of digital capacity which the Authority consider appropriate in all the circumstances for the broadcasting of that service'.
66 Page 37, line 7, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
67 Page 37, line 16, leave out '256 kilobits per second' and insert 'the amount reserved under subsection (1)'.
68 Page 37, line 34, after 'service' insert 'and in broadcasting the simulcast radio service in question'.
69 Clause 43, page 37, line 41, after 'and' insert 'every'.
70 Page 37, leave out lines 45 and 46 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'.
71 Clause 45, page 40, line 32, after 'services' insert 'or digital additional services'.
72 Clause 47, page 41, line 39, at end insert 'a specified financial penalty not exceeding'.
73 Page 41, line 40, leave out 'a financial penalty of'.
74 Page 41, line 42, leave out 'a financial penalty of'.
75 Clause 48, page 42, line 20, after 'timetable' insert 'and other proposals'.
76 Page 42, line 36, after 'services' insert or 'digital additional services'.
77 Page 42, line 47, after 'broadcasts' insert 'or for the purpose of securing compliance with any other condition of the licence'.
78 Page 43, line 8, 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

1025

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

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

79 Clause 52, page 48, line 18, at end insert 'and in deciding whether to give his consent the Secretary of State shall have regard to any report made to him under subsection (1)(b) of section (Review of digital radio broadcasting) and to any representations received by him on consultation under subsection (4) of that section.'.
80 Page 49, line 11, leave out from 'plan' to end of line 12 and insert 'and supplementary proposals submitted under subsection (4)(a)'.
81 Clause 53, page 50, line 13, leave out subsection (7).
82 Clause 54, page 51, line 19, after '90' insert 'of the 1990 Act'.
83 Page 51, line 20, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (4)'.
84 Page 51, line 28, at end insert—
'(4) In applying subsection (3)(a) to a national digital sound programme service a series of programmes may be considered as a whole; and in applying subsection (3)(b) to a local digital sound programme service the programmes included in that service shall be taken as a whole.'.
85 Clause 56, page 53, line 9, at end insert—
'(4A) Where, in the case of any national radio multiplex service, the first accounting period of the holder of the national radio multiplex licence throughout which the holder of the digital sound programme licence provides a digital sound programme service for broadcasting by means of the radio multiplex service ("the first period") has not yet ended, then for the purposes of subsection (3) the share of multiplex revenue attributable to the holder of the digital sound programme licence in relation to that radio multiplex service for the relevant accounting period shall be taken to be the amount which the Authority estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for the first period.'.
86 Clause 57, page 54, leave out line 6 and insert 'an ancillary service or a technical service'.
87 Page 54, leave out lines 7 to 13 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.'.

88 Page 54, line 13, 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.'.
89 Clause 59, page 54, line 39, leave out 'and'.
90 Page 54, line 40, at end insert 'and
(iii) where under the agreement the holder of the digital additional services licence will be entitled to the use of a specified amount of digital capacity, of that amount,'.
91 Page 54, line 41, leave out 'either' and insert 'any'.
92 Page 54, line 42, leave out 'or (ii)' and insert ', (ii) or (iii)'.
93 Clause 60, page 55, line 16, leave out 'on any person'.
94 Page 55, line 36, at end insert—
'(5A) Where, in the case of any national radio multiplex service, the first accounting period of the holder of the national radio multiplex licence throughout which the holder of the digital additional services licence provides a digital additional service for broadcasting by means of the radio multiplex service ("the first period") has not yet ended, then for the purposes of subsection (3) the share of multiplex revenue attributable to the holder of the digital additional services licence in relation to that radio multiplex service for the relevant accounting period shall be taken to be the amount which the Authority estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for the first period.'.
95 Before Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF DIGITAL RADIO BROADCASTING
'.—(1) For the purpose of considering for how long it would be appropriate for sound broadcasting services to continue to be provided in analogue form, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall keep under review the extent of—

(i) the provision in the United Kingdom of radio multiplex services,

(ii) the availability in the United Kingdom of digital sound programme services and the availability there in digital form of national services (within the meaning of Part III of the 1990 Act) and the sound broadcasting services of the BBC, and

(iii) the ownership or possession in the United Kingdom of equipment capable of receiving the services referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) when broadcast or transmitted in digital form,

and the likely future extent of such provision, such availability and such ownership or possession, and
(b) shall, on or before the fourth anniversary of the day on which the first national radio multiplex licence is granted under section 41, and at such time or times thereafter as he thinks fit, require the Authority and the BBC to report to him on the matters referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) If the Authority or the BBC are required to submit a report under subsection (1)(b), they shall submit the report within twelve months of the date of the requirement.
(3) Before making any report under this subsection (1)(b), the Authority shall consult—

(a) the holders of all radio multiplex licences,

(b) the holders of digital sound programme licences who are providing digital sound programme services which are being broadcast, and

(c) such other persons providing services licensed by the Authority under this Part or Part III of the 1990 Act as the Authority think fit,

and the Authority shall include in their report a summary of representations made to them by the persons consulted.
(4) For the purpose mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall, on requiring reports under subsection (1)(b), consult—

(a) such persons appearing to him to represent listeners as he thinks fit, and

1027

(b) such other persons as he thinks fit,

in connection with the matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) and also, if the Secretary of State thinks tit, as to the likely effects on listeners of any sound broadcasting service ceasing to he broadcast in analogue form.
(5) In this section "sound broadcasting service', has the same meaning as in Part III of the 1990 Act.'.
96 Clause 62, page 56, line 38, at end insert 'and (4)'.
97 Clause 65, page 57, line 40, at end insert—
"ancillary service' has the meaning given by section 57(2)'.
98 Page 58, line 17, at end insert—
"technical service' has the meaning given by section 57(3)'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 98 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with various earlier amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 98.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
171 Schedule 2, page 91, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) for paragraph (a) of the definition of "associate" there is substituted—
"(a) in relation to a body corporate, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph (1A), and"'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 to 178 and Amendment No. 292. In addition, there is a manuscript amendment which I have just tabled. I apologise to the House for that, but a problem arose at the last minute and we hope that that amendment will resolve it.
Amendments Nos. 171 and 173 are concerned with the definition of an "associate". Our amendment will ensure that the associates of a body corporate will now be defined by reference to the Bill's definition of "control" which casts the net wider than the Companies Act's definition of a "group" on which the current definition is based.
Amendments Nos. 172, 174, 175 and 176 amend the definition and interpretation of "control" to catch a number of devices which have been employed to evade the ownership restrictions under the 1990 Act. Amendment No. 177 modifies the definition of a "participant", and Amendment No. 292 repeals provisions in Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act which will become redundant as a result of Amendment No. 173 once this schedule in enacted.
The regulators' greatest concern, which we share, is about arrangements made by corporate bodies which involve "warehousing", joint control or "deadlocked" companies. Amendments Nos. 176A to 176K, which have been inspired by the Independent Television Commission, seek to bolster the provisions inserted in the Bill in Committee dealing with this area.
1028
As it currently 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 the case where, for example, company A and company B each hold a 49 per cent. interest while 1 per cent. is held by a company which can be relied upon to follow the wishes of company A and 1 per cent. by a company which can be relied upon to follow the wishes of company B. The ITC continues to maintain that such a scenario will not be caught. Our advice is that it will be covered by the formulation which has already been introduced by the Government.
Much would, of course, depend on the exact circumstances behind such a corporate structure, but it could be covered in two ways. Such a case could be caught by the substituted paragraph 1(3)(c) introduced by Amendment No. 176, if the I per cent. shareholders could each be regarded as nominees within the meaning of paragraph 2(1) of Part I of the 1990 Act. Such a situation could also be caught by paragraph 1(3)(b) if it was thought likely (in the sense of a reasonable expectation) that A and B would be acting in accordance with each other's wishes. This is because if A and B are 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. Likewise, it may be reasonable to expect, depending on the circumstances, that B would always act in accordance with A's wishes. The 2 per cent. part-shareholding would be completely irrelevant in company law terms unless allied with A or B.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, would treat each of the parties to the arrangement as controlling the company. That could produce some unwelcome, and possibly even absurd, results. That is particularly the case when one considers that, under these amendments, the word "arrangement" would be defined to include any agreement, arrangement, expectation or understanding, whether or not it is legally enforceable.
The crux of the problem with these amendments lies in the scope of the expression "any specified matter" to which an arrangement could relate. Shareholders or joint venture partners enter into all sorts of arrangements, and indeed have myriad expectations which, in our view, it would not be proper to catch.
Perhaps I may illustrate the problems by means of the following examples. If a large number of small shareholders together holding 50 per cent. of the shares have an informal understanding that they will seek to ensure that no director earns more than £500,000, the amendments would treat each of them as controlling the company.
A funding shareholder who retained a right of consent to any change in the name of the company could be deemed to control that company even though its name would make no difference at all to the way in which its affairs were conducted and would be immaterial in terms of our Schedule 2 concerns.

1029
I have just given two examples and, if noble Lords wish, I can give others but I shall wait until I am asked. I hope that what I have said will serve to demonstrate that the amendments would give the regulators unnecessarily wide powers. As I have explained, the Government have already introduced amendments which should cover the specific abuses of deadlocking and joint control which lie at the heart of the regulators' concerns. Those are the reasons why the Government do not therefore support Amendments Nos. 176A to 176K.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 174A, 176L, 177A and 177B which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. The amendments have also been inspired by the ITC and are designed to exclude bare and custodian trustees from the provisions for participation and control. The Government accept the case for excluding such trustees from the media ownership provisions, but we have been advised that although the amendments include a reference to custodian trustees, they omit a number of other categories of trustee which should also be exempted from the media ownership rules.
I also understand that the expression "exempt custodian interest" may not work in relation to the shares in companies incorporated elsewhere in the European Economic Area or in Northern Ireland. It would apply only to shares in English, Scottish or Welsh companies. Clearly, the policy should be capable of applying to the shares in any company incorporated anywhere in the EEA. I also understand that, for the purposes of the Companies Act, an exempt custodian interest is disregarded for the purposes of the statutory notification obligations only if the person concerned is not entitled to exercise, or control the exercise of, voting rights in respect of the shares in question. The amendments would disregard these interests even if the voting power attaching to them was exerciseable, thus creating a loophole.
In view of those defects, the Government have therefore tabled an alternative amendment, Amendment No. 177C, which is couched in broader terms and which will ensure that the policy is carried through. Still further consultation with the ITC's legal advisers has, however, revealed that even this amendment is defective in being unclear in its application to non-voting shares. It is for those reasons that I have tabled a manuscript amendment this afternoon, to which I have referred, to put the situation right. I apologise that it has been necessary to table the amendments at such a late stage, but I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have endeavoured to give as clearly as I can to your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, will agree to withdraw their amendments in favour of the Government's Amendment No. 177C, as amended. I can assure them that I have been advised that the ITC's legal advisers are now content with the substance.
I have spoken at some length about a complicated and convoluted state of affairs. I hope that the conclusion I have reached is clear and satisfactory to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171.—(Lord Inglewood.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we wish to thank the Minister for the attention and work that he has given to the matter. I shall now speak to our amendments, the purpose of which was to make the Act work. We saw in one case of deadlocking, devices to evade and in another case, that of the bare trustees, unnecessary bureaucracy. The problem with all those is that the law is often imperfect in being comprehensive, so we have difficulty in keeping up with the problem, just as I have difficulty with keeping up with the pace of the Government's amendments.
Both sides are working towards the same objective and we are quite happy to accept what the Government said and what they propose in order better to achieve what we imperfectly sought. We shall therefore be happy not to move our amendments.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for those remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
172 Schedule 2, page 91, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) in paragraph (b) of the definition of "control" for "by virtue of the rules regulating that or any other body" there is substituted "by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly",'.
173 Page 91, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) After sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purpose of determining the persons who are the associates of a body corporate for the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) an individual shall be regarded as an associate of a body corporate if he is a director of that body corporate and

(b) a body corporate and another body corporate shall be regarded as associates of each other if one controls the other or if the same person controls both."'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. I have already spoken to them with Amendment No. 171.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 172 and 173.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
174 Schedule 2, page 91, leave out line 26 and insert—
'(3) For sub-paragraph (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of this Schedule a person controls a body corporate if—
(a) he holds, or is beneficially entitled to, more than 50 per cent. of the equity share capital in the body, or possesses more than 50 per cent. of the voting power in it, or'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 174.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 174.—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendment No. 174A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 174, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
175 Schedule 2, page 91, line 30, leave out 'secure' and insert 'achieve the result'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
176 Schedule 2, page 91, line 31, at end insert 'or
(c) he holds, or is beneficially entitled to, 50 per cent of the equity share capital in that body, or possesses 50 per cent of the voting power in it, and an arrangement exists between him and any other participant in the body as to the manner in which any voting power in the body possessed by either of them is to be exercised, or as to the omission by either of them to exercise such voting power.
(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c)—

(a) "arrangement" includes any agreement or arrangement, whether or not it is, or is intended to be, legally enforceable, and

(b) a person shall be treated—

(i) as holding, or being beneficially entitled to, any equity share capital which is held by a body corporate which he controls or to which such a body corporate is beneficially entitled, and

(ii) as possessing any voting power possessed by such a body corporate."'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 171.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176.—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendments Nos. 176A to 176L, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 176, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
177 Schedule 2, page 91, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) For sub-paragraph (6) there is substituted—
"(6) In this Schedule any reference to a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate is a reference to a person who—
1032

(a) holds or is beneficially entitled to more than 20 per cent. of the shares in that body, or

(b) possesses more than 20 per cent. of the voting power in that body.

(7) Sub-paragraph (6) shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications in relation to other references in this Schedule—

(a) to an interest of more than a specified percentage in a body corporate, or

(b) to an interest of a specified percentage or more in a body corporate.

(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'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendments Nos. 177A and 177B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 177, not moved.]
As an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177.
177C Line 18, at end insert—
(".—(1) Paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 2 is amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted "Subject to sub-paragraph (1A)".
(3) After sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's holding of shares, or possession of voting power, in a body corporate shall be disregarded if, or to the extent that—

(a) he holds the shares—

(i) as a nominee,

(ii) as a custodian (whether under a trust or by a contract), or

(iii) under an arrangement pursuant to which he has issued, or is to issue, depositary receipts, as defined by section 220(1) of the Companies Act 1985, in respect of the shares concerned, and

(b) he is bound (whether by contract or otherwise) not to exercise the voting rights in respect of the shares or not to exercise them otherwise than in accordance with the instructions of another.

(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)(b), voting rights which a person is entitled to exercise or of which he is entitled to control the exercise only in certain circumstances shall be taken into account only when those circumstances have arisen and for long as they continue to obtain."").
MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENT No. 177C
177D Line 9, at end insert ("concerned")
177E Line 17, leave out from ("is") to end of line 20 and insert ("not entitled to exercise or control the exercise of voting rights in respect of the shares concerned")
177F Line 21, after ("(1A(b)") insert—
("(a) a person is not entitled to exercise or control the exercise of voting rights in respect of shares if he is bound (whether by contract or otherwise) not to exercise the voting rights, or not to exercise them otherwise than in accordance with the instructions of another, and
(b)")
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before moving Amendment No. 177C as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177, I beg to move manuscript Amendments Nos. 177D to 177F.
I think I owe the House an apology for causing a lot of this complication. I commend the manuscript amendments.
On Question, manuscript Amendments Nos. 177D to 177F, as amendments to Amendment No. 177C, agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177, Amendment No. 177C.
On Question, Amendment No. 177C, as amended, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177, agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 177, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
178 Page 91, line 32, at end insert—
'1A. For paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 2 there is substituted—
"3. For the purposes of this Schedule the following persons shall he treated as connected with a particular person—

(a) a person who controls that person,

(b) an associate of that person or of a person falling within paragraph (a), and

(c) a body which is controlled by that person or by an associate of that person."'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 178. I have already spoken to this amendment with Commons Amendment No. 171. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 178.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
179 Page 93, line 13, at end insert—
'(i) a licence to provide digital programme services, or
(j) a licence to provide national or local digital sound programme services.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179. Following a debate on this matter in another place, we concluded that it would be wrong to prevent foreign ownership of digital television programme services. That is because there are already a number of programme channels offered through cable and satellite which are provided by organisations whose ultimate parent is a non-EEA company. These channels, which include the Family Channel, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Disney Channel and even the Parliamentary Channel, have established their
1034
popularity. We felt that we could not ultimately justify a position whereby such channels could be provided by cable or satellite but not by way of a digital programme service. In addition, their availability through digital terrestrial television may well contribute to the success of digital terrestrial broadcasting.
Similarly, allowing foreign control of digital sound programme services may contribute to the success of digital radio. Indeed, the development of commercial radio in this country owes much to the early input of overseas companies which had experience in the commercial market.
The Government consulted both the ITC and the Radio Authority about these amendments, and both were content with this liberalisation. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
180 Page 93, line 13, at end insert—
'4A. In paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 2 (disqualification of publicly-funded bodies for radio service licences), in sub-paragraph (1)(a) for "(other than a local authority)" there is substituted "(other than a local authority, the Welsh Authority or the BBC)".
4B. In paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 2 (general disqualification of broadcasting bodies), paragraphs (c) and (d) are omitted.
4C. After paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 2 there is inserted—
"Disqualification of certain companies for certain licences
5A.—(1) A BBC company, a Channel 4 company or an S4C company is a disqualified person in relation to—

(a) any licence granted by the Commission to provide regional or national Channel 3 services or Channel 5, and

(b) any licence granted by the Commission to provide a local delivery service.

(2) 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.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide that sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall not have effect in relation to any local delivery service of a description specified in the order." '.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.
Subsections (4A) and (4B) in this amendment are consequential to the provisions allowing S4C and Channel 4 to create companies, to which I spoke earlier. Subsection (4C) was brought forward by my honourable friend the Minister of State following discussion in the Standing Committee in another place about the potential impact on the commercial radio market of competition from BBC companies.
Some of the concerns expressed were somewhat exaggerated. But there are special factors in the domestic radio market relating to strong competition and spectrum scarcity which will not be changed by digital

1035
broadcasting. Nor is this a sector in which the BBC had plans to establish companies. We therefore thought it would be a good thing to provide assurances to the commercial radio market by clarifying the position. This amendment makes it clear that BBC companies are disqualified from holding a Radio Authority licence to provide a national, local or restricted radio service. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
181 Page 93, line 22, leave out 'paragraphs 8 and 15' and insert 'paragraph 8'.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181. In moving this amendment I shall also refer to Commons Amendments Nos. 182 to 184 inclusive and Commons Amendments Nos. 216 to 221.
This group of amendments concerns the categories of broadcasting licence which fall within the system of media ownership controls. They largely relate to more substantive changes to which we shall come shortly.
Amendment No. 181 is consequential on the revised system of controlling licence-holders' shares and other licences, which is now to rely not on maximum holdings but on attributing half the audience share of the licence concerned where the shareholdings are over 20 per cent.
Amendment No. 182 takes account of Amendment No. 183, which provides for the addition of the new category of restricted television services to the audience, subject to the overall 15 per cent. television share limit.
Amendment No. 184 provides for the omission of restricted radio services from the system of controls. I shall have more to say about this later.
Amendments Nos. 216 to 219 make minor and consequential changes to the order-making power to vary the specific ownership controls.
Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 are minor drafting amendments consequential on the removal of the power to specify a maximum number of local radio service licences that may be held by one person. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
182 Schedule 2, page 93, line 23, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'seventeen'.
183 Page 93, line 26, at end insert—
'(aa) restricted services (within the meaning of Part I of this Act);'.
184 Page 93, leave out line 38.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 184. I have already spoken to these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 184.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
185 Schedule 2, page 94, leave out lines 4 to 50 and insert—
'General limit on the holding of licences to provide television services or interests in bodies corporate holding such licences
2.—(1) If any person's audience time, in respect of a period of twelve months ending with the last day of any calendar month, exceeds 15 per cent. of total audience time, he shall not, subject to sub-paragraph (4), at any time in the following month—

(a) hold two or more licences to provide relevant services falling within one or more of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g),

(b) be a participant with a qualifying interest in two or more bodies corporate each of which holds a licence, or two or more licences, to provide services falling within one or more of those categories,

(c) hold any licence to provide a relevant service falling within any of those categories and be a participant with a qualifying interest in any body corporate which holds such a licence or two or more such licences,

(d) provide a foreign satellite service and either hold any licence to provide a relevant service falling within any of those categories or be a participant with a qualifying interest in a body corporate which holds such a licence or two or more such licences, or

(e) hold a licence to provide relevant services falling within the category specified in paragraph 1(2)(g) and provide two or more such services.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), and subject to sub- paragraph (3), a person's audience time in respect of any period is the aggregate of—

(a) the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each relevant service falling within any of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g) provided under a licence held by him,

(b) one half of the audience time attributable in respect of that period to any relevant service falling within any of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g) provided under a licence held by a body corporate which he does not control, but in which he is a participant with a qualifying interest, and

(c) the audience time attributable in respect of that period to any foreign satellite service provided by him.

(3) For the purposes of calculating a person's audience time in respect of any period in accordance with sub-paragraph (2)—

(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

1037
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 (2) 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).

(4) 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 the 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.
(5) In this paragraph "foreign satellite service" means any service (other than a non-domestic satellite service) which consists in the transmission of television programmes by satellite, is provided on a frequency other than one allocated to the United Kingdom for broadcasting by satellite and either—

(a) appears to the Commission to be intended for general reception in the United Kingdom (whether or not it appears to them to be also intended for general reception elsewhere), or

(b) is (to any extent) relayed by a local delivery service.

(6) References in this paragraph—

(a) to the audience time attributable to any service in respect of any period, or

(b) to total audience time in respect of any period,

shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 3.
(7) In this paragraph "qualifying interest" means an interest of more than 20 per cent.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (7)—

(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.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraphs (1)(a), (2)(a) and (b) by adding a reference to relevant services falling within the category specified in paragraph 1(2)(aa)'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185. In speaking to this amendment I shall also refer to Amendments Nos. 186 and 187, 215, 157 and 158.
Amendment No. 185 retains the general scheme whereby holdings in television are limited to no more than 15 per cent. of the total television audience time. However, it provides that those who have an interest in more than 20 per cent. but less than the control of the television service shall be attributed half the audience time attributable to that service.
1038
The amendment to Amendment No. 185 before the House will ensure that when calculating audience time audience share is attributed immediately in respect of licences that a person controls or in which he has a qualifying interest at the time the calculation is made.
Amendment No. 185 also provides order-making powers whereby the Secretary of State may amend the percentage of qualifying interests to which half the audience time is attributed and bring restricted television services within the scope of the 15 per cent. audience time limit.
Amendment No. 186 provides that the Secretary of State can amend paragraph 3 of Part III to reflect any significant change in the manner in which the television industry calculates audience time.
Amendment No. 187 is simple and straightforward. It changes an order-making power into a general rule to prevent the holder of one regional Channel 3 licence from also holding another licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service for that region.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 are minor amendments to Clause 115 which pave the way for a repeal of the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Orders. The replacement provisions are now contained on the face of this Bill, so the orders will become redundant when Schedule 2 of the Bill becomes law.
Amendment No. 215 amends the earlier provisions whereby the holders of one type of licence were restricted to a 20 per cent. interest in licences of a different category, replacing them with provisions which prevent common control of those licences but which do not restrict the extent of participation below the level of control. It will, however, still prevent any one person from having more than one national analogue broadcasting licence; and anyone holding a local radio licence and a Channel 3 licence where services are provided for areas which are significantly the same. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.—(Lord Inglewood.)
AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 185
185A Leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert ("No one person may, at any time when his audience time in respect of the period of twelve months ending with the last day of the preceding calendar month exceeds 15 per cent of total audience time in respect of that period—").
185B Line 27, leave out (", and subject to sub-paragraph (3)").
185C Line 28, after ("time") insert ("at any time ("the relevant time")").
185D Line 33, at end insert ("at the relevant time").
185E Line 38, after ("is") insert ("at the relevant time").
185F Line 41, at end insert ("at the relevant time").
185G Line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 185A to 185G. I beg to move them en bloc.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 185A to 185G, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 185, be agreed to.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 185, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
186 Schedule 2, page 95, line 37, 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'.
187 Page 95, line 42, leave out from beginning to first 'a'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 and 187. I spoke to these amendments in speaking to Amendment No. 185.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 and 187.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
188 Schedule 2, page 95, line 48, at beginning insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), a person who is a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which holds a licence to provide a television multiplex service but does not control that body shall be treated as holding the licence held by that body.
(1B) No one person may at any time, in relation to each of five or more licences to provide television multiplex services, be either the holder of the licence or a participant with more than a 10 per cent. interest in a body corporate which holds the licence.
(2) In relation to'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188. In speaking to this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 189, 190 to 195, 210, 211, 213 and 214. This group of amendments deals with the aggregation of interests in licences to provide digital terrestrial services. Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 provide limits of participation to prevent the accumulation of interests in licences to provide digital multiplex services for television. A person who controls or has an interest in more than 20 per cent. of three such licences is restricted to a 20 per cent. interest in another such licence and to interests of 10 per cent. in any such licences thereafter. Amendment No. 190 provides for these arrangements to be amended by order. It also provides that the Secretary of State may designate a television multiplex service as a regional television multiplex service if it covers less than half the population of the United Kingdom.
Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 provide similar restrictions to prevent the accumulation of interests in digital radio multiplex licences. Amendment No. 191 provides that the Secretary of State may impose limits on those providing digital programme services by means of a designated regional multiplex and the control of Channel 3 services and local analogue and digital radio
1040
provided for areas which are to a significant extent the same. This is prevent the development of local media monopolies.
Amendment No. 192 allows a digital programme service provider to provide any number of services on a single digital television multiplex without limitation under the television points system. But as soon as the licence holder provides services on two multiplexes, the points system would apply to him.
Amendment No. 193 makes a drafting correction to Part III of the schedule. Amendment No. 194 provides that only one point is attributable to those digital programme services provided by means of a designated regional multiplex. Amendment No. 195 clarifies the restriction in sub-paragraph (8) by providing that it applies to a participant with more than 20 per cent. interest who does not control that licence. Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 change the arrangements restricting the number of services which the holder of a local digital sound programme service licence may provide on a local radio multiplex.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is something which one could have said at any stage in the consideration of these Commons amendments, but I give an undertaking to say it only once. We have here, as we have already had—and we shall have many more—a mass of somewhat technical amendments which mostly have not arisen from views expressed in your Lordships' House when the Bill was before us; nor do they arise for the most part from views expressed in another place. They are necessary amendments, but they are mostly very technical and they are amendments which I think could well have been brought into the Bill as originally published if, instead of taking about one year over the preparation of the Bill, two years or even three years had been allowed in order to do so.
The Prime Minister recently made a speech about the working of the constitution generally in which he talked of ideas on the improving of the handling of legislation in the years to come. One of those suggestions was that we should have an arrangement, when we have massive Bills and especially technical Bills, for having much longer time for their consideration. The suggestion was that draft Bills should be issued to all those who might be affected by them: public bodies and others. I mention this because here is an example which illustrates the need for the change which the Prime Minister has proposed. I hope that it may be regarded as a good example of what needs to be done in the years to come.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point that my noble friend has made is a very good one. As he says, this is almost a textbook case of very technical legislation. If I may, I should like to make what one might describe as a couple of points in mitigation. The first is that many of the points we are considering arose out of commitments given by me in this House at an earlier stage. In addition, the vast majority of the others arise from commitments given and changes introduced in another place.

1041
The point made by my noble friend about the general technicality of the Bill is well taken, but there is one point which I have already mentioned on a number of occasions and perhaps in this context it is appropriate to repeat it. We accept that this was a difficult Bill and it was brought in in a hurry. There was one very good reason for that: it is a Bill asked for by the industry in order to enable digital terrestrial broadcasting to take place in this country. Digital satellite broadcasting and digital cable broadcasting can be done without any legislative change.
The industry requested the Government to bring in the necessary legal framework to give the possibility of digital terrestrial broadcasting a chance. It is the view of the industry—and one which we ought to take very seriously—that unless we got that legislative framework in place quickly, the economic consequences would be that there was every likelihood that digital terrestrial broadcasting would not take place in Britain at all. Because the points made by my noble friend are entirely well taken, I thought it important to explain why, in the particular circumstances of this Bill, the Government brought forward proposals which in ordinary circumstances they probably would not have done. There was, I believe, a very good underlying reason for so doing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I thank him for that explanation? However, I should like to say that I would still suggest that this indicates a need for plenty of time to be given in such cases.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, but one of the extraordinary things which are happening in the world is that the technology in this area is moving forward fast. Indeed, what one might describe as the broadcasting landscape is very different now from what it was in November when the Bill was introduced. In economic terms it is almost a different world from what it was six months ago.
Lord Donoghue: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said and I sympathise with him. I am sure he will sympathise with us on this side if he considers that we, on this side, unpaid, and with no research back-up at all, have had to handle the technicalities of the Bill from day one. The people responsible might think about the necessity from the public interest point of view to provide a proper support structure for Her Majesty's Opposition in this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
189 Schedule 2, page 95, line 50, leave out from 'Act)' to end of line 51 and insert—

'(a) sub-paragraph (1) shall have effect as if the reference to three licences were a reference to two licences, and

(b) sub-paragraph (1B) shall have effect as if the reference to five licences were a reference to four licences.'.

190 Page 96, line 1, leave out from 'order' to end of line 3 and insert—

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

(b) designate any television multiplex service as a regional multiplex service for the purposes of this sub-paragraph,

(c) prescribe restrictions on the holding by any one person of two or more licences to provide regional multiplex services whose coverage areas are to a significant extent the same.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not designate any television multiplex service as a regional television multiplex service for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) unless less than half of the population of the United Kingdom is resident within the proposed coverage area of the service.'.
191 Page 96, line 3, at end insert—
'Limits on the holding, by persons providing digital programme services, of licences to provide other categories of service
5A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe restrictions on the holding, by a person who is providing a digital programme service by means of a television multiplex service designated by order under paragraph 5(3)(b) as a regional multiplex service, of a licence to provide any service specified in sub-paragraph (2) whose coverage area is to a significant extent the same as that of the digital programme service.
(2) The services referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—

(a) a regional Channel 3 service,

(b) a local radio service, and

(c) a local radio multiplex service.

(3) The Secretary of State may also by order prescribe restrictions on the provision by any one person at any time of both—

(a) a digital programme service by means of a television multiplex service which is designated by order under paragraph 5(3)(b) as a regional multiplex service, and

(b) a digital sound programme service whose coverage area is to a significant extent the same as that of the digital programme service.

192 Page 96, line 8, 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'.
193 Page 96, line 16, leave out 'broadcast' and insert 'provided'.
194 Page 96, line 16, at end insert—
'(aa) a digital programme service is provided by means of a television multiplex service designated by the Secretary of State by order under paragraph 5(3)(b) as a regional multiplex service, or'.
195 Page 97, line 7, leave out from 'licence' to 'to' in line 10 and insert 'but who does not control that body, shall be taken'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 195.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
196 Schedule 2, page 97, leave out lines 11 to 13 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

(d) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (8).'.

5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 196 I should like also to speak to Amendments No. 197 and 209 inclusive. Amendment No. 196 gives the Secretary of State the power to vary elements in the digital points system set out in paragraph 6 of Part III to Schedule 2, so that the ownership regime can respond to developments within digital television broadcasting.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 201 make it clear that, for the purposes of the 15 per cent. radio ownership points limit, points will be allocated to the company concerned at the time the licence is awarded. The Radio Authority will not have to wait until the company is actually broadcasting under a licence which is in force before allocating points. That brings the Bill into line with the approach currently adopted by the authority. The other amendments in this group are designed to remove the category of restricted radio licences from regulation under the radio points scheme. Restricted service licences are issued by the Radio Authority to permit broadcasting which is provided for a particular establishment or other defined location, or a particular event. Licences are issued on demand, and are normally valid for 28 days.
Following representations from the Radio Authority, the Government decided that there were good reasons for removing that category of licence from the points system. The inclusion of restricted radio licences in the points system unhelpfully distorts the market. However, we do not know what the future might hold. Amendment No. 209 empowers the Secretary of State to reinstate such licences, or any category of them, in the calculation and to specify a number of points to be assigned to them should concentrations of ownership threaten to cause a problem.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 196.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
197 Schedule 2, page 97, line 21, leave out '(b) or (c)' and insert 'or (b)'.
198 Page 97, line 24, at end insert 'or have been awarded'.
199 Page 97, line 27, leave out ',(c)'.
200 Page 97, line 31, leave out ', local or restricted' and insert 'or local'.
201 Page 97, line 32, after 'force' insert 'or have been awarded'.
202 Page 97, line 35, leave out 'two or more'.
203 Page 97, line 45, leave out ', local or restricted' and insert 'or local'.
204 Page 98, leave out lines 13 and 14.
205 Page 98, line 24, at end insert—
'(2A) No points shall be attributed to a national or local digital sound programme service unless the service is being provided.'.
206 Page 98, line 25, leave out ', local or restricted' and insert 'or local'.
207 Page 98, line 34, leave out ', local or restricted' and insert 'or local'.
208 Page 98, line 37, leave out ', local or restricted' and insert 'or local'.
209 Page 98, line 46, at beginning insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of paragraphs 7 and 8 as he thinks fit for the purposes of including restricted radio services among the services referred to in any provision of paragraph 7 and of providing for the calculation of the points to be attributed to any such service, or any category of such service.
(2) '.
210 Page 99, line 24, at end insert —
'(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) a person who is a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which holds a licence to provide a radio multiplex service but does not control that body shall be treated as holding the licence held by that body.
(2B) No one person may at any time—

(a) hold a licence to provide a radio multiplex service and be a participant with more than a 10 per cent. interest in more than one body corporate which holds any other such licence, or

(b) be a participant with more than a 10 per cent. interest in each of three or more bodies corporate which hold such licences.'.

211 Page 99, line 25, leave out from 'order' to end of line 26 and insert—

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

(b) amend sub-paragraph (2A) or (2B) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there.'.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 197 to 211. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 197 to 211.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
212 Schedule 2, Page 99, line 26, at end insert—
'Limits in relation to licences to provide local radio services in overlapping areas
10A.—(1) No one person may at any time hold any two licences to provide local radio services which share a potential audience unless either—

(a) one of the licences is an AM licence and the other is an FM licence, or

1045

(b) the Authority have determined that in all the circumstances, having regard to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (4), the holding by that person of the licences in question could not be expected to operate against the public interest within the area concerned.

(2) No one person may at any time hold any three licences to provide local radio services any of which shares a potential audience with each of the other two services unless—

(a) the licences include both an AM licence and an FM licence, and

(b) the Authority have determined that in all the circumstances, having regard to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (4), the holding by that person of the licences in question could not be expected to operate against the public interest within the area concerned.

(3) No one person may at any time hold any four or more licences to provide local radio services any of which shares a potential audience with each of the other services.
(4) The matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are—

(a) any reduction in plurality of ownership of local radio services within the area concerned that would result from a decision to allow the licences to be held together, and

(b) the likely effect of such a decision on—

(i) the range of programmes available by way of independent radio services to persons living in the area concerned, and

(ii) diversity in the sources of information available to the public in the area concerned and in the opinions expressed on local radio services received in that area.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph two local radio services share a potential audience if, but only if, the potential audience of one service includes more than half of the potential audience of the other service.
(6) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 10B.
(7) In this paragraph—
"AM licence" means a licence to provide a local radio service on an amplitude modulated frequency,
"FM licence" means a licence to provide such a service on a frequency modulated frequency, and
"potential audience", in relation to a local radio service, means the persons over the age referred to in paragraph 8(2)(a) who reside in the coverage area of that service.
Power by order to impose different restrictions in place of paragraph 10A
10B. 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 10A share a potential audience with each other or with each of the others shall, instead of being subject to the restrictions specified in paragraph 10A, be subject to other restrictions specified in the order.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212. I should also like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 222 to 229 and Commons Amendment No. 136.
There has been considerable debate about the current restriction which limits companies to one radio licence on the AM waveband and one licence on the FM
1046
waveband in areas which overlap. The Government listened carefully to this debate and held discussions with the Radio Authority and the Commercial Radio Companies Association. We concluded that both the industry and the listener would benefit from a measured relaxation of the existing ownership regime. Amendment No. 212 therefore allows companies to own three licences in areas which share a potential audience; that is to say, either two FM licences and one AM licence, or two AM licences and one FM licence.
The acquisition of a second licence on the same waveband will be subject to a radio specific public interest test, to protect plurality and diversity in the local radio market. When considering applications from radio companies wishing to operate a second licence on the same waveband in the same area, the Radio Authority will have to consider three factors in relation to that area. These are whether any reduction in plurality of ownership might result from a decision to allow the licences to be held together; the likely effect on the range of independent radio services available to listeners; and the likely effect on diversity in sources of information available and opinions expressed on local radio services in the area.
In the larger city areas where there are already several other radio stations, it is not obvious that plurality dictates that a company should be restricted to owning two licences. Under the test that we propose, the authority will be able to allow the acquisition if it concludes that a reduction in plurality is not so material as to be against the public interest.
However, in shire areas, where typically the only AM licence and the only FM licence are owned by the same company, the test will allow the Radio Authority to conclude that the acquisition of a third licence for that area does not operate against the public interest if such an acquisition will actually lead to an increase in the number of services which would be provided. That may be the only way that a further service would be viable; that is to say, through the exploitation by the dominant company of economies of scale. It will be for the Radio Authority to judge whether the benefits of diversity outweigh the interests of plurality.
In allowing a company to acquire a second FM (or AM) licence in a particular area, we do not propose to remove the existing licence conditions applying to programme formats and promises of performance. If a company acquires an existing licence, it will remain bound by these conditions, and will not simply be able to supplant an existing service with one that is radically different from the one to which listeners have grown accustomed. And in issuing any new licences, the Radio Authority will continue to seek to extend diversity for listeners in the area.
However, in our discussions with the Radio Authority about this issue, the authority expressed concern that many of the existing promises of performance had been drafted in general terms when there were tighter limits on the ownership of more than one station in any one local area. Amendment No. 136 accordingly enables the Radio Authority to revise local licences upon a change of control in order to write tighter promises of

1047
performance which accurately reflect the character of the station's output immediately prior to the change of control.
The intention behind Amendments Nos. 222 to 227 is simple. The connected persons provisions in Part III of Schedule 2, would mean that the Radio Authority would have to apply the new public interest test if a person is a director of any three radio stations which share a potential audience. That was never the intention, and these amendments change the connected persons provisions to ensure that such a situation does not arise.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 remove the limits on participation by holders of certain licences to provide services of a different category. Those arrangements have been superseded by Amendment No. 215.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
213 Schedule 2, page 99, line 30, leave out 'such' and insert 'non-simulcast'.
214 Page 99, leave out lines 31 to 51 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,

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.'.
215 Page 99, line 51, at end insert—
'Further restrictions on holding of licences of different descriptions
11A.—(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.'.

216 Page 100, line 4, leave out '1(2)(b)' and insert '1(2)(aa),(b)'.
217 Page 100, line 12, leave out '(g)'and insert '(aa)'.
218 Page 100, line 12, leave out from '1(3)(a)' to the second 'or' in line 13 and insert ',(b) or (g)'.
219 Page 100, line 15, leave out '11' and insert '11A'.
220 Page 100, leave out lines 31 to 35.
221 Page 100, line 46, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)' and insert 'subparagraph (5)'.
222 Page 101, line 8, at beginning insert 'Subject to sub-paragraph (1A)'.
223 Page 101, line 9, leave out '11' and insert '11A'.
224 Page 101, line 10, after 'paragraph' insert '10B or'.
225 Page 101, line 13, leave out 'who is'.
226 Page 101, line 13, leave out from 'him' to end of line 14.
227 Page 101, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of paragraph 10A and any order under paragraph 10B, 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.
(1B) Any provision of paragraphs 2 to 11 which refers to a person's participation in a body corporate shall have effect as if he and every person connected with him were one person.'.
228 Page 101, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 102.
229 Page 102, leave out lines 38 to 43.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 213 to 229 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 213 to 229.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
230 Schedule 2, page 104, leave out lines 1 to 10.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230. I should also like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 231 to 240 and Commons Amendment No. 254. These amendments all relate to rules relating to the relationship between newspapers and broadcast licences.

1049
Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 are minor modifications of the drafting of paragraph 3 of Part IV to Schedule 2.
Amendments Nos. 232 to 237 and Amendment No. 240 effect the Government's revised policy for limiting participation in broadcasters by newspaper companies, which relies on the attribution of half the audience share of a service to minority participants having more than a 20 per cent. interest in a licence.
Amendment No. 240 allows local newspaper groups with 50 per cent. or more of local newspaper circulation to apply to control a local radio licence, provided there is at least one other commercial local radio licence serving the same area and subject to the public interest test.
Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 relax media ownership restrictions in the light of the new regulatory system introduced by the Bill as amended, by removing the prohibition on national newspaper companies with a market share of 20 per cent. or more controlling digital programme service licences for radio.
Amendment No. 254 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order restricting cross-ownership of restricted service television licences and newspaper companies.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
231 Schedule 2, page 104, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule a person runs a national or local newspaper if—

(a) he is the proprietor of the newspaper, or

(b) he controls a body which is the proprietor of the newspaper.'.

232 Page 104, line 12, at end insert—
'Restrictions on common control etc.
3A.—(1) No person who runs a national newspaper which for the time being has, or national newspapers which for the time being together have, a national market share of 20 per cent. or more may hold a licence to provide—

(a) a regional or national Channel 3 service or Channel 5, or

(b) a national or local radio service.

(2) A licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service may not be held by a person who runs a local newspaper which for the time being has, or local newspapers which for the time being together have, a local market share of 20 per cent. or more in the coverage area of the service.
(3) A licence to provide digital programme services may not be held by a person who runs a local newspaper which for the time being has, or local newspapers which for the time being together have, a local market-share of 20 per cent. or more in the coverage area of any digital programme service provided under the licence.
(4) 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.'.
233 Page 104, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'No' in line 14 on page 105 and insert—
'Restrictions on participation
'5.—(1) No proprietor of a national newspaper which for the time being has, or of national newspapers which for the time being together have, a national market share of 20 per cent. or more shall be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide any of the services specified in sub-paragraph (4).
(1A) '.
234 Page 105, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert 'any of the services specified in sub-paragraph (4)'.
235 Page 105, leave out lines 28 to 39.
236 Page 105, line 40, leave out '(2) and (3)(b)' and insert '(1), (1A) and (2)'.
237 Page 105, line 41, after 'a' insert 'regional or national'.
238 Page 105, line 41, at end insert 'and'.
239 Page 105, line 42, leave out from 'services' to end of line 43.
240 Page 105, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 108 and insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (2) by substituting a different percentage interest in a body corporate for the percentage for the time being specified there.
(4B) Any restriction imposed by this paragraph on participation in a body corporate which is the holder of a particular kind of licence shall apply equally to participation in a body corporate which controls the holder of such a licence.
(4C) Any restriction on participation imposed by this paragraph—

(a) on the proprietor of any newspaper, or

(b) on the holder of any licence,

shall apply as if he and every person connected with him were one person.
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 10A(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.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 231 to 240. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 231 to 240.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
241 Schedule 2, page 108, line 5, at end insert—
'Further restrictions on holding of local radio licences by a person who runs a local newspaper
5B.—(1) No person who runs a local newspaper which for the time being has, or local newspapers which for the time being together have, a local market share of 20 per cent. or more in each of the relevant areas may hold any three licences to provide local radio services any of which shares a potential audience with each of the other services.
(2) No person who runs a local newspaper which for the time being has, or local newspapers which for the time being together have, a local market share of 20 per cent. or more in both the relevant areas may hold any two licences to provide local radio services which share a potential audience, unless one of the licences is an AM licence and the other is an FM licence.
(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—

(a) "the relevant areas" means the coverage areas of the local radio services in question,

(b) references to sharing a potential audience shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 10A in Part III of this Schedule, and

(c) "AM licence" and "FM licence" have the same meaning as in that paragraph.

(4) 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.
(5) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 5C.
Power by order to impose different restrictions in place of paragraph 5B
5C.—(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 5B(1), of two or more licences to provide in that area local radio services which for the purposes of paragraph 5B share a potential audience with each other or with each of the others shall, instead of being subject to the restrictions specified in paragraph 5B, 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.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 241. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 242 through to 253 and to Amendments Nos. 255 and 256.
These amendments relate to the public interest test for the newspaper acquisition of broadcasting licences. Amendment No. 241 allows, subject to the public interest test, local newspapers with less than 20 per cent. of circulation in an area to own up to three local radio services on the same basis as any other company, and local newspapers with between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. of circulation in an area to own one AM and one FM service.
Amendment No. 242 clarifies the operation of the public interest test for cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasters, ensuring that it will not represent a continuing sanction against a newspaper once it has acquired a particular broadcasting licence; that it will not apply retrospectively and that it will not apply if a newspaper acquires further titles; and that it will not
1052
apply to the acquisition of licences by local newspapers outside their circulation area. But that will apply each time a newspaper proprietor acquires further broadcasting licences, and it will apply if a national newspaper acquires a local broadcasting licence and subsequently becomes a local newspaper proprietor in the area concerned.
Amendment No. 242 also permits the ITC and Radio Authority, having consulted licence-holders, to extend the three-month period within which they are required to make a public interest determination.
Amendment No. 242 also ensures that a newspaper proprietor wishing to become a digital programme provider is able to obtain an advance indication that, in principle, his being a digital programme provider is unlikely to be against the public interest test.
Amendments Nos. 252 to 256 make a series of consequential amendments, following Amendment No. 242, while Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 prevent the regulators revoking a licence solely on the basis of a change of circumstances, which if those circumstances had obtained prior to its grant, would have led them to conclude that the grant was against the public interest.
Taken together, these amendments ensure that the regulators can protect plurality and diversity without imposing unduly on the media industry.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 241.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
242 Schedule 2, page 108, leave out lines 8 to 22 and insert—
'9.—(1) A licence to provide any of the services specified in sub-paragraph (4) may not be granted to a body corporate which is, or is connected with, the proprietor of a national or local newspaper if the relevant authority determine that in all the circumstances the holding of the licence by that body corporate could be expected to operate against the public interest.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a body corporate which holds a licence to provide any of the services specified in sub-paragraph (4) shall not become, or become connected with, the proprietor of a national or local newspaper and continue to hold the licence if the relevant authority determine within the permitted period that in all the circumstances the continued holding of the licence by that body corporate operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply in any case where the body corporate holding the licence—

(a) is already the proprietor of some other national or local newspaper, or is already connected with such a proprietor, and

(b) does not become connected with any other person who holds a licence to provide any of the services specified in sub-paragraph (4).

(4) The services referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are—

(a) a national Channel 3 service or Channel 5,

(b) a national radio service, and

(c) national digital sound programme services.

(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.
(7) Nothing in any of the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as affecting the operation of this paragraph or paragraph 9A or 9B.
9A.—(1) A licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service may not be granted to a body corporate which is, or is connected with, the proprietor of a national newspaper or a relevant local newspaper if the relevant authority determine that in all the circumstances the holding of the licence by that body corporate could be expected to operate against the public interest.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a body corporate which holds a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service shall not become, or become connected with, the proprietor of a national newspaper and continue to hold the licence if the relevant authority determine within the permitted period that in all the circumstances the continued holding of the licence by that body corporate operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply in any case where the body corporate holding the licence—

(a) is already the proprietor of some other national newspaper or is already connected with such a proprietor, and

(b) does not become connected with—

(i) any other person who holds a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service, or

(ii) any person who holds a licence to provide digital programme services and is providing a service under that licence.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), a body corporate which holds a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service shall not become, or become connected with, the proprietor of a relevant local newspaper and continue to hold the licence if the relevant authority determine, within the permitted period that in all the circumstances the continued holding of the licence by that body corporate operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in any case where the body corporate which holds the licence—

(a) is already the proprietor of some other local newspaper which is a relevant local newspaper in relation to the service referred to in that sub-paragraph, or is already connected with such a proprietor, and

(b) does not become connected with—

(i) any other person who holds a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or local radio service in relation to which that other local newspaper is also a relevant local newspaper, or

1054

(ii) any person who holds a licence to provide digital programme services and is providing a service under that licence in relation to which that other local newspaper is also a relevant local newspaper.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph a local newspaper is a "relevant local newspaper", in relation to any service, if it serves an area which is to a significant extent the same as the coverage area of the service.
(7) In this paragraph "the permitted period" has the meaning given by paragraph 9(5) and (6).
9B.—(1) A body corporate which holds a licence to provide digital programme services and is, or is connected with, the proprietor of a national newspaper or a relevant local newspaper, shall not begin to provide a digital programme service if the Commission determine before the end of the period specified in sub-paragraph (2) that in all the circumstances the provision of that service by that body corporate could be expected to operate against the public interest.
(2) 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 18(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.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), a body corporate which is providing a digital programme service shall not become, or become connected with, the proprietor of a national newspaper and continue to provide the service if the Commission determine within the permitted period that in all the circumstances the continued provision of the service by that body corporate operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply in any case where the body corporate which is providing the digital programme service—

(a) is already the proprietor of some other national newspaper or is already connected with such a proprietor, and

(b) does not become connected with—

(i) the holder of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service, or

(ii) the holder of another licence to provide digital programme services who is providing a service under that licence.

(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), a body corporate which is providing a digital programme service shall not become, or become connected with, the proprietor of a relevant local newspaper and continue to provide the service if the Commission determine within the permitted period that in all the circumstances the continued provision of the service by that body corporate operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not apply in any case where the body corporate which is providing the digital programme service—

(a) is already the proprietor of some other local newspaper which is a relevant local newspaper in relation to the service referred to in that sub-paragraph, or is already connected with such a proprietor, and

(b) does not become connected with—

(i) the holder of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or local radio service in relation to which that other local newspaper is also a relevant local newspaper, or

1055

(ii) the holder of another licence to provide digital programme services who is providing a service under that licence in relation to which that other local newspaper is also a relevant local newspaper.

(7) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a relevant local newspaper shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 9A(6), and

(b) "the permitted period" has the meaning given by paragraph 9(5) and (6).'.

243 Page 108, line 24, leave out from 'result' to end of line 27 and insert—

'(a) in the application of paragraph 9(2) to a body corporate which holds a licence to provide any of the services specified in paragraph 9(4),

(b) in the application of paragraph 9A(2) or (4) to a body corporate which holds a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service or a local radio service, or

(c) in the application of paragraph 9B(1), (3) or (5) to a body corporate which holds a licence to provide digital programme services.'.

244 Page 108, line 39, leave out from first 'the' to 'could' in line 40 and insert 'continued holding of the licence by the body corporate'.
245 Page 108, line 48, leave out '9(1)' and insert '9(2), 9A(2) or (4) or 9B(1), (3) or (5)'.
246 Page 109, line 1, leave out '9(1)' and insert '9(2), 9A(2) or (4) or 9B(1),(3) or (5)'.
247 Page 109, line 4, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
248 Page 109, line 7, after first 'the' insert 'relevant'.
249 Page 109, line 13, after '9' insert ', 9A, 9B'.
250 Page 109, line 14, leave out from 'corporate' to 'operates' in line 15 and insert 'which is, or is connected with, the proprietor of a newspaper'.
251 Page 109, line 27, leave out from 'corporate' to 'and' in line 28 and insert 'which was not, and was not connected with, the proprietor of a newspaper'.
252 Page 109, line 32, after '9' insert 9A, 9B'.
253 Page 109, line 33, at end insert—
'12. In relation to any determination under paragraph 9B(1), (3) or (5), references in paragraphs 10 and 11 to the holding of the licence shall have effect as references to the provision of the service.'.
254 Page 109, line 33, 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 9 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.'.
255 Page 110, line 11, at end insert—
'(6B) Where a licence has been granted in a case where the Commission could have made a determination under paragraph 9(1) or 9A(1) of Part IV of Schedule 2 (if satisfied that the fact mentioned in that provision could have been expected to operate against the public interest), subsection
1056
(5) does not enable the licence to be revoked merely because a change is such that the Commission would have made such a determination in the new circumstances of the case."'.
256 Page 110, line 43, at end insert—
'(6B) Where a licence has been granted in a case where the Authority could have made a determination under paragraph 9(1) or 9A(1) of Part IV of Schedule 2 (if satisfied that the fact mentioned in that provision could have been expected to operate against the public interest), subsection (5) does not enable the licence to be revoked merely because a change is such that the Authority would have made such a determination in the new circumstances of the case."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 242 to 256 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 242 to 256.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
99 After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF NEWS PROGRAMMES BY HOLDERS OF REGIONAL CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
'.—(1) With respect to the broadcasting of news programmes on and after 1st January 1998, section 31 of the 1990 Act (provision of news on Channels 3 and 5) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) at the beginning there is inserted—
"For the purpose of securing the nationwide broadcast, by holders of regional Channel 3 licences (taken together), of news programmes which are able to compete effectively with other news programmes broadcast nationwide in the United Kingdom,"
(b) for "a nominated news provider" there is substituted "the appointed news provider", and
(c) in paragraph (b), for "the same nominated" there is substituted "the appointed".
(3) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) In subsection (2) "appointed news provider" means, subject to subsection (4), the body corporate for the time being appointed for the purposes of that subsection, from among the bodies corporate nominated by the Commission under section 32, in accordance with conditions included by virtue of section 31A in regional Channel 3 licences.
(4) A body corporate ceases by virtue of this subsection to be the appointed news provider if its nomination is terminated by the Commission under any provision of section 32."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 102, 160 and 289.
This group of amendments gives effect to the commitment I gave the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, at Report stage on 7th March. As I made clear in that debate, we believe there are significant benefits to restricting the provision of news on Channel 3 to one provider able to compete effectively with other national news services provided by the BBC and, increasingly, by cable and satellite channels.
The amendments therefore place a requirement on the regional Channel 3 companies to appoint a single news provider; selected by them, from a list of those who have

1057
been nominated by the ITC as being of the necessary standard to provide high quality national and international news.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.99.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
100 After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENT OF NEWS PROVIDER BY HOLDERS OF REGIONAL CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
'.—(1) After section 31 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Appointment of news provider by holders of regional Channel 3 licences.
31A. A regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the holder of the licence to do all that he can to ensure—

(a) that arrangements are made between all holders of regional Channel 3 licences ("the relevant licence holders") for the appointment by them, from among the bodies corporate nominated by the Commission under section 32, and on such terms as the relevant licence holders may agree, of a single body corporate to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2), and

(b) that, so long as he provides his licensed service, an appointment for the purposes of section 31(2) is in force."

(2) The Independent Television Commission may not include in pursuance of section 31A of the 1990 Act any condition in a regional Channel 3 licence (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) which would require an appointment for the purposes of section 31(2) (as amended by this Act) to take effect before 1st January 1998.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
101 After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
NOMINATION BY COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 31(2) OF BROADCASTING ACT 1990
'.—(1) Section 32 of the 1990 Act (nomination of bodies to provide news for regional Channel 3 services) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) For subsections (1) to (6) there is substituted—
"(1) With a view to enabling them to nominate bodies corporate as eligible for appointment for the purposes of section 31(2), the Commission shall invite bodies appearing to them to be qualified for nomination to make applications to be so nominated.
(2) Where a body corporate—

(a) applies to the Commission (whether in pursuance of any such invitation or not) to be nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, and

(b) appears to the Commission to be qualified for nomination,

the Commission shall so nominate that body.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), any nomination made by the Commission under this section shall remain in force for a period of ten years, and at the end of that period may be renewed by the Commission for a further period of ten years.
(4) Where the Commission are notified by the holders of licences to provide regional Channel 3 services that the appointment of the appointed news provider is due to expire, or to be renewed or terminated in accordance with the terms of the appointment, the Commission shall review the qualification for nomination of all nominated news providers (including the appointed news provider).
(5) If on any such review it appears to the Commission that a body is no longer qualified for nomination they shall (subject to subsection (6)) by notice terminate that body's nomination.
(6) The Commission shall not terminate a body's nomination under subsection (5) unless they have given the body a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the proposed termination."
(3) In subsection (9), paragraph (b) is omitted.
(4) In subsection (12), for the words from "appearing" onwards there is substituted "which—

(a) in their opinion is or, if appointed, would be effectively equipped and adequately financed to provide high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services; and

(b) appears to them not to be disqualified for being nominated under this section by virtue of this subsection."

(5) In subsection (13)—
(a) in paragraph (b), after "section", where second occurring, there is inserted "as eligible for appointment", and
(b) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"and
(c) references to the appointed news provider are references to the person for the time being appointed for the purposes of section 31(2) under the arrangements referred to in section 31A(a)."
(6) Subsections (2), (4) and (5) do not affect the application of section 32 of the 1990 Act before 1st January 1998 in relation to nomination for the purposes of section 31(2) as originally enacted.'
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 99.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101.—(Lord Inglewood.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 101
101A Line 34, after (""appearing"") insert (", where second occurring,")
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 101A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 101.
Moved, That Amendment No. 101A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 101, be agreed to.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 101, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 After Clause 66 insert the following new clause—
MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 IN ITS APPLICATION TO AGREEMENTS RELATING TO CHANNEL 3 NEWS PROVISION
'.—(1) After section 194 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in its application to agreements relating to Channel 3 news provision.
194A.—(1) In this section a "relevant agreement" means an agreement—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) there are grounds for giving a different direction;

and where the Secretary of State so varies or revokes any direction, he shall give notice of the variation or revocation to the Director.
(6) In this section—

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

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

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to any agreement (within the meaning of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) made for the purposes of the provision of news programmes by a nominated news provider under section 31(2) of the 1990 Act as originally enacted.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 Clause 67, page 58, line 40, after 'include' insert '(a)'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 108, 112 to 114, 116, and 119 to 123.
Amendment No. 123 introduces a related new clause, which results from commitments given in this House. They reflect our full and helpful discussion of regional programming, and I trust noble Lords will accept them as fulfilling the wishes of this House.
Amendment No. 106 deals with a problem raised in another place. It was suggested that a licence holder who was the object of a hostile takeover might pre-notify the commission, but be unable to provide information about the predator to provide the basis of new licence conditions. Amendment No. 106, therefore, allows the commission in such a case to wait until a takeover occurs. At this point the predator company becomes the licence holder and so is bound by the licence to supply information to the commission.
Amendments Nos. 107 and 109 to 111 clarify the ways in which the ITC must take into account the different aspects of regionality identified in Clause 67.
The remaining amendments are simply corrections or simplifications of drafting.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.—(Lord Inglewood.)
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the alterations to the Bill, since we first encountered it, show what a very long time in politics six months can prove to be. So I pay warm tribute to my noble friend for having stayed the course. It is no mean feat for a man who once admitted that watching TV was not his favourite pastime! Your Lordships may recall my cri de Coeur at Second Reading that everything that could be done to protect quality regional ITV should be done.
I proposed an amendment to stop the moguls of ITV draining the financial lifeblood from small, regional companies. I sought to prevent interference with the discount price arrangement for network programmes. My noble friend promised to take a look at the problem. It turned into—if he will forgive me—a frustratingly long look. But the results of slow gestation are now embodied

1061
in the Bill. I am delighted that the spirit is close to my original intention. I am also encouraged by the comments of his ministerial colleague in another place. His words will add strength to the arm of the regulator in enforcing what will soon be law.
However, there are some puzzling anomalies and potential lacunas. Indeed, the late arrival of some government amendments allowed no time for proper consultation and precious little time for parliamentary consideration. For example, I wonder whether it is fair for a regional newspaper group to own a local radio station, while a regional ITV company cannot make such investments. And what powers were at work when, as late as Report stage in another place, the Government introduced amendments to stop ITV companies profiting from the use of Teletext?
Your Lordships will recall the reaction. ITV united in public opposition. The amendments vanished as mysteriously as they had come. This Bill may wreak discomfiting change in the ownership of ITV, but at least the small regional companies can face the future knowing that our public lobbying has secured additional safeguards for quality. At least, the small companies can now face the future without both hands being tied behind their backs, for which I am indeed grateful.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in expressing thanks to the Minister for following up this matter in the way that he has. It was a matter of concern in your Lordships' House that the regional companies and ITV are a distinctive aspect of ITV. We are all grateful for the safeguards that have been inserted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
104 Clause 67, page 58, line 42, at end insert 'and
(b) a condition requiring the licence holder to provide the Commission, in such manner and at such times as they may reasonably require, with such information as they may require for the purposes of exercising their functions under this section.'.
105 Page 58, line 44, leave out 'imposed under subsection (1) or section 5(2)(d)' and insert 'in a regional Channel 3 licence'.
106 Page 59, line 5, leave out 'without that change having' and insert 'whether or not that change has'.
107 Page 59, line 8, at end insert 'one or more of the following matters, namely'.
108 Page 59, line 14, leave out 'included' and insert 'made available by the licence holder for the purposes of inclusion'.
109 Page 59, line 17, at beginning insert 'then, with a view to ensuring that the relevant change of control is not prejudicial to any of those matters'.
110 Page 59, line 19, leave out from 'of' to 'as' in line 20 and insert 'those matters'.
111 Page 59, line 21, leave out from 'that' to end of line 24 and insert ', having regard to the effect, or likely effect, of the relevant change of control on-'.
112 Page 59, line 32, leave out 'or'.
113 Page 59, line 39, at end insert 'or
(d) the extent to which managerial or editorial decisions
1062
relating to programmes to be included in the service are taken by persons so employed within that area,
the relevant change of control is or would be prejudicial to the regional character of the service,'.
114 Page 59, line 43, leave out 'and (c)' and insert ',(c) and (d)'.
115 Page 59, line 46, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.
116 Page 60, line 5, leave out from 'holder' to end of line 6 and insert—

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

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

and for the purposes of this subsection "the relevant date" is the date of the relevant change of control or, if earlier, the date on which the Commission exercise their powers under subsection (3) or (4).'.
117 Page 60, leave out lines 11 to 14 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.'.
118 Page 60, leave out lines 15 and 16.
119 Page 60, line 21, after 'interest' insert '(a)'.
120 Page 60, line 22, at end insert—
'(b) to persons living within any part of that area, or
(c) to particular communities living within that area;'.
121 Page 60, line 33, leave out 'condition' and insert 'conditions'.
122 Page 60, line 34, leave out '21A(1)' and insert '21A(1)(a) and (b)'.
123 After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF COMMISSION IN RELATION TO MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT OF NETWORKING ARRANGEMENTS
'.—(1) Section 39 of the 1990 Act (networking arrangements between holders of regional Channel 3 licences) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
"(9A) The matters to which the Commission shall have regard in deciding whether to approve any arrangements or modification under subsection (4) or (8) include the likely effect of the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, on the ability of the holders of regional Channel 3 licences to maintain the quality and range—

(a) of the regional programmes (as defined in section 21 A(9)) included in each regional Channel 3 service, and

(b) of the other programmes included in each service which contribute to the regional character of the service."

(3) For subsection (10) there is substituted—
"(10) Without prejudice to the generality of their power to refuse to approve any arrangements or modification under subsection (4) or (8), the Commission shall refuse to do so if—

(a) they are not satisfied that the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, would be appropriate for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1), or

1063

(b) it appears to them that the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, would be likely to prejudice the ability of the holder of any regional Channel 3 licence to comply with—

(i) any condition imposed in pursuance of section 33(1), for the purpose of securing the implementation of proposals relating to the matters specified in section 16(2)(c), or

(ii) any condition imposed in pursuance of subsection (3) of section 21A in relation to the matters specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection."'.

124 Clause 68, page 61, line 4, leave out '57(1A)' and insert '57(1A)(a)'.
125 After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC SERVICE FUND OF SIANEL PEDWAR CYMRU
'.—(1) After section 61 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Welsh Authority public service fund
61A.—(1) The Welsh Authority shall not exercise their powers under section 57(1A)(b) before such date (in this section referred to as "the notified date") as they may notify to the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.
(2) All amounts received by the Welsh Authority under section 61 on or after the notified date shall be kept by the Authority in a separate fund (in this section referred to as "the public service fund") which may be applied only for the purposes of their functions under section 57(1) or (1A)(a).
(3) No S4C company shall receive any direct or indirect subsidy from the public service fund.
(4) The Welsh Authority shall secure that no television programme which has been wholly or partly financed out of the public service fund is included in a television programme service provided by an S4C company before it is first broadcast on S4C or in the service referred to in section 57(1A)(a).
(5) On the notified date—

(a) all the assets then held by the Welsh Authority other than cash, together with the appropriate proportion of any cash then held by them, shall be taken to be comprised in the public service fund, and

(b) the remainder of any cash then held by the Authority shall be taken to be comprised in a general fund.

(6) In subsection (5)(a) "the appropriate proportion" means the proportion which, in the last financial year in respect of which a statement of accounts has been prepared under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 before the notified date, the total amount received by the Welsh Authority under section 61 bears to the total amount of its income from all sources."
(2) In paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 of the 1990 Act (accounts and audit) after sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The statement of accounts must deal separately with the public service fund referred to in section 61A of this Act and with the general fund referred to in subsection (5)(b) of that section.".'.
126 Clause 71, page 62, line 32, after 'power' insert—
'(a)".
127 Page 62, line 34, after 'form' insert 'in any part of the United Kingdom'.
128 Page 62, line 35, 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.
(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 sub-paragraph (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 sub-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)." '.
129 Page 62, line 38, after 'power' insert—
'(a)".
130 Page 62, line 41, 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.
(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.

(3) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the 1990 Act (status and capacity of Welsh Authority) after sub-paragraph (2) there is inserted—
"(3) Section 57(1A)(b) of this Act shall not be taken to limit the Authority's power by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions under section 57(1) or (1A)(a)."'.
131 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
AWARD OF CERTAIN LICENCES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
'.—(1) After section 17 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Award of Channel 3 licence subject to conditions.
17A.—(1) The Commission may, when awarding a Channel 3 licence to any person, make the grant of the licence to him conditional on his compliance before the grant with such specified requirements relating to the financing of the service as appear to them to be appropriate, having regard to—

(a) any duties which are or may be imposed on them, or on the licence holder, by or under this Act, and

(b) any information provided to them under section 15(3)(g) by the person to whom the licence is awarded as to his projected financial position during the period for which the licence would he in force.

(2) Where the Commission determine that any condition imposed by them in relation to a Channel 3 licence in pursuance of subsection (1) has not been satisfied, section 17 shall (subject to subsection (3)) have effect as if the person to whom the licence was awarded had not made an application for it.
(3) Section 17 shall not so have effect if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a fresh notice under section 15(1) in respect of the grant of the licence."
(2) In section 51 of the 1990 Act (procedure to be followed by Commission in connection with consideration of applications for, and awarding of, licences to provide additional services), in subsection (3)—

(a) for "section 17" there is substituted "sections 17 and 17A", and

(b) for "it applies" there is substituted "they apply".

(3) After section 76 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Award of local delivery licence subject to conditions.
76A.—(1) The Commission may, when awarding a local delivery licence to any person, make the grant of the licence to him conditional on his compliance before the grant with such specified requirements relating to the financing of the service as appear to them to be appropriate, having regard to—

(a) any duties which are or may be imposed on them, or on the licence holder, by or under this Act, and

(b) any information provided to them under section 74(3)(d) by the person to whom the licence is awarded as to his projected financial position during the period for which the licence would be in force.

(2) Where the Commission determine that any condition imposed by them in relation to a local delivery licence in pursuance of subsection (1) has not been satisfied, section 76 shall (subject to subsection (3)) have effect as if the person to whom the licence was awarded had not made an application for it.
(3) Section 76 shall not so have effect if the Commission decide that it would be desirable to publish a fresh notice under section 74(1) in respect of the grant of the licence."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 to 131. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 to 131.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
ANCILLARY SERVICES
'. Section 48 of the 1990 Act (Additional services) is amended in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) by the addition after the words "their contents" of the words "or relate to the promotion or listing of such programmes"'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132. This amendment was tabled by the Opposition in another place and the Government were happy to accept the amendment as drafted, which expands the definition of ancillary services in Section 48(3) of the 1990 Act. This amendment will enable fuller listings by Channels 3, 4 and 5 of their forthcoming programmes on their Teletext pages currently broadcast as ancillary
1066
services. Amendment No. 132 will also enable the principal terrestrial broadcasters to develop further systems of programme delivery control and give more information to the viewer about their services.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
133 After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION TO SUSPEND LICENCE TO PROVIDE NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICE
'.After section 45 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Special power of revocation and suspension on certain grounds in case of licence to provide non-domestic satellite service.
45A.—(1) If the Commission are satisfied—

(a) that the holder of a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service has included in the service one or more programmes containing material likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder,

(b) that he has thereby failed to comply with a condition included in the licence in pursuance of section 6(1)(a), and

(c) that the failure is such as to justify the revocation of the licence,

they shall serve on the holder of the licence a notice under subsection (2).
(2) A notice under this subsection is a notice—

(a) stating that the Commission are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1),

(b) specifying the respects in which, in their opinion, the licence holder has failed to comply with the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,

(c) stating that the Commission may revoke his licence after the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is served on the licence holder,

(d) informing the licence holder of his right to make representations to the Commission within that period about the matters complained of, and

(e) suspending the licence as from the time when the notice is served on the licence holder until the revocation takes effect or the Commission decide not to revoke the licence.

(3) If the Commission, having considered any representations about the matters complained of made to them within the period referred to in subsection (2)(c) by the licence holder, are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence in question, they shall serve on the licence holder a notice revoking the licence.
(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall not take effect until the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which that notice was served on the licence holder.
(5) Section 42 (as applied by section 45(5)) shall not have effect in relation to the revocation of a licence in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1)."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133. In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 152 and 156. Your Lordships will know that in this country we have

1067
a liberal and deregulated broadcasting regime. We must, however, be vigilant against the exploitation of that framework particularly by those who see the opportunity to take advantage of our liberal regime in the way in which they direct broadcasts to other countries where they profoundly disagree with the government of the receiving country. While the Government are always conscious of the right of free speech in this country and of our obligations in that regard under international conventions, equally strongly they believe that the maintenance of good and proper relations between the UK and other countries requires that this matter be dealt with in legislation. Each of these amendments is directed in different ways to that consideration.
Amendment No. 133 gives a special power to the Independent Television Commission, if it thinks fit, to suspend and revoke a non-domestic television broadcasting satellite licence where there has been a serious breach of that licence by the inclusion of material likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder. Amendment No. 138 provides parallel powers to the Radio Authority in respect of satellite radio licences.
The Government do not consider it necessary to extend the scope of the existing rules in respect of political disqualification contained in the 1990 Act because they are already comprehensive. However, the Government wish to place beyond any shadow of a doubt the obligations of the commission and authority in respect of investigation and judgment with regard to disqualification on political grounds when they are considering an application for a licence or taking a view on a current licence. Amendment No. 152 has this effect. What concerns the Government is that those who are disqualified under the existing legislation by virtue of their political objectives, might, if they are sufficiently motivated or reckless, provide false information or withhold information. The Government therefore believe that it is necessary to create a new offence. This is the effect of Amendment No. 153. Amendment No. 154 gives the court a discretion to order an offender convicted under the provisions of Amendment No. 153 to be disqualified from holding a broadcasting licence for a period of up to five years as the court thinks fit. Amendment No. 155 provides for an appeal. Amendment No. 156 is consequential to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
134 After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
CERTAIN DELIVERY SERVICES TO CARRY CERTAIN BROADCASTS
'.—(1) After section 78 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
'Inclusion of certain services in local delivery service provided by digital means.
78A.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied, in the case of a local delivery service by means of which one or more of the services specified in section 72(2) is delivered in digital form, that it would be appropriate, having regard to the extent of the use and proposed use of digital technology
1068
in the provision of the service, for the service to be treated as a digital local delivery service for the purposes of this section, they shall serve a notice to that effect on the holder of the licence to provide the service.
(2) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that, subject to subsection (3) and to any exceptions for which the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority, may by order provide, every digital local delivery service provided by any person in any area includes, by the reception and immediate re-transmission of the broadcasts—

(a) the programmes included in each relevant service, and

(b) if the area for which the local delivery service is provided falls wholly or partly in Wales, the programmes included in the appropriate Welsh service.

(3) The Commission may exempt any digital local delivery service from the requirement to include any service ("the broadcast service") if it appears to the Commission that, at the place where the holder of the licence to provide the local delivery service receives or would receive the broadcast service, the broadcast service is not capable of being received at a level satisfying such technical standards as the Commission may from time to time determine.
(4) Where a relevant service provided for reception in an area for which a digital local delivery service is provided consists in the broadcasting for simultaneous reception of programmes contained in two or more programme schedules, then, so far as relating to that relevant service, the duty in subsection (2) shall be subject to the limitation in whichever of subsections (5) and (6) is appropriate.
(5) Where the programmes contained in one of the programme schedules are broadcast for reception in a greater part of the area than the programmes contained in the other schedule or any of the other schedules, the duty in subsection (2) so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in the first-mentioned schedule.
(6) Where subsection (5) does not apply, the duty in subsection (2) so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in such one of the programme schedules as the relevant broadcasting body may determine.
(7) For the purposes of this section Channel 3 shall be taken to be a single service consisting in the broadcasting for simultaneous reception of programmes contained in several programme schedules.
(8) Each broadcaster shall provide any person providing a digital local delivery service with such assistance as he may reasonably require in relation to the technical arrangements for the re-transmission in pursuance of this section of the broadcasts of that broadcaster.
(9) In this section—
"the appropriate Welsh service" means the service referred to in section 57(1A)(a) or, if no such service is being broadcast, S4C;
"broadcaster" means the Welsh Authority or any person providing a relevant service;
"digital local delivery service" means any local delivery service in respect of which the Commission have given a notice under subsection (1);
"the relevant broadcasting body" means—

(a) in relation to any service provided by the BBC, the BBC, and

(b) in relation to any service licensed by the Commission, the Commission;

"relevant service" means any of the following services—

(a) Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5,

(b) the teletext service referred to in section 49(2), and

1069

(c) the television broadcasting services and teletext service provided by the BBC.

(10) Expressions used in subsections (7) and (9) and in Part I of this Act have the same meaning in those provisions as in that Part.
(11) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act (transitional provisions relating to existing cable services), for paragraph 4 there is substituted—
"4.—(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that, subject to sub-paragraph (2) and to any exceptions for which the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commission, the BBC and the Welsh Authority, may by order provide, every diffusion service provided by any person in any area under a relevant licence includes, by the reception and immediate re-transmission of the broadcasts, the programmes included in each relevant service provided for reception in that area.
(2) The Commission may exempt any diffusion service from the requirement to include any relevant service if it appears to the Commission that, at the place where the holder of the licence to provide the diffusion service receives or would receive the relevant service, the relevant service is not capable of being received at a level satisfying such technical standards as the Commission may from time to time determine.
(3) Where a relevant service provided for reception in an area for which a diffusion service is provided consists in the broadcasting for simultaneous reception of programmes contained in two or more programme schedules, then, so far as relating to that relevant service, the duty in sub-paragraph (1) shall be subject to the limitation in whichever of sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) is appropriate.
(4) Where the programmes contained in one of the programme schedules are broadcast for reception in a greater part of the area than the programmes contained in the other schedule or any of the other schedules, the duty in sub-paragraph (1) so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in the first-mentioned schedule.
(5) Where sub-paragraph (4) does not apply, the duty in sub-paragraph (1) so far as so relating shall extend only to the programmes contained in such one of the programme schedules as the relevant broadcasting body may determine.
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph Channel 3 shall be taken to be a single service consisting in the broadcasting for simultaneous reception of programmes contained in several programme schedules.
(7) Each person providing a relevant service ("the broadcaster") shall provide any person providing a diffusion service with such assistance as he may reasonably require in relation to the technical arrangements for the re-transmission in pursuance of this paragraph of the broadcasts of that broadcaster.
(8) In this paragraph—
"the relevant broadcasting body" means—

(a) in relation to any service provided by the BBC, the BBC, and

(b) in relation to any service licensed by the Commission, the Commission;

"relevant service" means any of the following services—

(a) Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C,

(b) the teletext service referred to in section 49(2) of this Act, and

(c) the two television broadcasting services provided by the BBC on the passing of the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the teletext service provided by the BBC at that time.

(9) Expressions used in sub-paragraphs (6) and (8) and in Part I of this Act have the same meaning in those sub-paragraphs as in that Part.
(10) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
4A.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied, in the case of any diffusion service which is provided under a relevant licence and by means of which one or more of the services specified in section 72(2) of this Act is delivered in digital form, that it would be appropriate, having regard to the extent of the use and proposed use of digital technology in the provision of the service, for the service to be treated as a digital diffusion service for the purposes of this paragraph, they shall serve a notice to that effect on the holder of the licence to provide the service; and in this paragraph "digital diffusion service" means a diffusion service in respect of which such a notice has been served.
(2) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 78A of this Act shall have effect in relation to a digital diffusion service as they have effect in relation to a digital local delivery service (within the meaning of that section); and nothing in paragraph 4 shall have effect in relation to a digital diffusion service."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 147 and 270. In commending this group of amendments to your Lordships I should like to pay tribute to the part played by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain in putting the case for a must-carry requirement upon digital cable operators. We listened to that case and accepted it.
Amendment No. 134 requires digital cable operators to carry the public service channels. It also tidies up the existing must-carry provisions applying to analogue cable operators holding diffusion service licences. Amendments Nos. 147 and 270 adjust the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 to take account of the new must-carry provisions and other developments. I very much hope that all sides of the House will be able to welcome these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
135 Clause 75, page 65, line 35, leave out '35(2)(b)' and insert '35(2)(a)'.
136 After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
VARIATION OF LOCAL RADIO LICENCE FOLLOWING CHANGE OF CONTROL
'. After section 106 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Variation of local licence following change of control.
106A.—(1) Any local licence granted to a body corporate before the commencement of this section shall be taken to include—

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

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

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

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

(b) is held by a body corporate, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and for the purposes of this subsection "the relevant date" is the date of the relevant change of control or, if earlier, the date on which the Authority exercise their powers under subsection (3).
(6) The Authority shall not serve a notice on any body under subsection (3) unless they have given it a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the variation.
(7) Where, in any case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (3), a notice under that subsection is served before the change to which it relates takes place, the variation shall not take effect until the change to which it relates takes place.
(8) The power in subsection (1) of section 106 to vary conditions imposed under that subsection includes power to vary conditions imposed under subsection (3).
(9) In this section "relevant change of control" means a change in the persons having control over the body holding the licence." '.
137 Insert the following new clause—
RENEWAL OF LICENCES TO PROVIDE LOCAL RADIO SERVICES
'.— (1) After section 104 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Renewal of local licences.
104A.—(1) A local licence may (subject to the following provisions of this section) be renewed on one occasion for a period of eight years beginning with the date of renewal.
(2) No application for the renewal of a local licence under subsection (1) may be made before the Authority first publish a notice pursuant to section 44(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 inviting applications for a licence to provide a relevant local radio multiplex service.
(3) Subject to subsection (2), an application for the renewal of a local licence under subsection (1) may be made by the licence holder not earlier than three years before the date on which it would otherwise cease to be in force and not later than the relevant date.
(4) The applicant must, in his application or at any time before the consideration of his application, nominate—

(a) a local digital sound programme service provided or to be provided by him, and

(b) a relevant local radio multiplex service.

but may not nominate together a local digital sound programme service and a local radio multiplex service if another local licence held by him includes a condition in pursuance of subsection (12) relating to the broadcasting of that local digital sound programme service by that local radio multiplex service.
(5) Where an application for the renewal of a local licence has been duly made to the Authority, they shall grant the application if—

(a) they are satisfied that the applicant would, if his licence were renewed, provide a local service which complied with the conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 106 (whether as originally imposed or as varied under that section), and

(b) the nominated local digital sound programme service provided by the applicant is being broadcast by means of the nominated local radio multiplex service.

(6) Where the condition specified in subsection (5)(a) is satisfied, the Authority may grant the application even though the condition specified in subsection (5)(b) is not satisfied if—

(a) the applicant holds a licence to provide local digital sound programme services,

(b) a licence to provide the nominated local radio multiplex service has been awarded, and

(c) it appears to the Authority that, under a contract between the applicant and the person to whom that licence has been awarded, the applicant is obliged to provide the nominated local digital sound programme service for broadcasting by means of the nominated local radio multiplex service.

(7) The Authority may in any case postpone consideration of the application until the relevant date.
(8) If, at the relevant date, the condition specified in subsection (5)(b) is not satisfied, and any of the conditions specified in subsection (6) is not satisfied, the Authority may postpone consideration of the application for such period not exceeding twelve months as they think appropriate.
(9) Where the Authority postpone consideration of an application under this section for any period beyond the relevant date (the "postponement period"), they shall extend the period for which the licence is in force by a period equal to the postponement period; and section 86(3) shall not limit the powers of the Authority under this subsection.
(10) On the grant of any application under this section the Authority shall—

(a) where the nominated local digital sound programme service provided by the applicant is not being broadcast by means of the nominated local radio multiplex service, determine a date by which that service must have begun to be so broadcast; and

(b) specify a fee payable to the Authority in respect of the renewal.

(11) Where the Authority have granted a person's application under this section they shall formally renew his licence as soon afterwards as is reasonably practicable; and they shall not so renew his licence unless they have notified him of—

(a) any date determined by them under subsection (10)(a), and

(b) the renewal fee specified by them under subsection (10)(b),

and he has, within such period as is specified in that notification, notified them that he consents to the licence being renewed on those terms.
(12) Where the Authority renew a licence under this section they shall include in the licence as renewed a condition requiring the licence holder to do all that he can to ensure that the nominated local digital sound programme service is broadcast by means of the nominated local radio multiplex service throughout the period beginning with whichever is the later of—

(a) the date on which the licence would expire if not renewed, and

(b) any date determined by them under subsection (10)(a),

and ending with the date on which the licence (as renewed) is to expire.
(13) In this section—

(a) "local digital sound programme service" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996;

(b) "nominated" means nominated by the applicant under subsection (4);

(c) "relevant date", in relation to a local licence, means the date which the Authority determine to be that by which they would need to publish a notice under section 104(1) if they were to grant, as from the date on which that licence would expire if not renewed, a fresh licence to provide the local service formerly provided under that licence; and

(d) "relevant local radio multiplex service", in relation to a local licence, means a local radio multiplex service (within the meaning of Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996) with a coverage area which to a significant extent includes the coverage area of the local service provided under the local licence; and for this purpose "coverage area", in relation to a service, has the meaning given by in paragraph 3A of Part I of Schedule 2.

Special application procedure for local licences.
104B.—(1) Where—

(a) a local licence is due to expire (otherwise than by virtue of section 110),

(b) the local service provided under the licence falls within category B, C or D of the Table in paragraph 8 of Part III of Schedule 2, and

(c) the Authority propose to grant a further licence to provide the service in question,

the Authority may if they think fit publish a notice under subsection (2) instead of a notice under section 104(1).
(2) A notice under this subsection is a notice—

(a) stating that the Authority propose to grant a further licence to provide a specified local service,

(b) specifying the area or locality in the United Kingdom for which the service is to be provided,

(c) inviting declarations of intent to apply for a licence to provide the service,

(d) specifying the closing date for such declarations, and

1074

(e) specifying—

(i) the application fee payable on any declaration made in pursuance of the notice, and

(ii) a deposit of such amount as the Authority may think fit.

(3) A declaration of intent made in pursuance of a notice under subsection (2) must be in writing and accompanied by the application fee and deposit specified under subsection (2)(e)(i) and (ii).
(4) Where the Authority receive a declaration of intent in accordance with the provisions of this section from a person other than the licence holder in relation to the service in question, they shall—

(a) publish a notice under section 104(1),

(b) specify—

(i) in relation to persons who have made a declaration of intent in accordance with the provisions of this section, no further application fee, and

(ii) in relation to all other applicants, an application fee of the same amount as the fee referred to in subsection (2)(e)(i), and

(c) repay the deposit referred to in subsection (2)(e)(ii) to every person—

(i) who has made a declaration of intent in accordance with the provisions of this section, and

(ii) who duly submits an application in pursuance of the notice referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) Where the Authority receive a declaration of intent in accordance with the provisions of this section from the licence holder in relation to the service in question, and no such declaration from any other person, they shall—

(a) invite the licence holder to apply for the licence in such manner as they may determine (but without requiring any further application fee), and

(b) on receiving an application duly made by him, repay to him the deposit referred to in subsection (2)(e)(ii).

(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) by removing any of the categories of local service for the time being specified in that subsection, or by substituting for any of such categories any one or more categories of local service set out in the Table in paragraph 8 of Part III of Schedule 2.
(7) Any order under subsection (6) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In section 104 of the 1990 Act (applications for licences other than national licences), subsections (5) and (6)(a) shall cease to have effect.'.
138 After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF RADIO AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND LICENCE TO PROVIDE SATELLITE SERVICE
'. After section 111A of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Power to suspend licence to provide satellite service.
111B.—(1) If the Authority are satisfied—

(a) that the holder of a licence to provide a satellite service has included in the service one or more programmes containing material likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder,

(b) that he has thereby failed to comply with the condition included in the licence in pursuance of section 90(1)(a), and

(c) that the failure is such as to justify the revocation of the licence,

1075
they shall serve on the holder of the licence a notice under subsection (2).
(2) A notice under this subsection is a notice—

(a) stating that the Authority are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1),

(b) specifying the respects in which, in their opinion, the licence holder has failed to comply with the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,

(c) stating that the Authority may revoke his licence after the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is served on the licence holder,

(d) informing the licence holder of his right to make representations to the Authority within that period about the matters complained of, and

(e) suspending the licence as from the time when the notice is served on the licence holder until the revocation takes effect or the Authority decide not to revoke the licence.

(3) If the Authority, having considered any representations about the matters complained of made to them within the period referred to in subsection (2)(c) by the licence holder, are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence in question, they shall serve on the licence holder a notice revoking the licence.
(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall not take effect until the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which that notice was served on the licence holder.
(5) Section 111 shall not have effect in relation to the revocation of a licence in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1)."'.
139 Clause 87, page 73, line 23, leave out '57(1A)' and insert '57(1A)(a)'.
140 Clause 88, page 74, line 2, leave out '57(1A)' and insert '57(1 A)(a)'
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 135 to 140. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 135 to 140.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Clause 99, page 81, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141. In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 142. Your Lordships may recall the debate at Report stage during the previous passage of this Bill through this House, at which time my noble friend Lord Astor moved amendments designed to replace the provision of absolute privilege for the BSC with one of qualified privilege. I said at that time that the Government proposed to remove the existing reference to privilege in its entirety. On further reflection, however, we did not feel that this alone was entirely satisfactory. Thus, while Amendment No. 141 deletes the existing provision, Amendment No. 142 attaches privilege to statements, directions and reports issued by the
1076
commission in so far as they relate to fairness complaints, provided that it cannot be shown that the commission has acted with malice. We would not wish to imply that this provision in any way limited privilege for any other element of the commission's work where it would normally apply, and subsection (2) of the new clause makes this clear.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 and 142.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish that subsection (1) would make the matter clear. The original subsection (11), which it is proposed to omit, was perfectly clear from the legal point of view. Your Lordships are aware that there are two kinds of privilege: absolute privilege and qualified privilege. Qualified privilege arises in various circumstances. It is not merely a question of whether there is malice; it is a question of whether a person has either a duty or right to communicate. In Amendment No. 142 subsection (1) of the new clause merely refers to privilege. It does not say whether it is absolute or qualified privilege. But it provides that, whether the privilege is absolute or qualified, if malice arises privilege does not exist.
One wonders what the courts will make of that. They will try to interpret the will of Parliament as best they can, and I hope that they do not find it too difficult. I am a little worried about it. Although this change may be desirable in view of what my noble friend Lord Astor said at an earlier stage of the Bill, I wonder whether the solution of the Government is the right way to do it. Frankly, I would have preferred to leave the Bill as it was.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving the House the benefit of his very considerable experience in these matters. As those involved in the history of this matter know only too well, this has proved to be a difficult issue. We believe that the effect of what we have done will be appropriately to circumscribe the circumstances in which the commission could be attacked. I accept that the state of affairs to which the noble Lord has referred could give rise to problems. One of the difficulties that we faced in this area, bearing in mind recent history, was that the position had become very unclear. We felt that this was probably the best way forward in all the circumstances.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the concluding words of subsection (1) provide the usual formula; in other words, whether it may be simpler to say that there is qualified privilege.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am advised that this is the usual formula in these kinds of circumstance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendment No. 142 omitted.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
143 Clause 112, page 87, line 12, at end insert 'or the issue of shares or securities'.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144, 144A, 145, 259, 261–265, 264A, 265 and 265A. I shall refer to a number of amendments which were introduced in another place which relate to the sale by the BBC of its transmission services. The bulk of the amendments is of a technical nature and relates to various accounting and taxation matters which arise when an entity moves from the public to the private sector.
In selling its transmission assets, the BBC is likely to proceed either by a trade sale of the assets direct, or through the creation of a wholly owned subsidiary and then sale of that subsidiary. A flotation is unlikely but not impossible. The provisions now incorporated in the Bill are designed to ensure that that process can take place without accounting and taxation distortions or unnecessary constraints. I hope that that comprehensively describes the thinking behind the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 143.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER SCHEMES: SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
'. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies) (which makes provision about the accounts etc. of wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BBC to which any property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme) shall have effect.'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 144
144A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144.
The Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships this Motion is grouped with Motions 145A, 264A and 265A. I move the Motion because it was the best way that I could find to give your Lordships' House the chance, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, to express a concern which I know is widely shared about the future of the World Service of the BBC in the face of the radical re-organisation that is presently being undertaken by the BBC. In doing so, I declare an interest in the sense that a member of my family works for the World Service.
These new clauses and new schedules are before your Lordships for the first time. As the Minister said, they carry forward the privatisation of the BBC transmitter system. The World Service's overseas transmitters are an important part of that system. Like the World Service
1078
as a whole, they are funded by the Government. There are at present 11 World Service transmitter sites: four in the UK, and seven overseas, with an annual operating budget of £23 million. There is a twelfth transmitter in Thailand which will come on stream later this year. A vital new transmitter is being planned for Oman, but the finance is still to be found.
The political and regulatory arrangements for privatisation of the overseas sites are particularly complicated, and I do not wish to go into that today. In the past, transmitters have been much at risk at times of international tension. We are entitled, just on the transmitter front, to have an assurance from the Minister that if the Government persist in that aspect of the privatisation the capacity remains to look after the interests of those who are working at those transmitters, and to ensure that the capacity to continue operating will be properly protected.
Those overseas transmitters—privatised or not—will be greatly reduced in value if the quality and distinctive character of the World Service are undermined by the radical reorganisation of the BBC as a whole, which has now been launched, and in which the English language news and current affairs are to be commissioned from a new central news organisation, serving both radio and television for all domestic services as well as for the World Service.
The editorial integrity and independence of the World Service from any sort of political interference are of course vital, but the Government have a special responsibility for the World Service, which is different from their responsibilities towards the rest of the BBC. They have a responsibility, first, to ensure that it is funded adequately—that is a subject for another debate, not for tonight—and, equally, they have a responsibility to both its listeners overseas and to British taxpayers at home to ensure that the Government obtain value for money.
All the evidence is that the FCO, which is the responsible department for the grant for the World Service, was treated in the same cavalier way as were the senior management of the World Service and the BBC more generally, and in the same cavalier way, as far as I can gather, as the general body of governors was treated, and informed after the decisions had been taken and the new appointments determined.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor, the Minister in another place, claimed the other day that these are only proposals from the BBC and not a fait accompli. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on this matter. The Guardian newspaper today carries a report that the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, has asked the BBC to come and see him about the matter because he is angry that his department:
"was only informed of Mr. Birt's plans less than 24 hours before they were published".
If in replying the Minister could tell us whether or not that is true, and what steps are being taken if it is true, it would be helpful to those noble Lords who are concerned about these matters.
Along with others, I was glad to hear from Mr. Sam Younger, the managing director of the World Service, in a briefing meeting that he held here yesterday that the

1079
original plan is in the process of some modification, at least until April 1998. What he called a "dedicated World Service news team" would continue to operate from inside Bush House, with its own responsible people with experience of the special needs and nature of the BBC World Service news activities. We were told that that would exist until at least April 1998 when the BBC has longer term building plans to bring all its activities under one roof. In any case, I understand that the Bush House lease comes to an end at the beginning of the next century.
I regard that as a welcome move and a welcome breathing space—I regard it as only a breathing space—for working out in a calmer, more considered and more consultative way how the benefits claimed for the wider BBC in the digital age out of the reorganisation may be achieved without damaging the special quality of the World Service.
That brings me up against the way in which the director-general, Mr. John Birt, has conducted this matter. I do not for a moment argue that the World Service should be immune from change in a world whose broadcasting technology, as we recognise in the Bill, is changing fast, but I question the method of almost total non-consultation adopted. I hope that the new BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, whom I know personally, and who has great experience of broadcasting and business, will feel that there is a lesson to be learned here and will not allow that arrogant exercise to be repeated.
The only defence that I have been able to extract for the way in which the reorganisation has been done is that if there had been consultation, there would have had to be negotiation and that would have been an abdication of leadership. If that is modern McKinsey management philosophy, I hope that it will be abandoned by the BBC in the future.
Of course, the BBC is a peculiarly difficult organisation to manage. When it faces change it is full of leaky prima donnas who reach for a telephone to their favourite journalist every time they have a grievance. But that is the heat of the kind of kitchen in which the BBC's Director-General has to work. If you do not consult and do not try to carry people with you—good, loyal people who are proud of the BBC World Service—you get the present result. Whatever the pros and cons of the wider reorganisation which the BBC is undertaking—and I am sure that there are both pros and cons—it now faces the separate, self-created issue of a widespread crisis of morale.
The culture and ethos of an organisation—especially one as separated from the mainstream BBC as is Bush House—is the delicate achievement of years of people working together. It can be deeply damaged at an administrative stroke. In a situation such as this, what I might call the general body of governors of the BBC have a heavy responsibility. I should like to feel sure that they were ready to carry that out in the present circumstances.
The other day I came across something said by Lord Reith. I once even met John Reith before he died. Noble Lords will know that as Director-General of the BBC he
1080
was not noted for treating governors gladly. He did not defer very much to governors as members of the BBC institution, according to all the biographies we read. But on one occasion a governor had the temerity to ask him for advice on the role of the BBC governors. He said:
"Whatever governors may be prepared to leave to the executive, they must decide and direct policy, and they must have a lively, comprehensive and continuing care for the product of the organisation they are appointed to govern".
I hope that the governors of the BBC will have a continuing care for the very special product that is the BBC World Service. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144.—(Lord Thomson of Monifieth.)
5.45 p.m.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the Motion and for giving your Lordships' House a chance to discuss this very important matter. The major restructuring of the World Service and the BBC is as ill-conceived in principle as it was deplorable in the way in which it was promulgated. The senior staff most concerned were not consulted, including the deputy director-general, who is accounting officer for the World Service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was given very little notice of what was virtually a fait accompli. The requirement under the BBC Agreement that changes to the home services should not take place without consultation was ignored—and that was a change to home radio as well as to the World Service. The governors, so reliable sources inform me, considered those fundamental and far-reaching proposals in 45 minutes, without all the governors being present.
Who is running the BBC? It would appear to be a triumvirate consisting of a chairman, the Director-General and McKinsey's! This is not what many of your Lordships had in mind when it vigorously championed the role of the governors during debates on the Charter and the new Agreement.
The nature of the fiction that I write may have given me an unduly sceptical and suspicious cast of mind, but I cannot help wondering what is behind the reorganisation which was carried out in such deep secrecy. Can it really be to save money? World Service programmes already cost 36 per cent. less than those made by the home services. Is it perhaps a ploy to bring the World Service to heel, as it were, to bring it more in line with current preoccupations and ideologies more popular with the young, more relevant, more accessible? Those fashionable words are usually shorthand for bringing it down market. Or is the reorganisation primarily intended to release resources to enable the BBC to compete world-wide in the brave new multi-channel, multi-media digital age? We are apparently to have as many as 100 TV channels. This prospect brings little joy to those of us who feel that there is insufficient creative talent to provide for the channels which we already have.
But should the BBC be using its resources to compete in this overcrowded, overheated arena? Should it not concentrate on doing superbly well what it does at

1081
present and on consolidating its position as the world's most distinguished and admired provider of public service broadcasting? And who is to make that decision? What voice, what influence are Parliament and the licence payers to have? We return to the question so often asked in recent days: whose BBC is it?
There are many questions to which I should like an answer. How many redundancies are expected as a result of the restructuring and what will be the cost? Managerial revolutions do not come cheaply, particularly when outside management consultants have a hand in them. The BBC accounts for 1995–96 show restructuring costs of £31.3 million in 1994–95 and £35.2 million in 1995–96. What is the expected cost of this new upheaval?
Another consideration arises from the restructuring. The World Service is paid for by Foreign and Commonwealth Office grants in aid and its accounts are subject to regular scrutiny by the National Audit Office. Now that the World Service and the domestic services are to become so closely related, would it not be proper for the BBC accounts also to be subject to National Audit Office scrutiny? I believe that there are many who would welcome this reform and some who feel that it is overdue.
I think that I know what will happen. Senior staff will be propitiated, small concessions will be made and assurances will be given. Parliament will go into Recess and the fuss will die down. Staff who are devoted to the World Service will somehow resolve to try and make the new arrangements work. The restructuring will go ahead. I hope that I am wrong but I am not sanguine. We have seen it all before. But harm will have been done—and not only to the World Service.
To speak today of the ethos of the BBC is to risk being called sentimental, naive or wilfully ignorant of the imperatives of the modern broadcasting age. But the affection, respect and admiration in which the BBC is held both at home and abroad rest on more than the number of listeners and viewers—on more, even, than the quality of its programmes. It rests on trust.
I conclude as I began. This restructuring was not well done. The fact that those responsible are apparently unable or unwilling to recognise that fact is one of the most depressing aspects of a deeply depressing episode in the history of the BBC.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, first, I wish to praise my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth for raising this important issue in such an ingenious way today. I draw attention to the fact that in another place 264 Members of Parliament have already signed the Early Day Motion.
There are two elements of concern here: one is the actual substance of the management changes; and the other is the handling of those changes. As regards the second, the BBC has clearly handled matters badly. It seems to me a curious feature of the new BBC regime that while it spends millions of pounds on employing consultants, it appears not to believe in consultation.
1082
The art of management in modern services is to nurture the commitment and carry the support of key staff. It is clear that the BBC has not done that here. The Government and the new chairman will need to act quickly to repair damage and to halt demoralisation.
On the substance of the changes, I must say that my personal view is that the internal management of the BBC is a matter for BBC management. But what is happening to the World Service goes, I suspect, beyond those boundaries of internal management and introduces effectively a change of service.
The changes threaten to have radical implications for the future of the World Service, as has already been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady James. Above all, we fear the erosion of the distinctiveness of the World Service if it is merged into domestic news because it has distinct audiences and a distinct approach to them. They may be swamped by an increase in domestic news.
I accept that that is not the BBC's intention but many of us have experience of corporate politics. Large central departments tend to absorb new acquisitions and by a remorseless process, like the tide endlessly coming in, wash away all distinctiveness. I saw that personally in the City when I was a stockbroker. The merchant banks paid huge sums to buy us stockbrokers and then slowly crushed the distinctive qualities and assets for which they had paid so much. That is my fear for the BBC World Service: that the process of what might be called Stalinist centralisation and bureaucratic homogenising will erode its distinctive virtues which are the foundation of its great historic success. In particular, I am concerned also about the separation of the World Service news from the foreign language services which have often been a valuable source of the unique view which they bring to overseas news.
Given those worries and uncertainties, we on this side of the House suggest that those changes specific to the World Service should be completely stopped until there has been proper consultation with all relevant parties. I should point out that that is more necessary in a public service company than in a private company. It should be delayed until the implications of the reforms for the World Service are much clearer.
The World Service is a great national asset of international fame. If your Lordships look at the BBC report which came through my door yesterday, it praises the World Service for its reputation, intelligence and integrity. It points out that more people than ever are listening to it and how it won three Sony awards.
Its news production is cheaper than the main domestic news into which it will be absorbed. It is a public institution and not a private fiefdom. It does not belong to the BBC top management. It belongs to the British people, to the taxpayers who fund it, including all BBC staff and listeners. Parliament has a legitimate public interest in what it does. We wish to express our concern today. The BBC must start to listen because, on my observation, it is losing friends by the day.
Lord Runcie: My Lords, I am grateful for an opportunity to use a specific example of the danger

1083
which attends the new plans for the World Service and the centralisation of news and current affairs. It is something on which I shall speak briefly but about which I have some long experience; that is, the subject of religious broadcasting.
Religious broadcasting in this country has never quite rid itself of the image of itself which was dear to Lord Reith; that is, that it should be a kind of chaplain to the nation. Those who approve of that image watch like hawks to see that it is not diluted. We have had some examples of that many times in this House. Those who disapprove of that image see that the only alternative is to make clear that religion is a minority interest or a series of minority interests.
The result is that when the religious correspondent of the BBC appears, it is not so often in the midst of the news of the day, the mainstream events. It is perhaps on some technical matter like the implications of a Royal divorce or a specialist interest, perhaps what the Synod has been up to, or it may be something a little sensational like the ecclesiastical events in Lincoln.
In the World Service, religious broadcasting is something quite different and the interplay of religion and other news and cultural insights is vital. It is a core activity in the political and cultural life of the Middle East, Africa, India and, increasingly, in the Far East.
We have talked earlier today in this House of the Dalai Lama. The information about the activities, speeches and support for the Dalai Lama is gained chiefly by his followers from listening to the World Service of the BBC. In exactly the same way during the Cold War, in the old Soviet Union, believers obtained their Church news from nowhere else but the relevant department of the World Service.
Hence, religious broadcasting has a quite different perspective when it issues from Bush House to the huge variety of audiences that it must address. It may seem less of a chaplaincy to the world, which would be absurd, and it may be less evangelical, but somehow it is more seriously handled as a major ingredient in achieving human understanding.
A Harvard professor, Sam Huntingdon, has written recently a much debated article in which he points out that the fault lines of humanity in the future will lie increasingly not between ideologies or economic interests or nation states, but between civilisations in which religious attitudes will play a major part.
We must recognise the ability of the religious department of the World Service at Bush House, through the interaction that goes on between different forms of broadcasting, to perform with special sensitivity and in a unique way. I believe it is true that there is no other international broadcasting-radio agency like the Voice of America which has a serious and systematic broadcasting department.
Not long ago, with much debate, but not too much opposition, the religious department of the BBC was shifted from London to Manchester. I am not at all happy that people who made managerial decisions of that sort, without very wide consultation, will provide sufficient guarantees in the future for the unique contribution in world understanding that comes from the
1084
religious department of the World Service. I believe that religious broadcasting is just one instance—the principle may apply in other spheres. It is also a very powerful illustration of the danger of thinking that you can make this managerial change without loss.
6 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this most important matter before it goes too far, and indeed, before Parliament goes into Recess. I shall not spend much time, simply because there is no time, on the substance of the proposed changes or their implications. I merely want to ask, perhaps not entirely rhetorically, what has happened to consultation in the conduct of public affairs?
In the past few days we have had three examples of major administrative acts and acts of policy being carried without consultation with those immediately involved. I speak of the restructuring of local government and, with slightly more feeling, of the sale of the married quarters estate. We now have this administrative act, for that is what it seems to be, put forward—unless reports from reliable sources are to be disbelieved—without any consultation of any effective kind with those most directly affected.
If reliable sources are to be believed, the main body of the governors of the BBC was not properly consulted, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was treated with a singular lack of regard and respect and the staff of the BBC, including those most closely associated with the World Service, were not consulted.
Only a few days ago Mr. Sam Younger, the managing director of the World Service, said in a speech to a Chatham House audience:
"The World Service is part of the public service broadcasting network. To many millions of listeners worldwide it is the very essence of public service".
In her brief speech this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady James, mentioned that point. If that is public service broadcasting in action, I can only say that I tremble for the future. This is not public service broadcasting; it is public disservice broadcasting.
Other people have made this point but I make no apology for repeating it. The World Service is not a personal fiefdom of the BBC or any of its managers. The BBC World Service is a precious, national broadcasting asset in the first place. It has a worldwide reputation for truth, accuracy, impartiality and for a profound knowledge of the customs and cultures of the people to whom it broadcasts.
However, it is more than that. The BBC World Service is one of the most powerful instruments of public diplomacy in the world. It is as important to the Government of this country and to the foreign policy of this country as the Diplomatic Service, which it complements. In my view, this is not something which can be treated as though it were part of some in-house administrative experiment, conducted by fashionable worshippers at the shrine of the bottom line and of cost-effectiveness which seem to be at the root of most

1085
of our public policies nowadays. It is an act which will have profound political implications in this country. I repeat: profound political implications.
If as a result of this change the World Service loses any of its great assets and characteristics of conducting not only a great broadcasting operation but, as I said, a great public diplomatic operation, then, at the very least—although I fear that this will be crying for the moon—it is a matter for government intervention. As other speakers have said, this is not a matter to be left to the management of the BBC; it is a matter for government intervention or, at least, if the Government will not do that, a matter for parliamentary debate and, indeed, for both Houses of Parliament to discuss. It should not be conducted in this cavalier and, one might almost say, arrogant way.
I conclude by saying that those of us who proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Bill when it was before the House were persuaded to withdraw them in the light of assurances given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has conducted all these proceedings with such great courtesy and patience. He said that we could rely upon the new regime at the BBC, operating under the new charter, to introduce a new kind of BBC with which we would all be happy. However, what is happening now is giving us very little comfort and encouragement.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I shall be very brief because virtually all that I intended to say has been said very much better by other speakers. However, there is one point that I should like to make. I trust that the Government will not say, as has already been said in answers to both spoken and written Questions, that this is an operational matter and nothing to do with us. That would be an unforgivable "get-out".
At present, we are engaged in the most Byzantine piece of legislation that I have ever tried to wade my way through, which is all about the way in which the Government and public authorities should control broadcasting. If, when we come to a major crisis like this, which is also a matter of deep public concern, the Government then say, "It's nothing to do with us", what on earth is all this legislation about? Indeed, what can we expect from it in the future? That is the first and most important reason why we must have a proper response to the concerns which have been expressed.
The second reason is that, in my view, this is not simply an operational matter; it is about structures. The way in which a broadcasting service is structured expresses its aims and values. Therefore, inevitably, a change of structure will undo precisely what has made the World Service most distinctive. That must be a matter for our concern.
Thirdly, it must be a matter for our concern because, if I understand rightly, one of the things which precipitated the whole change was the reduction by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the grant to the World Service. Therefore, the Government are directly implicated. I hope that the plea for a pause—perhaps a six-month pause, a time for consultation and more
1086
debate—will be heeded and that we shall really see some action as regards the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I also welcome the opportunity to speak and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, giving us this opportunity. I have been chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission for the past three years. On the whole, I have been very impressed with my contacts with the BBC and with the way in which it has seen its duty as a public service broadcaster.
I want briefly to concentrate on the body that should take responsibility for what has happened at the BBC; namely, the Governors of the BBC. That body was appointed many years ago to represent the interests of the community as well as the will that is expressed in this House and the other place.
I am surprised—in fact utterly amazed—that a body of men and women appointed to guard the public interest should be prepared to acquiesce in a new policy for which there was no consultation, and which informed the Foreign Office, a major contributor, only days before the plan was implemented. The governors of the BBC have, in this instance, failed in their duty. They may expect support for public service broadcasting in the future, but I am afraid that much of that support has disappeared over the past few weeks.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I shall be brief because much has been said, and well said, from different quarters of the House. It was ingenious to find a way to debate this. I thought it might be very difficult.
My reflection is that this matter is too secret. I am afraid the body we are discussing has grown a little arrogant. It feels that it is sovereign. It is true that it can actually make governments and defeat governments. Sometimes it is busy trying to do so. The BBC does have a conscience—very much so—as I know from the previous chairman, but it does not like being judge and jury in its own case. When we endeavoured to find an independent body which could monitor and take up transgressions when they occurred, it was frowned on by the BBC and by the officers who advised my noble friend at the heritage department. This seemed to be going one too far. Some £170 million is involved. Finance is meant to be behind this move. This proposal is supposed to save money, as your Lordships will remember. I always doubt those who claim that their proposals will be much cheaper and will save money. When those proposals come into effect, they cost much more. New buildings have to be adapted and adopted, and much money is spent. But this proposal was intended to save money.
Unique opportunities have emerged from Bush House under the present regime. Mr. Tusa and other people have done wonderfully well. Many of us look to the BBC, and to the World Service to be balanced, impartial, and independent. This is a unique opportunity to keep it so. Let us not throw that away, and tear it up.
It is desperately important that world broadcasting should be flexible. Revolutions take place, new people come into power, amalgamations take place and it is

1087
important that broadcasting should be flexible. It should have its ear to the ground through its well-loved, unique and loyal people serving in different countries of the world. Do not try to centralise it. Let us not forget that this Parliament is sovereign. Action taken by the BBC unilaterally is not dedicated and is not inflexible. There is time now to make a change. Certain changes have already been made under pressure. Over 220 people in the other place have signed the Early Day Motion; so there is a massive movement to try to stop this proposal. I sincerely hope that it will have the necessary effect and bring pressure to bear so that at least we do not jump off this particular tower and wreck what is a very efficient, dedicated and loyal aspect of our country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, many of your Lordships know that I am the vice chairman of the BBC. I declare that at the start.
The question of consultation is always a balance. It may well be that the balance was not entirely correct in this case. But I do think that the very strong reaction to any possibility that the World Service may be under any sort of threat shows the difficulty of consultation in this case. I believe the number of signatures in another place on the Motion is already up to 280. I wonder how many of my former colleagues have studied the detail of what is proposed? To talk in terms of major crises, without a proper analysis of what is being proposed, does not take us very much further forward.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I heard the speech by Sam Younger at Chatham House. He said that he wanted to study the detail. The detail was spelt out by the chairman a day or two ago in a lecture to the Radio Society. He said that the BBC will still remain a separately managed directorate. It will go on managing the grant-in-aid. It will schedule its own programmes; and its editorial independence will be absolutely inviolate. It can specify what programmes it requires from the BBC News Unit and its authority will not be reduced. Its nature will remain entirely distinctive.
The governors are charged with looking after the public interest. I take this very seriously, as do my colleagues. When I spoke on the Broadcasting Bill—I think at Second Reading—I spoke about the experiences some of us had listening to the World Service during the war and have treasured all these years. Believe me, my Lords, I would be failing in my duty in the post I hold if I thought there was any threat at all to the World Service and its distinctive character and I did not create the most appalling row. But at the moment I think that if the detail is studied, it will be found that the threats are imaginary and that, in fact, it will be just as efficient as it has always been.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell your Lordships, because he is in a good position to do so, whether it is intended to merge the news-gathering services of the World Service with the rest of the BBC. If that is the case, I think he will have to say rather more to convince us that the character of the broadcast will not change.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, with the House in its present mood, I do not think that anything I say
1088
will convince your Lordships. However, although there will be a common core, it can commission what it requires and the distinctive nature will stay.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may just say three sentences. First, with great respect, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, can defend a situation in which not even the director of the World Service of the BBC had 24 hours' notice of what was being proposed. That was indefensible by any standards.
Secondly, I believe in the BBC World Service. This country has created, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, so eloquently said, one of the great instruments of diplomacy and one that we should not lightly throw away. I have seen the United States Public Service Broadcasting adopt hours of BBC broadcasting, which it would not do for anything that was not outstandingly excellent. I have seen throughout Russia the BBC World Service producing educational services on the new democracy and on the market system sans pareil, which nobody else has been able to equal. We would be most foolish to throw away one of this country's greatest assets. I very much hope that in another place the Foreign Secretary will do his very best to persuade the BBC management to turn away from this disastrous course.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, everything has already been said brilliantly by everyone else. I wish simply to say yet once more that it is absolutely vital that we insist on delay and that we debate this issue. Like everyone else in this House, I think, I am afraid I am not convinced that this has been properly looked at as an issue of national concern. It has been looked at as a piece of accountancy. Surely we are not going to allow something as important as an extension of our overseas representation—and something which brings the truth to the whole world—to be tidied away by a management cabal which has such contempt for everyone else in the BBC that it does not think it necessary or worthwhile to explain to them what reasons there may be for this proposal. It has not explained whether this is a good case, a good proposal, or a harmless proposal. Why could it not have been explained? It has not been explained. Referring us to public speeches and to public bodies is not enough. We are talking about the management of the BBC. Frankly, I have never seen such appalling man management in my life. I hope that we shall insist, as far as we possibly can, that this matter shall be debated in the House.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for finding this ingenious way to ensure that we have had this interesting and useful debate on the future of the BBC and of the World Service in particular.
I suppose it must be admitted that these matters may be a trifle beyond the scope of the particular amendments we have been considering. Indeed, I think some of them are probably beyond the Government's ability to provide answers to the questions posed. But one thing I am sure of is that the points raised will have

1089
been heard by those who can, should, and no doubt will, be able to provide answers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, in some respects is better placed than I to be able to respond to a number of the points made. Indeed, it is a kind of paradox that probably your Lordships are better placed to tell the BBC what it should or should not do than myself standing at the Dispatch Box. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion and to respond to some of the points made about a matter which I believe is quite properly of general concern not only to your Lordships, but to the country as a whole.
Before moving on to the main body of my remarks, I wish at the outset to respond to one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who sought assurance that the post-privatisation overseas capacity of transmitters to go on operating would be properly protected. In that respect, nothing should change after privatisation. Indeed, the agreements for sale have been designed to provide that services will be securely available for the BBC both at home and abroad. Clearly, in a foreign country there may be a risk of a revolution, for example, which may result in a transmitter being overwhelmed by force. However, that is beyond the scope of what we are focusing on in this Bill.
I move to the main body of my comments. I begin by emphasising that the debates recently held here and in another place on the future of the BBC and the draft Charter and Agreement have focused on the constitution and obligations of the corporation. These are at the core of those documents which are the corporation's foundations. I hope I may remind your Lordships that how the corporation is organised to meet its obligations is a matter for the governors of the BBC. Indeed, paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement makes it clear that the corporation will be independent in the management of its affairs.
It is only right, of course, that governors who have the responsibilities established by the Agreement also have the authority to organise the corporation's affairs as they believe necessary in order best to meet those responsibilities. Nonetheless, the Government's legitimate concern is the BBC's performance. Our primary interest in the way it functions relates to the extent that its modus operandi affects its output. I believe that was the point that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, made. It is one that we very much accept.
We have sought assurances from the BBC about the general implications of the restructuring for meeting the BBC's objectives as established under the Charter and the Agreement. It seems from what I have heard of the concerns that your Lordships have expressed this afternoon—and other comments I have read in newspapers—that they appear to be based on the premise that organisational changes are bound to have an inevitably adverse effect on the quality of the BBC's services, and in particular that there will be a loss of distinctiveness in radio output and in the World Service. Of course it is right to be vigilant about such matters,
1090
but are we right to believe that there is inevitability about that? Does the evidence indicate that that must occur?
Certainly I do not believe that the governors would wish to pursue changes which they believed threatened the special qualities of each of the BBC's services. After all, that would be a direct breach of their obligations in paragraph 7 of the Charter. The BBC has explained that it is proposing change because in its judgment those changes will put the corporation in a stronger position so that its best qualities and attributes can be preserved and built upon in a future which is increasingly uncertain and challenging.
The Bill establishes the framework for the continuing expansion of broadcasting services and for the coming of the digital broadcasting age. Competition is increasing and will continue to increase further. The resources available to the BBC's successful competitors grow faster than licence fee funding reasonably could. In order to maintain its position as the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster the BBC must find the money to invest in digital technology and to continue to provide the high quality programming which licence fee payers rightly expect. To do that, it must ensure that it operates as efficiently as possible so that it gives back the most it can to licence payers and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the money it receives from that department.
In 1993 the BBC put in place Producer Choice as a route to increased efficiency. It divided the functions of channel controllers who commission and schedule programmes, programme production heads who make the programmes, and support services who manage the BBC's facilities. That reflects industry best practice worldwide. In the past three years that focus on efficiency has produced savings of around £100 million a year. It is that which has enabled the corporation to make more original programmes, to reduce the number of repeats, and to launch new services such as Radio 5 Live, which is the "Sony station of the year".
The present reorganisation is based on that logic and carries it forward. The Director-General has made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place this afternoon that the principles of producer/supplier relations are settled. It is how they are to be implemented that is under discussion—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the comments he has just made to the House imply some lack of understanding of the World Service? Digital systems would not apply to a large part of the world and therefore the pressure for digitalisation does not meet the question about how we address the large numbers of people for whom that is a distant dream.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course correct in that in the immediate future digital technology will not be directly relevant to their concerns. Simply to drop the guillotine like that does not take account of the interconnectivity of the

1091
corporation and the fact that it has to work as a collective whole. However, I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who referred to redundancies and costs. I understand that the details have yet to be worked out. Therefore the level of redundancies, if any, cannot be explained at this point. That is a proper matter for further consultation which will, of course, take place.
Another fear that has been expressed both implicitly and expressly in the remarks this afternoon is that radio will inevitably be subordinated to television. Is that the case? Certainly in his speech to the Radio Society on Monday—to which reference has been made—Sir Christopher Bland, the chairman of the BBC, reminded his audience that similar fears had been expressed when the bi-media news and current affairs directorate was established nine years ago. But programmes like "Today" have retained their distinctiveness. At this year's Sony Awards the BBC achieved 26 out of the 33 awards that were given, and that is a record achievement.
I should like to turn specifically to the World Service. A number of views have been strongly expressed by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, my noble friend Lord Pilkington, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lady Park. Standing at this Dispatch Box I cannot answer their concerns directly. It is to the BBC, through your Lordships' Chamber, that the concerns are directed.
The output of the World Service is at record levels. This Government recognise the high value and quality of the World Service. Indeed, that is why we pay for it. Neither we nor, I believe, the governors of the BBC have the slightest wish to threaten the very qualities that have led to its success. After all, it is a service which reaches a record audience of at least 140 million people—more than twice the size of its nearest competitor—and provides a trusted source of objective news even in some of the darker corners of the world. It is a great ambassador and advertisement for this country; a great service to the whole world and the ideals we all share in this country and which underpin our democracy.
This Government always have been and are now a strong supporter of the World Service. After all, despite living in an era of stringency in public sector expenditure, in real terms the funding that the World Service receives has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Of course, we have a more direct responsibility for the objectives and funding of the World Service than for the Home Service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was understandably anxious when it was told of the organisational changes for the World Service. It is because of that that we sought assurances from the BBC, as my noble friend Lady Chalker confirmed in this House on 2nd July.
Assurances have been given that the quality and character of the service will not be diminished. The clear separation between the grant-in-aid funded World Service and the BBC's other activities will be
1092
maintained. We shall be fully consulted on the implementation of the reorganisation so that we can be confident, as we are fully entitled to be, that the World Service will go on meeting its obligations under the agreement and continue to maintain that quality which is its distinctive hallmark. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting Sir Christopher Bland to discuss those matters.
I must emphasise that the Government insist that the unique character of the World Service output must be preserved and that the service will not be subsumed into an homogenous BBC. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, pointed out, it will continue to be a separate entity complete with its own managing director. It will have complete editorial independence, with absolute control over the commissioning and scheduling of programmes from inside or outside the BBC. It will retain responsibility for the production of services in 43 languages.
A dedicated World Service news team within the news directorate—I understand that the World Service news team is to remain at Bush House in the immediate future—will be able to draw on the resources of the whole organisation to provide news tailored to the World Service's specifications. The World Service and the main news operations of the BBC already work closely together. A considerable number of World Service reports come from BBC news and current affairs correspondents. The proposals will produce further economies, not least enabling the World Service to make a greater contribution to the work of the BBC as a whole than it does at present. That in turn will reduce unit costs.
As my noble friend Lady James emphasised, the World Service already has a good record for producing cost-effective programmes. Those economies and the more effective use of staff resources should further benefit the World Service and increase and improve the work it does. In addition, the World Service broadcasts material other than news, and there is considerable scope for avoiding duplication in, to give two examples, sports coverage and drama. At present there is duplication which, by definition, costs money and that is something that could be eliminated.
In short, while your Lordships are right to be cautious about changes in the way the World Service is arranged and to question critically what is happening, are we right in supposing inevitably that the fears expressed are well founded, either on the basis of the facts as they are or upon the inherent logic of what is being proposed? The BBC governors' duty is to ensure that the BBC meets the obligations laid upon it under the Charter and Agreement. They must ensure that programme standards and the distinctiveness of the BBC services are safeguarded and that the way in which the BBC is organised contributes to rather than detracts from those obligations.
I conclude with the World Service. The Chairman and the Governors of the BBC are committed by the Charter to uphold the distinctive quality and characteristics of

1093
the service. The Government pay for the World Service. This Government are adamant that it shall not be transmuted from gold into base metal.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he elaborate upon the point he just made? He said that under the new dispensation the BBC World Service will still have its own managing director. As far as I can see from the table of organisation drawn up by the BBC, there is no managing director shown in the organisation for BBC News. Indeed, the editor of the World Service news programmes reports to Mr. Peter Bell, the head of news programmes, and the controller of BBC World News reports to Jenny Abramski of Continuous News Services. Where does the autonomous managing director fit in?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asks a difficult question about proposals. It is difficult to answer emphatically. I am confident in what I have explained to your Lordships. I am sure that if the noble Lord makes express inquiries he will find that to be the case.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we must bring this matter to a conclusion. I am immensely grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of my Motion. Indeed, a short debate of this kind on the eve of a Recess on a Thursday afternoon that attracts two distinguished former Governors of the BBC, two distinguished retired Prelates, a former Chairman of the Radio Authority and a present Chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a debate to which I hope the Governors and Director-General of the BBC will pay close attention.
I am grateful for what the Minister said by way of giving us information on the questions that some of us asked. I can only say to him, and repeat, that we welcome the change being proposed in terms of maintaining a team at Bush House until April 1998, though—let us be clear—it is still going to be part of a much wider overall organisation, where the final responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief will lie outside Bush House. However, that change would not have taken place if it had not been for the outcry that there has been in both Houses of Parliament and from the public generally. That is ample justification for the belief that the failure of consultation has been monumental. If ever we needed the final evidence of that, it came in the information given to us by the Minister that next week the Secretary of State himself will summon the BBC to him for further discussion. That can only be the clearest possible evidence that the Government are dissatisfied with the degree of consultation that they have had, just as the rest of us are dissatisfied with the consultation that we experienced.
I know that it is a serious matter at this stage to move a Motion of this kind which, if your Lordships are willing to carry it, means that the matter will go back to the House of Commons. But, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is calling the BBC to meet with him, it would be helpful for there to be an opportunity in
1094
another place next week before the House rises, on the basis of that well-supported Early-Day Motion, to give the Foreign Secretary every possible backing when he conducts that meeting. I commend the Motion to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Meggido): My Lords, the Question is that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps we may have clarification, I am confused about exactly what we have been asked to vote on. Is it correct that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is asking us to disagree with the amendment to which I spoke earlier?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, yes.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government cannot accept that we disagree. We are not content.
The Deputy Speaker: Clear the Bar!
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. 144A), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 144, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kilmamock, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Chapple, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dainton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Falkland, V.

Roskill, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton B

Runcie, L.

Freyberg, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Habgood, L.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

1095

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Williams of Crosby, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Holderness, L.

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Aldenham, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Aldington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Annaly, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Berners, B.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McConnell, L.

Carnock,L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shannon, E.

Gage, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Harlech, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hogg,B.

Ullswater, V.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 144 agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
TAXATION PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
'. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions) (which makes provision about tax in connection with transfer schemes) shall have effect.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.145—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendment No. 145A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 145, not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 144 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
146 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN TERMS RELATING TO USE FOR PURPOSE OF NEWS REPORTING OF VISUAL IMAGES FROM BROADCAST OR CABLE PROGRAMME
'.—(1) Any provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to prohibit or restrict relevant dealing with a broadcast or cable programme in any circumstances where by virtue of section 30(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events) copyright in the broadcast or cable programme is not infringed.
(2) In subsection (1)—

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

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

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.
This new clause effects the commitment which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave in standing committee in another place to bring forward an amendment to the Bill to safeguard news access to sporting and other events. The new clause provides that any provision in a contract is void in so far as it prevents the use of visual images from another programme for the purposes of news reporting in circumstances where the fair dealing provisions of the copyright Act 1988 would apply. Any decisions on what fair dealing constitutes would remain for the courts to take, based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
147 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENTS OF COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1988 RELATING TO CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
'Schedule (Amendments of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to cable programme services) (which contains amendments of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to broadcasts included in cable programme services) shall have effect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 134.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
148 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
COPYRIGHT LICENSING
'. (1) After section 135G of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is inserted—
"Power to amend sections 135A to 135G.
135H.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order, subject to such transitional provision as appears to him to be appropriate, amend sections 135A to 135G so as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) in relation to an order under section 135F, the date on which the application was made."

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in any case where the reference or application to the Copyright Tribunal was or is made before the commencement of this section.'
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 148A.
Amendment No. 148 will allow an order to be made in the future to vary the application of a statutory licence. The House examined the background to this amendment when my noble friend Lord Lyell tabled an amendment during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government do not feel it is appropriate to proceed with any changes to the statutory
1098
licence at the moment; but the amendment will facilitate changes in the future should they become appropriate. The Government have in mind in particular the possible removal of on-demand services from statutory licensing.
The amendment would also give the copyright tribunal the discretion to add an element of interest to awards, including a backdated payment or repayment to compensate any party who has been financially disadvantaged by the unreasonable behaviour of another. This power to award interest will apply to cases involving the statutory licence and can be used by the tribunal if it feels that a licensee has unacceptably exploited its entitlement to a statutory licence.
By reason of the scope of the Bill, the amendment does not apply to cases where copyright works are used other than in broadcasting or cable programmes. But the Government intend to apply this change to all disputes which can be heard by the tribunal when the opportunity arises. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148.—(Lord Inglewood.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 148
148A Line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult those persons, including broadcasters and licensing bodies, who would be likely to be affected by the order (if it were to be made).").
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 148A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 148.
There has been a good deal of discussion on the subject of statutory licences. I need not go into the meaning of such licences. As some noble Lords will be aware, an amendment brought forward by the Government in another place gave new powers to the Secretary of State to exclude certain broadcasters from the provisions of the statutory licence. I do not think any reasonable broadcaster, or the House, will have any difficulty in agreeing that such powers should exist.
As the Government have already indicated, clearly at some time in the future we may be faced with circumstances where it is necessary to exclude from statutory licensing some broadcasters with some particular types of broadcasts in mind. There is no problem with that. However, I tabled the amendment for two reasons.
First, I seek from the Minister an assurance, if he is able to give it, that before any broadcaster is excluded, that broadcaster and any other bodies relevant to the type of broadcast involved will be properly consulted. We have already had some discussion about consultation or the lack of it in relation to preceding amendments. But an assurance from the Minister on that point would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, perhaps the Minister at this stage could enlighten the House as to exactly what kind of broadcasts he has in mind for exclusion. Some of us have our own ideas, but perhaps he can guide us in this area.

1099
We are dealing with the prospect of on-demand broadcasting, which is linked with the new technologies which we have discussed at length. It has been suggested, that on-demand broadcasting would be a possible area for exclusion in the future. However, the definition seems extraordinarily wide.
As digital broadcasting becomes more widely adopted, as one might expect more and more programming will be available in an on-demand form. Viewers will be able more and more to select, order and receive an increasing range of broadcasts on an individual basis. One would expect musical content to play a large part, of which a small fraction would be the type of on-demand service that could be expected to affect the interests of rights holders. High-quality music recordings could well affect the sales of records in the shops, and that may well be a reason for introducing a refusal to grant a statutory licence.
It seems at this stage that in a vast number of cases there would be no adverse effect on rights holders. The reason for withholding permission for statutory licences is to protect rights holders. I am sure the House will agree that it is important that proper consultative procedures are put in place to make sure that no broadcaster is unfairly excluded, or that his particular type of broadcast should have been thoroughly examined to see that exclusion was just and fair. My amendment was tabled in a spirit of inquiry. I look forward to the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 148A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 148, be agreed to.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
7 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am very grateful to have had from the noble Viscount an explanation of his concerns underlying this amendment. I am very glad to be able to give him an assurance on behalf of my colleagues at the DTI that there will be further consultation and an opportunity for interested parties to express their views before any order changing the application of the statutory licence is made. I should also like to remind the House that no order can be made until it has been debated by both Houses, so your Lordships will have an opportunity in the future to express views on any proposed changes to the statutory licence.
It is also important to be clear that so far as we are concerned now, on demand is all that we have in mind for exclusion; but there may be other categories in future as technology develops, and precise definitions might well be rather tricky to make. Hence we felt it would be appropriate to have an order-making power of this kind. I very much hope that in the light of the assurance and the explanation I have given, the noble Viscount may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply and for the explanation. Certainly that satisfies my concerns and the concerns of the broadcasters who have been behind my tabling of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 148A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 148, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 148 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
149 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
UNAUTHORISED DECODERS
'.—(1) In section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (unauthorised decoders), for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

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

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

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) shall not apply to any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149. I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 150. These two amendments extend the criminal and civil offences of decoder piracy to include the advertising of unauthorised decoders as well as their sale. Amendment No. 149 also increases the maximum penalties for those found guilty of the offence to an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
150 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
APPARATUS &C FOR UNAUTHORISED RECEPTION OF TRANSMISSIONS
'. In section 298 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (apparatus &c for unauthorised reception of transmissions), in subsection (2)(a), after "hire" there is inserted ", offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire,".'.
151 Before Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
STANDARDS FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
'.—(1) The Independent Television Commission (in this section referred to as "the Commission") shall do all that they can to secure that every licensed service uses a transmission system complying with Article 2 of Council Directive 95/47/EC on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals ("the Directive").
(2) In this section "Community digital standard" means any of the alternatives permitted within the mandatory parts of the standards to be met by a transmission system for the purpose of complying with Article 2(c) of the Directive (which relates to television services that are fully digital).
(3) The Commission may, after consultation with the persons specified in subsection (6), specify particular Community digital standards to be met in the provision of licensed services which are fully digital.
(4) In deciding whether, and if so how, to exercise their powers under subsection (3), the Commission shall, in particular—

(a) have regard to the desirability of promoting—

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

(ii) the development of digital television broadcasting, and

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

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

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

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

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

(a) every person providing a licensed service,

(b) the BBC,

(c) the Welsh Authority,

(d) the Secretary of State,

(e) the Director General of Telecommunications,

(f) the Director General of Fair Trading,

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

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

(j) such other persons as they think fit.

(7) In this section—
"licensed service" means any service licensed by the Commission under Part I of this Act or Part I or II of the 1990 Act or provided under a relevant cable licence, but does not include any service which is only broadcast or transmitted for reception outside the European Economic Area;
"relevant cable licence" means a relevant licence within the meaning of Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act (transitional provisions relating to existing cable services).'.
152 Insert the following new clause—
DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION OR RADIO AUTHORITY IN CASES INVOLVING DISQUALIFICATION ON GROUNDS RELATED TO POLITICAL OBJECTS
'.—(1) If it appears to the Independent Television Commission that there are grounds for suspecting that any person who is an applicant for a licence under Part I or II of the 1990 Act or Part I of this Act is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (5) a disqualified person in relation to that licence, the Commission shall be regarded as failing to discharge their duty under section 5(1) of the 1990 Act, or as the case may be section 5(1) of this Act, if they grant the licence to that person without being provided with information which satisfies them that he is not on those grounds a disqualified person by virtue of that provision.
(2) If it appears to the Independent Television Commission that there are grounds for suspecting that any person who is the holder of a licence under Parts I or II of the 1990 Act or Part I of this Act is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (5) a disqualified person in relation to that licence, the Commission shall be regarded as failing to discharge their duty under section 5(1) of the 1990 Act, or as the case may be section 5(1) of this Act, unless—

(a) they require him to provide them with information for the purpose of determining whether he is on those grounds a disqualified person by virtue of that provision, and

(b) if they are satisfied that he is a disqualified person, they revoke the licence.

(3) If it appears to the Radio Authority that there are grounds for suspecting that any person who is an applicant for a licence under Part III of the 1990 Act or Part II of this Act is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (5) a disqualified person in relation to that licence, the Authority shall be regarded as failing to discharge their duty under section 88(1) of the 1990 Act, or as the case may be section 38(1) of this Act, if they grant the licence to that person without being provided with information which satisfies them that he is not on those grounds a disqualified person by virtue of that provision.
(4) If it appears to the Radio Authority that there are grounds for suspecting that any person who is the holder of a licence under Part III of the 1990 Act or Part II of this Act is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (5) a disqualified person in relation to that licence, the Authority shall be regarded as failing to discharge their duty under section 88(1) of the 1990 Act, or as the case may be section 38(1) of this Act, unless—

(a) they require him to provide them with information for the purpose of determining whether he is a disqualified person on those grounds by virtue of that provision, and

(b) if they are satisfied that he is a disqualified person, they revoke the licence.

(5) The provisions referred to in subsections (1) to (4) are the following provisions of paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act—

(a) paragraphs (d) to (g),

(b) paragraph (h) so far as relating to participation by bodies falling within paragraph (d), (e) or (g),

(c) paragraph (hh) so far as relating to a body corporate controlled by a body corporate in which a body falling within paragraph (d), (e) or (g) is a participant with more than a 5 per cent. interest,

(d) paragraph (i) so far as relating to control by a person falling within any of paragraphs (d) to (g) or by two or more such persons, and

(e) paragraph (j) so far as relating to participation by a body corporate which is controlled by a person falling within any of paragraphs (d) to (g) or by two or more such persons.

(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) shall be taken to limit the generality of—

(a) the duty imposed on the Independent Television Commission by section 5(1) of the 1990 Act or section 5(1) of this Act, or

(b) the duty imposed on the Radio Authority by section 88(1) of the 1990 Act or section 38(1) of this Act.'.

153 Insert the following new clause—
OFFENCE OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
'.—(1) A person who, in connection with an application by him for, or his continued holding of, a licence under the 1990 Act or this Act—

(a) makes to the relevant authority a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or

(b) recklessly makes to the relevant authority a statement which is false in a material particular,

1103
is guilty of an offence if the statement relates to a matter which would be relevant in determining whether he is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) a disqualified person, and he is by virtue of any of those provisions a disqualified person in relation to that licence.
(2) A person who, in connection with an application by him for, or his continued holding of, a licence under the 1990 Act or this Act, withholds any information with the intention of causing the relevant authority to be misled is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the information would be relevant in determining whether he is by virtue of any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) a disqualified person, and

(b) he is by virtue of any of those provisions a disqualified person in relation to that licence.

(3) The provisions referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are the following provisions of paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act—

(a) paragraphs (d) to (g),

(b) paragraph (h) so far as relating to participation by bodies falling within paragraph (d), (e) or (g),

(c) paragraph (hh) so far as relating to a body corporate controlled by a body corporate in which a body falling within paragraph (d), (e) or (g) is a participant with more than a 5 per cent. interest,

(d) paragraph (i) so far as relating to control by a person falling within any of paragraphs (d) to (g) or by two or more such persons, and

(e) paragraph (j) so far as relating to participation by a body corporate which is controlled by a person falling within any of paragraphs (d) to (g) or by two or more such persons.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(5) In this section "the relevant authority" means—

(a) in relation to any licence under Parts I or II of the 1990 Act or Part I of this Act, the Independent Television Commission, and

(b) in relation to any licence under Part III of the 1990 Act or Part II of this Act, the Radio Authority.'.

154 Insert the following new clause—
DISQUALIFICATION FOR OFFENCE OF SUPPLYING FALSE INFORMATION ETC
'.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section (Offence of providing false information in certain circumstances) the court by which he is convicted may make an order (in this section referred to as a "disqualification order") disqualifying him from holding a licence during a period specified in the order.
(2) The period specified in a disqualification order shall not exceed five years beginning with the date on which the order takes effect.
(3) Where an individual is disqualified from holding a licence by virtue of a disqualification order, any body corporate—

(a) of which he is a director, or

(b) in the management of which he is directly or indirectly concerned,

is also disqualified from holding a licence.
(4) Where the holder of a licence is disqualified by virtue of a disqualification order, the licence shall be treated as being revoked with effect from the time when the order takes effect.
(5) For the purposes of any of the provisions specified in subsection (6) (which relate to the imposition of a financial penalty on the revocation of a licence), a licence which is revoked by virtue of subsection (4) shall be taken to have been revoked by the relevant authority as mentioned in that provision.
(6) The provisions referred to in subsection (5) are as follows—

(a) section 18(3) of the 1990 Act,

(b) section 101(3) of the 1990 Act,

(c) section 10(5), and

(d) section 47(5).

(7) In sections 5(1)(a) and 88(1)(a) of the 1990 Act and sections 5(1)(a) and 38(1)(a) of this Act, the reference to a person who is disqualified person by virtue of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act includes a reference to a person who is disqualified by virtue of a disqualification order.
(8) In this section—
"licence" means any licence granted by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority under the 1990 Act or this Act;
"the relevant authority" has the same meaning as in section (Offence of providing false information in certain circumstances).'.
155 Insert the following new clause—
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION ORDERS
'.—(1) A person disqualified by a disqualification order may appeal against the order in the same manner as against a conviction.
(2) A disqualification order made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland—

(a) shall not take effect until the end of the period within which the person on whose conviction the order was made can appeal against the order, and

(b) if he so appeals, shall not take effect until the appeal has been determined or abandoned.

(3) A disqualification order made by a court in Scotland—

(a) shall not take effect until the end of the period within which the person on whose conviction the order was made can appeal against the order, and

(b) if an appeal against the order or the conviction is taken within that period, shall not take effect until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned.

(4) In this section "disqualification order" means an order under section (Disqualification for offence of supplying false information etc).'
156 Clause 114, page 87, line 27, leave out from first 'and' to 'were' in line 28 and insert 'the following provisions of this Act—

(a) Parts I and II and Schedule 1,

(b) Part IV,

(c) Part V and Schedules 3 and 4, and

(d) sections (Standards for transmission systems) and (Duties of Independent Television Commission or Radio Authority in cases involving disqualification on grounds related to political objects) to (Supplementary provisions as to disqualification orders)

shall be construed as if those provisions'.
157 Clause 115, page 87, line 32, after 'enactments' insert 'and instruments'.
158 Page 87, line 32, after 'repealed' insert 'or, as the case may be, revoked'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 to 158 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 to 158.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
159 Clause 116, page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) paragraphs 4A to 4C of Schedule 2 so far as relating to BBC companies (as defined by section 202(1) of the 1990 Act), and section 66 so far as relating to those paragraphs in their application to such companies,'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 161 to 170, 287, 288, 294 and 295. Amendments Nos. 159, 161, 162, 164 and 166 add various provisions to the list of those which will be effective immediately on Royal Assent. The government amendment tabled here to the Commons Amendment No. 166 is simply for the sake of consistency in the commencement of the provisions on BBC companies. Amendment No. 167 removes provisions extending the Bill to Northern Ireland and makes consequential amendments to the Welsh Development Agency Act, which obviously do not extend to Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 enable provisions of the Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 to be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Amendment No. 170 deletes subsection (4) of Clause 117 which was added for the duration of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House to avoid infringing the privilege of the other place to impose any charge on public funds. Amendment No. 287 updates the Welsh Development Agency Act, the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 to reflect the enactment of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 288 and 295 divide Schedule 8 into two parts, the first of which lists enactments repealed by the Bill, and the second of which lists subordinate legislation revoked by the Bill. Amendment No. 294 formally repeals provisions of the 1990 Act which are replaced by provisions in Amendment No. 287.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159.— (Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
160 Clause 116, page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) sections (Provision of news programmes by holders of regional Channel 3 licences) to (Nomination by Commission for purposes of section 31(2 of Broadcasting Act 1990)),'.
161 Page 87, line 35, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 67 and'.
162 Page 87, line 37, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 73, 74 and'.
163 Page 87, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) section (Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in its application to agreements relating to Channel 3 news provision),'.
164 Page 87, line 38, leave out 'Schedule 5' and insert 'Schedules 5, (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies), (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions) and 6'.
165 Page 87, line 38, leave out second 'and'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 165 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 165.— (Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
166 Clause 116, page 87, line 39, after '114(1)' insert—
'(f) the entries in Schedule 8 relating to sections 45(8) and (9) and 47(11) and (12) of the 1990 Act, and section 115(2) so far as relating to those entries, and
(g)".
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.— (Lord Inglewood.)
AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 166
166A Line 1, at end insert—
("( ) paragraphs 10B and 13A of Schedule 7 so far as relating to BBC companies (as defined by section 202(1) of the 1990 Act), and section 115(1) so far as relating to those paragraphs in their application to such companies,").
166B Line 2, after ("sections") insert ("32(9),")
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 166A and 166B as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 166.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 166A and 166B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 166, be agreed to.— (Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Amendments Nos. 166A and 166B agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 166, as amended, agreed to.
167 Clause 117, page 88, line 8, after 'Act' insert 'except paragraph 15 of Schedule 7'.
168 Page 88, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) Section 204(6) of the 1990 Act (power to extend to Isle of Man and Channel Islands) applies to the provisions of this Act amending that Act.'.
169 Page 88, line 9, after 'the' insert 'other'.
170 Page 88, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 to 170 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 to 170.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
257 Schedule 3, page 112, leave out lines 15 and 16.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 257. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 258. This minor amendment removes the need for Treasury consent in respect of remuneration, allowances, pensions and compensation to members of the BSC and similarly of the recruitment, remuneration and so on of its employees. The Government's policy is that the responsibility for such routine financial matters should rest with the Secretary of State alone.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 257.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
258 Schedule 3, page 113, line 18, leave out from 'State' to end of line.
259 Schedule 5, page 117, line 16, after 'enforceable' insert 'by or'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 258 and 259. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 258 and 259.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
260 Schedule 5, page 118, line 7, at end insert—
'(aa) rights and liabilities of the BBC under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities,'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260. This relates to the sale by the BBC of its transmission services. The bulk of the amendments relating to this topic are of a technical nature and relate to various taxation and accounting matters which arise when an entity moves from the public to the private sector. In selling its transmission assets the BBC is likely to proceed either by trade sale of the assets direct or through the creation of a wholly owned subsidiary and then the sale of that subsidiary. A flotation is unlikely, but not impossible. The provisions now incorporated in the Bill are designed to ensure that this process can take place without accounting and taxation distortions or unnecessary constraints.
1108
Amendment No. 260 deals with the pension rights of BBC transmission staff. Your Lordships may recall that during our debate on Third Reading we discussed an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, on this subject. I described the options that would be available to staff transferring with the transmission services, but indicated that the Government would consider the matter further and, if necessary, bring forward an amendment for the avoidance of doubt, making clear that pension obligations could form part of the BBC transfer scheme submitted for the Secretary of State's approval. That is what this amendment does. It adds pension rights and liabilities to the list of property at paragraph (3) of Schedule 5 to the Bill to which a transfer scheme may relate. Pensions will thus be brought explicitly within the scope of a transfer scheme. Under Clause 111, the Secretary of State's approval is needed for any transfer scheme made by the BBC. This will provide an additional safeguard for BBC transmission staff.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260.—(Lord Inglewood.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 260
260A Line 3, after ("pensions") insert ("(including under any agreement or arrangement for the bulk transfer of an appropriate accrued pensions surplus for the payment of pensions)")
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long on this amendment, but I feel that I must speak to it. It will amend Amendment No. 260 from the other place, which we support.
I feel the need to speak because the first time that we debated this issue was at Third Reading and the Minister kindly said that he would take away the amendment and look at it and that an amendment would be forthcoming when the matter came before another place. In fact, an amendment was not forthcoming at Committee stage in another place, when it could have been debated in full. An amendment was not tabled by the Government until Report stage in another place, when, on 11th June, the Minister accepted that the trustees' duty to all members of the scheme was to provide equitable treatment (Hansard, col. 638.) That is where the difference between us lies.
The amendment now before us will provide that the Bill itself, on the privatisation of BBC transmission services, will carry with it a requirement not only for the pension rights of employees to transfer on privatisation, but also for an appropriate accrued pension surplus to go with them. The Minister went on to say (col. 639) that the BBC had given an undertaking that it would make the best endeavours to ensure that protection was there. I suggest that "best endeavours" in this day and age is not good enough. There needs to be protection.
It is true that the amendment seeks to provide what is called a bulk transfer or a mirror image scheme. It seeks equity between the employees of the BBC transmission services now and the agreement which was applied

1109
when the IBA services were transferred. This issue was raised when I moved the amendment at Third Reading in this House.
The Minister in this Chamber (and indeed the Minister in another place) said that there were three options and choices. The employees could leave their pension where it was with the BBC fund and it would increase in line with the RPI or other increases given. That may well be justified and good advice to give. The employees could transfer to a personal pension scheme, which undoubtedly would be a money purchase scheme and not provide benefits for their families; or they could transfer to a new company scheme, and I shall return briefly to that point later.
The Minister said that this is not like the IBA transfer in that it is not a privatisation into three specific companies. In this case we do not have the facts; we do not know who will buy the BBC services when they are privatised. Indeed, because there has been so much rumour and so many statements made on this subject, on Tuesday I contacted the office of Sir Christopher Bland and asked for the opinion of the BBC on my amendment. I regret that I am still waiting for a reply. I have managed to get hold of the BBC scheme itself and a report issued by the BBC trustees—they have employee trustees on the board—from December 1995. We are not talking about an insignificant amount. In the 1993 evaluation there was a surplus of £532 million in the scheme. This amendment seeks to ensure that an appropriate part, actuarially assessed, is transferred with the employees when they move out of the employment of the BBC to whoever buys those transmission services.
It is on the record that the view of the Government is that pensions which have accrued will be valued for the individuals. They will have a transfer value. But that transfer value will only relate to their pension in accordance with pensions law. Nothing extra is being given. That is within pensions law. Indeed, many of the provisions can be found in the pensions deed itself, in the BBC scheme.
Because of the surplus that exists, and which has existed for some time—it is equivalent to 7½ per cent. of the scheme's assets and liabilities—the BBC itself has had a reduced employers' contribution. But the employees have still been paying 4½ per cent. of their salary into their scheme. If employees are transferred out of the BBC pension scheme without moving an element of that surplus with them, which I suggest they have accrued and from which they are entitled to benefit, I believe that they are being given short change. My amendment would rectify that. This is not a new idea. If it is said that the IBA sell-off was completely different, one could say that the telecommunications staff were in exactly the same situation and the department agreed that the transfer of the surplus would go with them.
Time and again it has been said that it is the loyalty of the staff of the BBC transmission services that has made it into an organisation which should make it attractive for a sell-off. Time will tell whether or not it is attractive for a sell-off.
1110
The amendment does not seek special privilege. It does not seek to transfer moneys from the BBC to another employer. It seeks to transfer with the employees the actuarially assessed accrued part of that surplus which I suggest rightly belongs to them. I hope that the House and, more importantly at this stage, the Minister are able to accept it. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 260A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 260, be agreed to.—(Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to say just a few sentences from this Bench. We strongly agree with what the noble Baroness has just said. Pensions are one of the most sensitive matters in the world today. In a world where people have to change employment, it is tremendously important that justice should be done. Those in the BBC transmission services under privatisation who go off to other employers have a right in equity to take some of the accrued benefits with them.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak from this Bench. I was a fund manager of the BBC pension fund for many years in the 1980s, when clearly it did quite well. Specifically, I should like to support what my noble friend said. It is simply not acceptable that employees who have worked with, and for, that surplus should, on moving, lose a part of it. If that is where they end up, they certainly should be advised to stay in the BBC scheme, keep their share and then start a new scheme elsewhere.
To make a more general point to the Minister, will he confirm that in the Bill there is no guarantee that a purchaser of the transmission system will operate an appropriate scheme for employees and pensioners? That seems to me to be the heart of the problem. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for the guarantee which my noble friend said was there for the IBA. That is what should be provided.
At present, BBC employees are members of an appropriate scheme. The Government say that one of the delights and risks of privatisation is that it may mean a deterioration in the pension position for which they have worked all their life on the assumption that it would not deteriorate. That is not acceptable. I ask the Minister, if he does not wish to change the Bill, whether he will agree that the Secretary of State, who has the power of final approval on transfer, should not give approval to any transfer of transmission unless an appropriate scheme is already in place. We would rather have that provision belt and braces in the Bill. If it is not in the Bill, I should like a guarantee from the Secretary of State that a transfer will not be made other than to a party that has an appropriate scheme in place.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the thinking behind her amendment and for the way in which it has been brought forward. She explained how she wants a proportion of the accrued surpluses in the BBC pension scheme to be transferred to the scheme operated by a new employer following the privatisation of the BBC's

1111
transmission network. I do not think this would be appropriate in these circumstances and, therefore, I cannot support this amendment.
I shall say a little about the background to begin with. There is currently a surplus in the BBC pension scheme. As is normal practice, when there is a transfer of a small proportion of staff from a scheme, this will remain in the main scheme. Let me explain: the BBC pension scheme is a "balance of cost" final salary scheme. The members pay contributions at an agreed rate, which in this case is 4.5 per cent. In return there is an agreed range of benefits. These include, most importantly, a pension related to the final salary they are receiving when they retire from the BBC. That pension is not determined by the level of any individual's contributions.
The BBC has an absolute obligation to pay whatever contributions are needed so that the benefits promised in the rules can be delivered. Whether the scheme is in surplus or deficit at any point is therefore dependent on the employer's contributions. It has no bearing on the pension which any member may be entitled to receive.
The options generally available to BBC employees when they leave the BBC are threefold and reference has already been made to them. They can either leave their accrued benefits in the BBC scheme where they will be guaranteed to increase each year in line with the retail price index up to 10 per cent. The second possibility is to take a transfer value payment to their new employer's scheme. The third is to take a transfer value payment to a personal pension arrangement.
However, when staff transfer with their function, as in this case, the BBC has agreed with the trustees of the BBC pension fund that it will pay into an appropriate scheme operated by the new employer a higher amount, known as the "past service reserve". The importance of that is that it goes beyond the legal obligation. This is the amount agreed between both sets of actuaries, which the new scheme would need in order to provide benefits equivalent in value to those accrued in the BBC scheme.
While there is no guarantee that the purchaser of transmission will operate an appropriate scheme based on final salary, the BBC has assured us that it will use its best endeavours to have a buyer who does. Indeed, some of the main potential bidders already operate such schemes.
In response to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the Secretary of State will ensure that fair arrangements are made for pensions in the transfer scheme, but cannot guarantee that a purchaser will offer a particular scheme.
We believe that it is right that the BBC, in selling its transmission assets itself, should have the responsibility for negotiating the arrangements with the purchaser and with staff, as with other services they have contracted out. In the case of transmission, there is a further safeguard introduced, as confirmed by the government amendment, that pension rights and liabilities can explicitly be included in the transfer scheme, which requires the Secretary of State's approval, as already mentioned.
1112
It is important both for the BBC and for the potential purchasers that they maintain the loyalty and commitment of transmission staff who are providing a first-class service. But I do not believe that they should be put in a straitjacket. Staff benefits will be one criterion of selection, but not the determining criterion.
To return to the subject of this amendment, where a scheme provides specified benefits, as does the BBC pension scheme, those are guaranteed whether it is in surplus or deficit. There is no logic in requiring any surplus or deficit, which happens to have arisen at a particular time, being passed to the new employer. To transfer a deficit would be a drain on the new employer. To transfer a surplus would simply subsidise the new employer's future contributions and penalise the BBC for having contributed up front. It makes no difference to the member's final pension. Having heard this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has had to say. I shall respond to some of the points which do not answer the concerns that I have. The Minister frequently referred to "a normal transfer". These are not people who are leaving, but who are being sold on. Their work is being sold on and privatised. On that basis, as a group of employees and not individuals, I argue most strongly that the points that the Minister made about the surplus are not appropriate in this instance.
The Minister said that the BBC has agreed with the trustees. We have to remember that the trustees within a scheme have it within their discretion to decide about the scheme itself. Their first responsibility is to the scheme whereas the BBC management will not be able to instruct the trustees on what they will and will not do. That is another reason why we want this provision in the Bill, with the Secretary of State having responsibility.
The Minister used the term "best endeavours". In this situation best endeavours are not sufficient. On paper it might look right, but in reality and in everyday experience, it just does not work out. It may be that the bidders for transmission services have their own pension schemes. I do not know, and neither do the employees, whether those schemes match the BBC scheme, which is a good scheme. It is a final salary and defined benefits scheme. I do not know whether the potential bidders have money purchase schemes, which are nowhere near as good as the majority of defined benefits schemes. So the employees may not have a real choice.
If the company that buys the BBC transmission services is already an established company with its own pension scheme, it is no easy matter to transfer people into it. Time and time again one has seen situations where two schemes are run in tandem because the differences are so enormous.
Those are all arguments for the provision, but the core of the matter comes down to the surplus. I heard what the Minister said, that the BBC has to pay if the scheme is in deficit. I have here the BBC report which deals with managing the surplus. It says that the present

1113
surplus will see the BBC through to the year 2004. Therefore, it is not as though the scheme is going to go into deficit next year or the year after.
I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments. Although the present provision is an improvement on that in the original Bill, with my amendment it will give employees the security that they deserve and the surplus element that they are entitled to. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment, (Amendment No. 260A) to Commons Amendment No. 260, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Berkeley, L [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Chapple, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L

Desai,L.

Russell, E.

Donoughue, L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Longford, E.

Winston, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Harlech, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Berners, B.

Hogg, B.

Blaker, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burnham, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Liverpool, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eccles, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E

Orr-Ewing, L.

Finsberg, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

1114

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Seccombe, B.

Teviot, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trumpington, B

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wilcox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 260 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
261 Schedule 5, page 119, line 36, at end insert 'or Northern Ireland'.
262 Page 119, line 42, after 'documents)' insert 'or section 9 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 (the corresponding provision for Northern Ireland)'.
263 Page 123, line 27, 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).'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 to 263.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 to 263.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
264 After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
'SCHEDULE
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;

1115

(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
1116
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.—(t) 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,

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,

1117

(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.'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264.—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendment No. 264A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 264, not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 264 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
265 After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
'SCHEDULE
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 110(2);
"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 be 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 be 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
4. 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

1120

(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 be 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.

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—

(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

1122

(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 be 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.
(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

1123

(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 (1) 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 be 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—

(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

1124

(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 be 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.
(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 be 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
1126
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 (1) 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 I 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

1127

(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,

(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.—(l) 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

1129

(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 Tax 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

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

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265.—(Lord Inglewood.)
[Amendment No. 265A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 265, not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 265 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
266 Schedule 6, page 124, leave out lines 4 to 14.
267 Page 124, line 30, leave out 'to (7)'.
268 Page 124, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 125.
269 Page 125, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 126.
270 After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
'SCHEDULE
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 re-transmission 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(1A)(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—

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

1132

(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 II 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 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."'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 266 to 270.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 266 to 270.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
271 Schedule 7, page 126, line 38, after 'paragraph (b)' insert—'(i)"
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271. In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 272 and 274. These amendments relate to quality. Section 2 of the 1990 Act requires the ITC, inter alia, to ensure that, taken as a whole, the services that it licenses are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. Within that general remit, there are specific statutory arrangements spelling out the criteria to be applied in granting particular categories of licence. These take account of the very different circumstances of different licence categories.
The Bill is designed to give digital terrestrial services a fair opportunity to compete with cable and satellite. The regime applying to them is rightly more relaxed than that applying to the scarce analogue terrestrial frequencies, which still command the lion's share of national television audience. The general duties in the 1990 Act which I mentioned at the beginning will be applied by the Bill to the new digital programme services. This is what is secured by these amendments. Under the Bill the regulators will be free to take account of quality considerations in assessing just how likely a particular programme package proposed by a multiplex applicant is to appeal to viewers and listeners and thereby promote their take-up of digital receiving equipment. Similarly, quality considerations can be taken into account in considering as the market develops the acceptability of any licence variations relating to programming which a multiplex operator may propose. In the Government's view, this strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that the market can prosper and the need to allow the regulators to avoid any danger of a flood of low-quality or stale programming. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
272 Schedule 7, page 126, line 39, 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.'.
273 Page 127, line 7, 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 34(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1996)." '.
274 Page 127, line 27, at end insert 'digital sound programme'.
275 Page 127, line 33, 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 34(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996)".'.
276 Page 127, line 36, 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" '.

277 Page 127, line 49, at end insert—
'10A. In section 33 of the 1990 Act (conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence to deliver licensed service) in subsection (3) after "subsection (1)" there is inserted "or section 21A(3) or (4)".'.
278 Page 127, line 49, at end insert—
'10B.—(1) Section 43 of the 1990 Act (domestic and non-domestic satellite services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after "shall", where first occurring, there is inserted "subject to subsection (3A)".
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of this Part, any non-domestic satellite service which is composed by, and transmitted for, a BBC company, a Channel 4 company or an S4C company—

(a) shall be regarded as provided by that company and not by the relevant broadcasting body (even if the relevant broadcasting body is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service), and

(b) shall be regarded as provided from a place in the United Kingdom."

(4) At the end of subsection (4) there is inserted—
"relevant broadcasting body" means—

(a) in relation to a BBC company, the BBC,

(b) in relation to a Channel 4 company, the Channel Four Television Corporation, and

1136

(c) in relation to an S4C company, the Welsh Authority."'.

279 Page 128, line 2, after 'inserted' insert 'a multiplex service (as defined by section 1(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996),'.
280 Page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'13A.—(1) Section 84 of the 1990 Act (regulation by Radio Authority of independent radio services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after "shall", where first occurring, there is inserted "subject to subsection (3A)".
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of this Part, any satellite service which is composed by, and transmitted for, a BBC company, a Channel 4 company or an S4C company—

(a) shall be regarded as provided by that company and not by the relevant broadcasting body (even if the relevant broadcasting body is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service), and

(b) shall be regarded as provided from a place in the United Kingdom.

(3B) In subsection (3A) "relevant broadcasting body" means—

(a) in relation to a BBC company, the BBC,

(b) in relation to a Channel 4 company, the Channel Four Television Corporation, and

(c) in relation to an S4C company, the Welsh Authority."'.

281 Page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In section 188 of the 1990 Act (power to give broadcasting bodies etc. directions relating to international obligations), in subsection (2)(e), for "Broadcasting Standards Council" there is substituted "Broadcasting Standards Commission".'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 272 to 281. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 272 to 281.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
282 Schedule 7, page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In section 202(1) of the 1990 Act (interpretation)—
(a) 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);"

(b) in the definition of "connected", for "licence" there is substituted "person", and
(c) after the definition of "programme" there is inserted—
""an S4C company" means—

(a) any body corporate which is controlled by the Welsh Authority, or

1137

(b) any body corporate in which the Welsh Authority 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);"'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 282
282A Page 45, line 5, leave out ("in relation to his additional services licence").
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 282, and do propose the above consequential amendment to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 282, as amended by Amendment No. 282A.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
283 Schedule 7, page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the 1990 Act (persons disqualified for membership of the Independent Television Commission), for paragraphs (c) and (d) there is substituted—
"or
(c) a member or employee of the Broadcasting Standards Commission."'.
284 Page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1990 Act (persons disqualified for membership of the Channel Four Television Corporation), for paragraphs (d) and (e) there is substituted—
"or
(d) a member or employee of the Broadcasting Standards Commission."'.
285 Page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 6 to the 1990 Act (persons disqualified for membership of the Welsh Authority), for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is substituted—
"or
(b) a member or employee of the Broadcasting Standards Commission."'.
286 Page 128, line 9, at end insert—
'. In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 8 to the 1990 Act (persons disqualified for membership of the Radio Authority), for paragraphs (d) and (e) there is substituted—
"or
(d) a member or employee of the Broadcasting Standards Commission." '.
287 Page 128, line 22, at end insert—
'PART III
AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ENACTMENTS
The Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)
15. In section 19 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (the Agency and the media) in subsection (11)—

(a) in the definition of "the appropriate authority"—

(i) in paragraph (a), after "Act 1990" there is inserted "or Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996", and

(ii) in paragraph (b), for "that Act" there is substituted "the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996", and

1138

(b) in the definition of "relevant licence" for "(as the case may be) Part III of that Act" there is substituted "III of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part I or II of the Broadcasting Act 1996.")

The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
16. In section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent), in subsection (1)(i) after "Broadcasting Act 1990" there is inserted "or Part I or II of the Broadcasting Act 1996".
17. In section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (broadcasting during elections), in subsection (1), for the paragraphs (a) and (b) inserted by paragraph 35(4)(a) of Schedule 20 to the 1990 Act there is substituted—

"(i) broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, or

(ii) included in any service licensed under Part I or III of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part I or II of the Broadcasting Act 1996".

18. Without prejudice to the generality of section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any reference in paragraph 16 or 17 to a provision of the Representation of the People Act 1983 includes a reference to that provision as applied by any regulations made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
19. In section 69 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (recording for purposes of supervision and control of broadcasts and cable programmes), for subsections (2) and (3) there is substituted—
"(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done in pursuance of—

(a) section 11(1), 95(1) or 167(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or section 95(4) or (6), 96(5) or 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1996;

(b) a condition which, by virtue of section 11(2) or 95(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, is included in a licence granted under Part I or III of that Act or Part I or II of the Broadcasting Act 1996; or

(c) a direction given under section 109(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (power of Radio Authority to require production of recordings etc).

(3) Copyright is not infringed by—

(a) the use by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority, in connection with the performance of any of their functions under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or the Broadcasting Act 1996, of any recording, script or transcript which is provided to them under or by virtue of any provision of those Acts; or

(b) the use by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, in connection with any complaint made to them under the Broadcasting Act 1996, of any recording or transcript requested or required to be provided to them, and so provided, under section 95(4) or (6) or 96(5) of that Act."

20. In Schedule 2 to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (rights in performances: permitted acts), in paragraph 17 for sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) there is substituted—
"(2) The rights conferred by Part II are not infringed by anything done in pursuance of—

(a) section 11(1), 95(1) or 167(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or section 95(4) or (6), 96(5) or 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1996;

(b) a condition which, by virtue of section 11(2) or 95(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, is included in a licence granted under Part I or III of that Act or Part I or II of the Broadcasting Act 1996; or

1139

(c) a direction given under section 109(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (power of Radio Authority to require production of recordings etc).

(3) The rights conferred by Part II are not infringed by—

(a) the use by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority, in connection with the performance of any of their functions under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or the Broadcasting Act 1996, of any recording, script or transcript which is provided to them under or by virtue of any provision of those Acts; or

(b) the use by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, in connection with any complaint made to them under the Broadcasting Act 1996, of any recording or transcript requested or required to be provided to them, and so provided, under section 95(4) or (6) or 96(5) of that Act." '.

288 Schedule 8, page 128, line 24, at end insert—
'PART I
ENACTMENTS REPEALED'.
289 Page 128, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 32, in subsection (9), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, in subsection (10) the words from 'and for this purpose' onwards and in subsection (13)(a), the word "and".'
290 Page 128, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 72(2)(d), the word "and".'.
291 Page 129, line 1, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 104(5) and (6)(a).")
292 Page 129, line 9, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 1(4)' and insert—
'paragraphs 1(4) and 2(2) and (3)'.
293 Page 129, line 11, column 3, at end insert—
'and paragraph 5(c) and (d)'.
294 Page 129, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 20, paragraph 50.'
295 Page 129, line 13, at end insert—
'PART II
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION REVOKED

Number

Title

Extent of revocation

S.I. 1991/1176.

The Bro adcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991.

Article 2, and Parts II, III and IV.

S.I. 1991/1246.

The Cable (Excepted Programmes) Order 1991.

The whole order.

S.I. 1993/3199.

The Bro adcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993.

The whole order.

S.I. 1995/1924.

The Bro adcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1995.

The whole order.

296 In the Title, line 6, after 'interest' insert 'to amend in other respects the law relating to the provision of television and sound programme services'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 283 to 296. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 283 to 296.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
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, perhaps I may say at the outset that these amendments are the same as those we tabled on Report. We did not press them to a Division at that stage because we believed that it was important to give the Government and the Minister time to consider the arguments and the substance of the amendments in the hope that we might receive reassuring positive answers this evening. We shall be listening most attentively, because we want to be able to leave the Chamber reassured.
Clause 2 deals with what could be in danger of becoming—I hope that I am not unkind—a sort of "Dad's Army", with second class conditions of service but with potential for duties way beyond what is initially described. Anyone enlisting in that organisation should be wary of buying a pig in a poke. Nowhere is that better illustrated than by the fact that the homework does not yet seem to have been completed, even as to what will happen about pensions. If, for example, a regular soldier leaves the normal Army, with expectations of a certain pension, and enlists in this new-fangled organisation at a lower rate of pay, what will then happen to his pension, because of course he will be part of the Army in this new organisation?
I believe that it is fair to say that the proposal that we are considering in Clause 2 is more marked by the uncertainties which arise from it than from any certainties. The amendment is concerned with the military local service engagements for which the Government are preparing, and for the military provost guard service.
It is clear that if the Bill goes through in its present form, we shall have given the power to the Executive as to whether or not this new organisation is brought into existence. There can be no argument about that. Ministers may reassure us that they will come back and consult and enable us to have debates, but the Bill will entitle the Executive to make the decisions. The House should have no uncertainty about that. It is clear that that is what we are doing.
Therefore we are looking to the Minister tonight for convincing evidence that there will be no question of the Government proceeding if the pilot projects—as they have been described—give any grounds for anxiety about the scheme, and that there will be a chance for both Houses to express their views and to consider in some detail what has been experienced in the course of those pilot projects.
Perhaps I may be permitted briefly to mention some of the issues upon which we should be glad to have reassurance from the Minister this evening. First, what correspondence has he received from the Chief Constable of the MoD Police on the future viability of the reduced police force which will result from the new scheme? What was it that the Chief Constable had to say about it all?
Secondly, what will really be the basis for what the Government have described as this one-for-one replacement of present members of the MoD Police by members of the new MPGS? I ask that because the more I have gone into the matter, the clearer it becomes that, whatever the Minister may in good faith be saying, it is difficult to find any member of the MoD Police in the country who is doing guarding duties alone. Almost all of them are caught up in wider police activities. So just how is the calculation being made of what is one-for-one in terms of replacing guarding duties by members of this new organisation?
Next, Chilwell is one of the places that has been chosen for the experiment. But am I right in believing that Chilwell was chosen for the experiment before the
1142
decision was made and confirmed and the process under way for the Army Technical Services Agency to move into Chilwell, bringing with it 1,000 new civilian jobs, plus the civilian element of the Royal Engineers? In the new context of the reality of what Chilwell will become in those new situations, does it still make sense as a place in which to undertake a pilot project of that kind?
Then, what about the anxieties which exist about the whole issue of the remoteness of the mobile area MoD Police units, how long they will take to be on the spot if they are needed in support? How definite and firm are the arrangements with the local civilian police, should their support be needed in the short term? On that of course there are cost elements about which in a wider context the House should be concerned, because are we potentially shifting some of the responsibility for guaranteeing the policing of communities and the rest from what has been a de facto responsibility of the MoD Police onto the civilian police, so that we are putting responsibility for what had been defence tasks onto other elements of public expenditure?
Then there is the related issue about how the new MPGS will operate in the wider areas surrounding the bases. Only today I was involved in conversations which informed me that in the Nottingham area there is a great deal of anxiety about the matter. In communities which may not be largely defence-oriented we may see armed soldiers in Army vehicles touring civilian areas. Have local populations been prepared for that? What are the implications of it? Those are the kind of worries which we all have about the quality of life and about people's expectations on the mainland of the United Kingdom.
If the MPGS is drawn in to wider activities—I hazard a guess that sooner or later it will be drawn in one way or another—what will be the redress of the public if the public have complaints? I have raised that matter before, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. If the Ministry of Defence Police do something about which a member of the public wishes to complain, the Police Complaints Authority has jurisdiction over the MoD Police. However, the Police Complaints Authority will not have jurisdiction over the members of the MPGS. We need to have firm assurances from the Minister about that.
In the Minister's courteous way, he and his officials have been at pains to have meetings to try to explain the issues. I am grateful for that. Tonight it is important that the noble Earl tries to get convincing answers on the record in this Chamber. However well-intentioned was his full letter to me of a few days ago about some of the matters raised, I must give him notice that among some of those immediately concerned the letter raised more anxieties than it provided answers. I believe that during the course of the pilot projects and so forth he will hear a good deal more about some of the points made in the letter. What he believes to be the situation on the ground is not how it is seen by those immediately involved. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have been over much of

1143
the ground before and I shall content myself by asking a single simple question. Will the Minister assure the House that he will not give a go-ahead to other pilot schemes before the existing pilot schemes have been completed and properly assessed? I ask the Minister for that simple assurance, which I am sure he can give me.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, questioned the Minister about the wider duties of the MPGS. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that during our debate on the Defence Estimates last Friday I asked him whether the MPGS would be used for patrolling against mortar baseplate locations. I hope that he can give a definite answer to that question which is causing a great deal of concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred also to the plans to move ATSA to Chilwell. He raised an important point. Perhaps the Minister should look at a more suitable location or a trial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, on Report I congratulated the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, on their persistence in relation to Clause 2. They posed a formidable number of questions during our debate that evening. I answered a few of them then and I hope that the letters which I subsequently sent to the noble Lords reassured them on at least some of their other concerns. However, I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about my letter having raised further concerns beyond those which I was trying to cover. I recognise that it will be helpful today to place on the record the Government's position on some of those issues and I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a few minutes in doing so.
At the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed concern about whether we were intending to embark on a genuine pilot scheme or whether, once Clause 2 and the enabling regulations for military local service engagements had been enacted, the move to introduce the full Military Provost Guard Service scheme would be a fait accompli. He has repeated that worry tonight. I can assure your Lordships that the pilot scheme will be precisely that—and no more. The Army and the Government would have no interest in introducing the full MPGS scheme if the pilot scheme had proved to be a failure.
The undertakings which have been given to report to this House and to the Select Committee on Defence on the outcome of the pilot scheme bear repetition. I can also reassure noble Lords that there will be full consultation on the outcome of the pilot scheme before a decision is taken to proceed with the main scheme.
I was asked on Report whether I had seen a paper by the Defence Police Federation proposing what it considers to be the most cost-effective arrangements for the MPGS pilot scheme. I have only just seen a copy of that paper and have not had time to consider it fully. Indeed, I understand that the paper had not been completed when we had our last debate, so perhaps I
1144
should be congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the quality of his inside information. I shall undertake to study it with due care.
However, in essence, the federation's paper contains two proposals. The first is that the introduction of MPGS and the withdrawal of Ministry of Defence Police from the pilot scheme sites should be phased, and that the MPGS should be monitored by some authority with specialist knowledge. The second is that Chilwell is an inappropriate site for the pilot scheme and that the Defence Animal Centre at Melton Mowbray would be a better choice.
One of the DPF's arguments for phasing the pilot scheme is that it would avoid the loss of 50 MDP officers through voluntary early retirement or voluntary early severance. However, as the consultative document issued on 29th May makes clear, we do not anticipate that any MDP voluntary early retirement or severance will be required as a result of either the pilot scheme or the main scheme. All MDP job losses resulting from the conversion of posts to MPGS should be covered by natural wastage.
In any case, to have members of both the Ministry of Defence Police and the Military Provost Guard Service simultaneously undertaking armed guarding duties at pilot scheme sites would not provide a sound basis for assessing the effectiveness of the MPGS. For such an assessment, the MPGS needs to take over the full guarding task at the pilot scheme sites from the outset.
As for the need for the pilot scheme to be monitored by a body with specialist knowledge, the Commander in Chief Land Command, who will be monitoring the scheme, meets this requirement precisely. He has overall responsibility for the guarding and security of Army establishments and has the necessary specialist staff to ensure that the Army's security requirements are met.
As I have already said, the Army has no interest in using the MPGS if it proves not to meet the requirement, and I can assure your Lordships that there is no question of our being anything other than open in reporting on the outcome of the pilot scheme.
As for the Defence Police Federation's suggestion that the Defence Animal Centre at Melton Mowbray would be a better pilot scheme site than Chilwell, I am afraid that we cannot agree with this. Melton Mowbray is guarded by full engagement regular soldiers and MoD Guard Service personnel, not MDP officers. MoD Guard Service guards cost a great deal less than MDP officers and there is no general financial or other case for using MPGS soldiers to replace them on unarmed guarding duties. The full engagement regular soldiers undertaking guarding at Melton Mowbray are complemented for other duties for which they would still be needed if the MPGS took over their guarding tasks.
In its paper, the federation continues to assert that the MDP at Chilwell fulfil a policing role. I assure your Lordships that the review at Chilwell has confirmed that MDP officers there are complemented for armed guarding duties. The civil constabulary requirement there is limited and can be met by an area policing team. Indeed, I am happy to be able to report that it has been agreed that an area policing team should be based at

1145
Chilwell. I should add that we are, of course, ready to listen to the arguments of the DPS on whether any of the posts at Chilwell are required for policing. Indeed, I repeat the assurance that I gave that that paper will be given full attention.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is concerned about the ability of area police teams to cope with the demands which may be placed on them given the size of the areas which they will cover. It is worth noting that most defence establishments currently do not have an MDP presence and that at many establishments civil police requirements are met by the Home Department police. It is envisaged that the creation of area police teams will give the chief constable of the MDP more flexibility to provide a civil policing service throughout the department where required than has been possible hitherto.
Concern was expressed on Report that MPGS soldiers would get drawn into dealing with situations which required constabulary powers. Their position will be no different from that of full engagement regular soldiers, or indeed of members of the civilian MoD Guard Service, who detect incidents that require a police presence; that is, they will have to seek the assistance of a police officer. I should add that complaints by the public against members of the MPGS will be treated in exactly the same way as complaints against other service personnel, many of whom have of course long been engaged on armed guarding at the perimeters at service establishments. They will be investigated fully by the relevant service authorities. As now, members of the public will also have the right, depending on the nature of a complaint, to pursue it through the courts.
A further point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, concerns the pension arrangements for MPGS personnel. MPGS soldiers will be offered membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Some detailed aspects of the application of the rules of the scheme need clarification and approval. However, we anticipate that former full engagement regulars will be able to carry forward into their new local service engagements any preserved pension earned in their previous service. I understand the importance of trying to ensure that we get this right and that we do not have pension arrangements which act as a disincentive to would-be recruits.
Concerns were also expressed on Report about MPGS initial training. The intention is that all those recruited directly from the services would undergo a four to six-day selection and induction course. We believe that most of them would have sufficient experience as military guards not to need further training. However, if the selection and induction course showed that further training was required, it would be provided. If necessary, the soldiers concerned would attend the whole of the MoD Guard Service course at Wethersfield and have additional firearms training. We will not cut corners over this.
It is of course true that if more ex-full engagement regulars required full training than we currently expect, training costs would increase above the level assumed
1146
in the investment appraisal. The effect would, however, be relatively minor. The break-even year would be unchanged.
Even if many more than 5 per cent. of the MPGS had to be recruited directly from civilian life, it would still not raise costs sufficiently to undermine the financial viability of the scheme. The break-even year would then be deferred by a year, to 2001–2002. However, we do not believe that this will happen, as we believe that the MPGS will attract sufficient ex-full engagement regulars to meet its needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about reserve commitments. I can confirm that MPGS soldiers will not incur any additional reserve liability from their MPGS service, whether they are ex-full engagement regulars or join directly from civilian life. Reserve liability resulting from previous regular service will run concurrently with MPGS employment. We see the task of MPGS soldiers in war as being to continue to guard their respective establishments; and they would therefore be put to the bottom of the list in the unlikely event that it became necessary to mobilise all ex-regular service personnel. This arrangement will have no significant effect on the Army's reserve capability.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred this evening to armed military patrols off-base. If such patrols occur, they can take place only with the approval of the local chief constable. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that there is a safeguard there. It is not something which will happen as a regular routine matter.
The noble Lord asked me also about what correspondence I had had from the chief constable of the MDP about our proposals. The chief constable has been party to our discussions on the MPGS scheme and he has expressed confidence in the future viability of the MDP. Once again I refer the noble Lord to the assurances which I gave at previous stages of the Bill about our firm wish to see the MDP remain as the viable and essential force that it is today.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred specifically to Chilwell. The MPGS will be there to protect service personnel at Chetwynd Barracks. Policing will be undertaken by the MDP area policing team, as I have said already.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me about patrols off-base. I apologise to him for not answering his question last Friday due to the time constraints. MPGS soldiers, like any other soldiers, will undertake general security patrols off-base as required by the unit's commanding officer. There is close co-operation with the local police in relation to security arrangements for the protection of defence property and personnel. Any armed patrolling by service personnel off-base takes place only if authorised specifically by the local chief constable. I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to go into further details in what is, as I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate, a sensitive area.
I shall attempt to sum up the underlying concerns—these appear to be that the pilot scheme might not be conducted properly; or that Parliament might not have a proper opportunity to assess its outcome before that main scheme was introduced.

1147
I think that the first of these concerns is somewhat unfair to the Army; and to the Commander-in-Chief Land Command, who would be responsible for ensuring that a full, fair and comprehensive report was made. It would certainly be in the Army's interest to evaluate the pilot scheme properly, since it is Army personnel and property that the MPGS will be protecting. I have no doubts at all that they can be relied upon to do so. However, to make assurance doubly sure, my honourable friend Nicholas Soames and I personally intend to monitor the progress of the pilot scheme very closely. This will include receiving a full interim report at the end of the first year, which we could make available to Parliament, if it was considered that it would be useful to do so.
As to the second of those concerns, I am not sure what more I can say to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the other proposers of this amendment. My honourable friend Nicholas Soames has promised a report on the outcome of the pilot scheme to the Select Committee on Defence and I have promised a report to this House. I have no doubt that those reports will be very thoroughly scrutinised; and that any problems or difficulties would be fully exposed.
However, we fully recognise the concerns which have been expressed here and in the other place. We equally recognise the need to take Parliament with us. If it was the wish of the House to debate the matter between the issue of the report on the outcome of the pilot scheme and beginning work to get a main scheme underway, that would of course be something we could discuss at the time.
If it would offer any further reassurance to noble Lords, I can tell them that I believe that a government might be open to the charge of having acted rashly, were they to choose to proceed with the main scheme in circumstances where Parliament had clearly demonstrated that it was unconvinced that it was right to do so. I imagine that the noble Lords might agree with that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to give me the very simple reassurance that I asked for. I am sure that he will be able to do so. Can he confirm that no further pilot schemes will be started before all the monitorings and assessments of the scheme are carried out?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I tried to cover that point in my response. It is unthinkable that any further pilot schemes should be commenced—or, indeed the main scheme commenced—if the pilot scheme had not been fully evaluated and found to have been a success.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, make the observation that I always appreciate the optimism of the noble Earl that it will in fact fall to him and his honourable friend Mr. Soames to make the evaluation in a year's time. Of course, it will be those of us who find ourselves on this side of the House this evening who will be making that evaluation. Nevertheless, we
1148
listened carefully to the responsibilities which the Minister has placed upon us. No doubt we shall do our best to discharge them to the full.
I turn now to the very firm assurances which the Minister has given this evening, which we take most seriously. First, he said that there will be no question of proceeding if the pilot scheme is a failure. That, of course, is reassuring. Secondly, he said that there will be full consultation with all involved; that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter, and that Parliament's views will be taken into account. In the light of such assurances I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
However, I wish to make the following observation. I believe that there is a constitutional issue at stake. It is not satisfactory that what is in fact happening is that we are giving the Executive a go-ahead on a scheme because, in the end, it will be the Executive who consults and the Executive who makes the decision. We are doing so before we have available to us the outcome of the pilot studies. As I said, that is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Minister is a man of great good faith; indeed, I am sure that no one in the House doubts that fact. We take what the Minister said seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 21 [Sex discrimination: Great Britain]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
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) Nothwithstanding 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 the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 17. The amendments deal with those clauses in the Bill which cover issues of racial and sexual discrimination, grievances concerning equal pay, employment rights and industrial relations matters. The purpose of the amendments is to enable those with a complaint or grievance to go straight to a tribunal and not to make their access to a tribunal dependent upon first pursuing a complaint internally, which is what the Bill proposes.
In moving the amendment, perhaps I may re-emphasise—as, indeed, I did on Report—that there is no question but that we on this side of the House strongly favour the internal procedures. That is the way that you build a strong organisation. In that way an organisation can learn from its experiences. It is also a way to keep high morale; indeed, our amendments recognise that. However, what we do not understand is the Government's insistence on keeping the services special in terms of the right to go direct to a tribunal. If that right exists, it is a guarantee of the quality of the internal arrangements.
In my view, if the internal arrangements are working well, there is virtually no chance that anyone will want to go to a tribunal directly because those with a grievance or complaint will have confidence and would much prefer to see the matter settled internally rather than face the hassle and doubts about the future which would inevitably arise if the matter were dealt with outside. We believe that that is an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap on the future of the services. It will be good to hear tonight what the Minister has to say on the matter.
Perhaps I may briefly mention four specifics. First, in the Bill as proposed, we see a retreat on the provisions as they have so far operated in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. Under those provisions it has been possible for someone to go straight to a tribunal. In the interests of consistency—and, of course, we see the importance of consistency—the Government are moving back from that position. That seems to us to constitute a loss. We believe that to be a pity.
Secondly, there remains the issue of the need to pursue up through the chain of command a complaint or grievance should it arise. The armed services have all the formality of a big organisation and that, inevitably, could be very intimidating for the person concerned. It also has the potential disadvantage that if it were decided at a later stage to take the matter to a tribunal, having first gone through the internal procedures, some of those with whom the complainant may have been pursuing the case could then become witnesses for the services. That seems to us to be a problem.
I suspect—indeed, I believe that I know—that the Minister will tell us tonight that there will be provision for other officers to move in so that, if there were a complaint about the particular officer, that officer would not be hearing a complaint against himself. But that does not deal with the issue of what happens if there is a general culture in a particular part of the armed services which is giving rise to concern. If there is a general cultural problem in a particular area, it seems to me that that right to be able to go to a tribunal becomes most important.
Then there is the issue of the oral hearing. I believe that the Minister misunderstood our case at an earlier stage, but I believe that he came to appreciate the grounds upon which we were arguing on Report. The important point about an oral hearing is that it enables the complainant, the person with the grievance, to hear the evidence against him and to cross-examine those concerned. Anything that the Minister can say on that subject will be most helpful.
Finally, I should like to make one point. I do so in the context of one who has become quite convinced that the services are taking extremely seriously the whole issue of racial discrimination; the need to tackle it and root it out. At this Third Reading stage, I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I believe that the handbook produced by the Adjutant General is a model; indeed, it is superb when one sees military language being employed to spell out what should be decent behaviour. It somehow puts all the
1150
academics and others into perspective. It is very clear and uncompromising language. All concerned, especially the Adjutant General, should be commended.
However, we know that there have been problems. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will realise that there is no room for complacency. The services are working to get it right. They are working with the Commission for Racial Equality, which thinks very highly of the endeavours that the services are making. I believe that we should look again just briefly, as we did in Committee, at the work being done at Glasgow University by Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford. The Minister will recall his research has revealed that, of the 103 service personnel who reported to him in his survey that they had been victims of racial discrimination, only 14 sought redress through official channels. Colonel Crawford himself comments, and I quote:
"This shows quite simply that the army's grievance procedure is not working".
We have to take that point very seriously, hence the background to our amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have heard the argument before and it is a good one. But I would like to introduce a consideration which perhaps the Minister finds a little difficult to introduce, and it is this.
Sometimes the course of action taken by soldiers is not perhaps the wisest one. I fear that, if they are able to complain outside the services' chain of command, there may be a danger that they will rush off and make a complaint. The organisation to which they have complained would then be able to accept that complaint and act on it. The whole matter could snowball out of all proportion. If a soldier has to go through the internal procedures for what may be a minor issue, the matter could perhaps be sorted out by an apology without the need to involve outside agencies.
I would also like to touch on the comments made by the noble Lord on race. It is a very important matter. He said that there were not many complaints under the redress of complaints procedure, and I am not surprised. The answer, therefore, for the services is actually to get rid of race discrimination themselves so that there is no need to go for redress of complaint.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has rightly indicated, Clauses 21 to 27 of the Bill essentially make provision for servicemen and women to submit complaints on certain matters to industrial tribunals. They also include a requirement for them to use the services' internal redress of complaint procedures before they may make application to the tribunal. The clauses ensure that, whatever the statutory basis for the complaint, the arrangements for access to tribunals will be on a consistent basis. The proposed amendments to Clauses 21 to 27 would remove the requirement for prior use of the internal service procedures.

1151
I have given further careful thought to the arguments which were put forward in Committee, and again at Report stage, which questioned the need for the mandatory prior use of the internal procedures.
I very much welcomed the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there was no dispute between us over the importance of these internal procedures for considering complaints. As he rightly added, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality also believe strongly that their use should be encouraged. I know that from my own dealings with those bodies. It is also perhaps worth noting here that the equal treatment directive refers to a right to pursue claims by judicial process,
"after possible recourse to other competent authorities".
However, there does seem to remain some misunderstanding about the internal procedures and, in particular, about the question of oral hearings.
I should start by saying that the internal procedures do not attempt to match the industrial tribunal procedures. The two systems serve quite different purposes. Industrial tribunals are a means of satisfying the requirement, under EU law, for an independent and judicial remedy in the event of complaints on such matters as equal treatment. The vast majority of complaints considered under the services' internal redress procedures are not such as to require this type of external scrutiny. However, for those that do, such as those concerning discrimination, the industrial tribunal hearing will now be available if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision under the internal system.
The internal redress system serves quite a different purpose. It is there to investigate complaints and to provide, where possible, a swift resolution. It is, essentially, a management tool, designed to help both managed and the manager. Generally speaking, therefore, it would not be appropriate to make a requirement for formal oral hearings to be a part of such a system. We have to be wary of making the procedure so full of formal stages as to be off-putting to would-be complainants.
Nevertheless, the internal system does provide for oral hearings if the case reaches the appropriate service board. It would simply not be practicable to have oral hearings at every stage of its progress through the chain of command. During such hearings the complainant will be able to question witnesses. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was actually mistaken when he said during the debate on Report that that was not possible.
Once a complaint has reached the service board, the board must, in every case, decide whether an oral hearing would be appropriate and any request for a hearing made by the complainant would naturally be considered very carefully. The board will be fully aware that a subsequent industrial tribunal hearing will be able to question any decision not to hold a hearing and that, moreover, a complaint about the way a case has been handled internally can itself be added to the grounds of application to a tribunal.
If an oral hearing is held, the complainant must be given the opportunity to question any witnesses called. He or she will already have received copies of all the
1152
evidence which has been submitted to the board. Thus, board members and the complainant will be in exactly the same position.
This is, of course, as it should be. The board is seeking to establish the facts of the case and to provide a remedy if it finds that a wrong has occurred. The board does not constitute, as it were, "the other side" in a dispute with the complainant. The services' system is not adversarial. The purpose in calling witnesses is to clarify any points which are not sufficiently clear from the written evidence.
I should also reply to another point which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised on Report. He said that it was unfair to expect a complainant to argue his case through the chain of command when any of those who dealt with it might be called as witnesses at a subsequent tribunal hearing. In fact, I think that the only circumstances in which something like this could happen would be if a complainant added to the tribunal application a complaint about the way the original complaint had been handled. However, that is unavoidable for any employer.
It might be helpful if I explain that Clause 20 amends the Service Discipline Acts to ensure that complaints will in future be made to "such officer as may be prescribed" in Queen's Regulations. Currently all complaints must be made to the commanding officer even if he is the subject of the complaint.
The regulations will provide for complaints about a commanding officer, or anyone else in the command chain, to be made to a different officer and will, of course, make clear that any officer with any involvement in the complaint should not be invited to consider it at any stage. We shall, of course, make the regulations as flexible as possible to ensure that sensible and pragmatic solutions can be made to suit the circumstances of individual cases. I hope that that takes care of the particular point raised by the noble Lord, to which he could not see a solution.
I very much hope that I have been able to clear up any remaining misunderstandings. I do assure the noble Lords opposite that our aim in including these provisions in the Bill is not to make life more difficult for servicemen and women. Quite the contrary, in fact. We wish to ensure that service personnel have immediate access to a procedure which will investigate any complaint thoroughly and with despatch. I was very much in tune with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in that regard.
We are conscious that the demands made on service personnel are very different from those made on the vast majority of employees. The services themselves feel very strongly that the concomitant need for absolute loyalty and trust makes it essential that the redress of complaint system is used in all cases and should not be able to be bypassed in some instances. I stress again that no serviceman or woman will be denied the right to put an eligible case to an industrial tribunal. They are simply being required to use their own internal redress system first.

1153
I accept that for sex discrimination cases there will no longer be a right for cases to be taken direct to industrial tribunals. However, as I have explained in previous debates, it was never the intention that this should be a permanent arrangement. This Bill has presented the first appropriate legislative opportunity to bring the Sex Discrimination Act into line with the provisions for prior use of the internal system first introduced in 1993 by amendment to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
For race discrimination cases, of course, we are introducing a new right of access to industrial tribunals. Having said all that, however, it has become clear during the course of our debates that there is perhaps a need for information on such questions as oral hearings and the opportunity for complainants to question witnesses to be disseminated more widely. Each of the services already has procedures for regularly drawing the attention of all personnel to the detailed Queen's Regulations on the use of the redress of complaint procedures. However, I believe that these could usefully be supplemented by information on the guidelines followed by the chain of command and the service boards in dealing with individual complaints. This will include advice that, although the decision as to whether an oral hearing is to be held is for the service board, complainants may submit a request for one if their complaint reaches that level. We will be taking steps to include such information both in the "permanent" regulations such as the Queen's Regulations, and in the services' equal opportunity directives and the pamphlets issued to individual service personnel—the Army version of which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has, to our great pleasure, kindly commended in his remarks this evening and in previous debates.
As I have already mentioned, the services place great importance on their statutory redress of complaint system and on the system being used in all cases. Its value would, I strongly suggest, be undermined if it could be bypassed in some cases. I therefore put it to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that, if there are problems with the internal procedures—and there may well be in individual cases—then the best approach is to seek to improve these, by in any event keeping the procedures under review as part of our normal business; by addressing specific concerns and criticisms; and by ensuring that the detail of the procedures is more widely known through the services, as I have already indicated we intend to do. I would suggest to your Lordships that this will be a more productive approach than adopting these amendments, which imply the acceptance of a number of criticisms of the internal system, and suggest that the only remedy is to bypass that system rather than to seek improvements to it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, first I must say that of course we appreciate the considerate response given by the noble Earl. What he had to say about the increased amount of information on procedures is encouraging. However, I found the candid observations of the noble
1154
Earl, Lord Attlee, rather worrying. If there is a likelihood that soldiers will rush off to an independent tribunal if they have the possibility to do so, that seems to suggest there is something wrong as regards the team spirit, cohesion and the rest that is so important to the Army. I do not think we can have it both ways. If the team spirit and the cohesion are working well, a soldier will not rush off to an independent tribunal. To have the right to go to a tribunal is the guarantee that the team spirit is working well. If that is not the case, soldiers will rush off to such a tribunal. There is a certain illogicality in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which bears consideration.
I have held the Queen's Commission myself and I have been a service Minister. Therefore I know what is being talked of here and it is important to the ethos of the services. Sometimes people say that the services are unique. However, I do not think that argument is completely credible in a modern society. I refer to the flight deck of a civilian airliner and other demanding situations in civilian life. I refer to people in the fire service and the new hazards that sometimes arise when coping with disasters that occur in urban areas and elsewhere. I believe that some of the principles we are discussing apply to those situations too. To argue that there is something particularly special about the services is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain convincingly in the context of certain situations.
I note what the Minister said about oral hearings. That was encouraging, but I am sure he will agree that he indicated it was not a right but a possibility. We should all be clear about that. In terms of what I was discussing a moment ago; namely, the need for cohesion and the importance of having an ethos and a team spirit in the services, if another officer is to step in and hear a complaint about a commanding officer or someone else I suspect that might be difficult for people in the armed services to handle. The situation could be defused by having an independent body look objectively at the situation. In that way the embarrassment of confronting officer to officer relationships within the services would be avoided.
Therefore I believe there are still some issues at which we need to work. Before I conclude I return briefly to the research of Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford. The work he has undertaken is of tremendous importance. I quote from his research where he posed the following question:
"'Having been a victim of racial discrimination, why did you not seek official redress?' The answers to this question show why the Army's grievance procedure is not working. Respondents could identify more than one reason if appropriate, and therefore absolute numbers do not match the 89 individuals who said they had taken no action. Forty individuals … said that they did not complain because they believed such a step might adversely affect their careers. Twenty-seven … thought they would not be taken seriously; 23 … feared increased discrimination; while 20 … did not complain".—[Official Report, 18/6/96; cols. CWH35–36.]
as the person to whom they would have to make representations was involved in the discrimination against them. That illustrates the size of the problem.
However, I am greatly encouraged by the seriousness with which the Army, the Ministry of Defence and Ministers are treating this issue. I am convinced that

1155
they want to see racial discrimination rooted out in the armed services. I believe that what is now proposed is definitely a move in the right direction. More may have to be done at a later stage, but it is a move in the right direction. Far from falling into that awful trap of saying, "The bottle is still half empty" I want tonight to say, "The bottle is apparently at least half full, and let us fill it" in terms of adopting the right approach. It would be unfortunate to pursue any kind of negative stance this evening. I wish therefore to finish on an encouraging note.
I am sure there is a great deal of agreement between both sides on this matter. The armed services are there to protect what will be for all time a multi-racial society in Britain. Therefore the more the armed services can reflect that multi-racial society and—if I may digress slightly—the more the Houses of Parliament come to reflect that multi-racial society in all manifestations; namely, MPs, Peers, officials and others, the stronger our society will be. However, that is another issue.
It is important that that should occur in the armed services. I believe the armed services are determined to move in that direction. I commend them. I hope the noble Earl will forgive my having just emphasised some of the handicaps and difficulties which I believe may still have to be tackled. I wish the armed services well in what they are trying to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Sex discrimination: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Racial discrimination]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Equal treatment: Great Britain]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Equal treatment: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Other complaints: Great Britain]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Other complaints: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Greenwich Hospital]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 18:
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, Amendment No. 18 is an issue that we have debated at various stages of the Bill. It is encouraging to see in Clause 30 that the Secretary of State is to:
"have regard to … 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 … the desirability of securing reasonable public access to the land (and in particular to the historic buildings and monuments on the land); and … the desirability of preventing any use of the land appearing to him to be out of keeping with its unique character and history".
1156
Of course it is reassuring to see those words. There had been anxiety that the Minister may be tempted into believing that the only thing that mattered was to maximise the financial return on the handling of the land. It is therefore good to see that provision. The worry is how far the rest of the clause which follows actually delivers the right outcome in terms of the matters to which the Secretary of State will have had regard.
I am aware of all the problems. I am aware for instance, that we may be moving into the realms of a hybrid Bill—God forbid! a terrible parliamentary sin—or something of that kind and that we must be wary. However, although it is good to see the aspirations, it is whether they are acted upon effectively that matters. Anything that the noble Earl can say this evening to reassure us will be welcome. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I understand the concerns that have led the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to table this amendment. I am sure that the whole of your Lordships' House shares his anxiety that the future of Greenwich, that magnificent site, should be protected as far as the law can allow.
The present Government are determined to establish a worthy future for the site. I can understand the anxiety that there is no guarantee that governments in the future will always share such worthy intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it clear on Report that he was not wedded to any specific words and urged the Government to find an amendment which would reflect his concerns.
It would be difficult for me to over-emphasise the amount of concern and effort which has gone into framing Clause 30. I suspect that Ministers and officials have explored every avenue that the noble Lord considered—and probably more beside.
Your Lordships will recall that in another place the Government tabled a series of amendments, notably the present subsection (2). That was designed to ensure that the anxieties about the future use of the Royal Naval College, expressed by Parliament and elsewhere, were given prominence in the legislation and that the Secretary of State for Defence (as trustee for the charity Greenwich Hospital, for whose benefit he holds the Royal Naval College), would be empowered to take account of wider interests.
The legislation as now framed would place an obligation on a future Defence Secretary to have regard to the considerations of heritage and access as defined in subsection (2). It does not allow a future Defence Secretary to treat those considerations as some optional extra. If he failed to have regard to them, he would be open to challenge by way of judicial review.
The wording of Clause 30 also makes it clear that the considerations in subsection (2) must be borne in mind in all decisions relating to those buildings—and not just in decisions relating to a lease under subsection (3) which is the only decision to which the noble Lord's amendment relates.

1157
Amendment No. 18 seeks to require a future Defence Secretary not simply to have due regard to those considerations, but to make them into considerations to be fulfilled. The desire to prescribe the future of those fine buildings is wholly understandable. However, as a result of our own search for wording for this clause, we had to reject that objective. Not only could such conditions make the legislation potentially inimical to the private interests of the charity, Greenwich Hospital, but they could also work against the best interests of the Royal Naval College. They could make the legislation unworkable.
Decisions on the future of the site could well involve a future Defence Secretary having to balance a complex series of interests in circumstances which cannot now be anticipated. Those interests may not always be compatible. It is not impossible to envisage circumstances where the differing considerations in subsection (2) may not be compatible. Venerable buildings can pose difficult choices between, for example, occupancy (which may be regarded as unworthy in some way) and being left empty, with the risk to the fabric that that might pose. Likewise, preservation is not always compatible with public access.
I am not wishing to suggest that there are problems now in meeting the considerations in subsection (2). But we are passing legislation which will govern the site until Parliament chooses to change it—and that could be a long time. The present form of the clause recognises that future decisions could require difficult balances to be struck. It requires that the Secretary of State must take account of specified key issues, but it avoids tying the hand of the Secretary of State in a way which could make the process of finding the best solution for the site even more difficult.
I have tried in these few words to address the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, as the noble Lord asked me to do, and not the precise letter. I hope that he will understand that in framing Clause 30 as a whole we have had regard to precisely the interest which motivated his amendment; namely, the best interests of the Royal Naval College, together with those of Greenwich Hospital, which I am sure it was not his intention to disadvantage.
I hope that that response is helpful. I hope that it will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Even more, I hope that we shall find a satisfactory solution to the occupancy of Greenwich Hospital that will command the approval of your Lordships' House and the wider public.
Lord Judd: My Lords, given the very firm statements made by the noble Earl, I am reassured about his intentions whatever the reservations about how far the situation is totally buttoned up. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
1158
Our discussions on this year's Armed Forces Bill have covered some ground that will be familiar to those who, over the years, have followed the debates which accompany the five-yearly review of service legislation. In Committee we had a full debate on the death penalty in the Armed Forces which gave us all cause to reflect on that most sombre of issues. We also touched on racial and sex discrimination—areas where the services have made significant progress in the past few years. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence is the first to acknowledge that there is no room for complacency.
Much of our time has been spent debating issues which are particular to this Armed Forces Bill. I have in mind, of course, parts of the Bill such as those to which we have returned again this evening—providing for local service and for the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. I believe that we can fairly say that we have covered those subjects exhaustively—I was tempted to say "exhaustingly".
Without going over the ground again, I hope that our discussions have done something to reassure those who had anxieties and worries that they were perhaps misplaced. Debates in this House can be invaluable in teasing out the real areas of concern about any issues and in then giving us the opportunity to see whether we can allay those concerns. I understand perfectly a number of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
When we had our Second Reading debate a few weeks ago, I described the court martial reforms which we proposed as the centrepiece of the Bill. That appears to have had the effect of concentrating your Lordships' interest on other parts of the Bill! However, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the generous welcome which the reforms have received from all parts of the House. They represent a major step forward in the administration of service discipline.
Whatever else these five-yearly Bills may address—and this year's Bill is perhaps more wide-ranging than most—much of the focus will always be on the search for improvements in the system of discipline in the Armed Forces. Very often it will be simply a question of, at most, a little fine tuning. This year, as your Lordships are aware, the changes have been on a rather larger scale than that.
The objective though will always be the same: to strike that essential but difficult balance between preserving a discipline system which is actually fit for the purpose of maintaining discipline and safeguarding the rights of the men and women who are subject to that system. We are confident that the arrangements for discipline which will result from the passage of this Bill will strike that balance in a way which accords with the expectations both of today's service men and service women and of the society from which they are recruited.
Before concluding, I wish to express my appreciation of the contributions which many noble Lords have made to our debates on the Bill. I cannot mention them all but it is right that I should extend my particular gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Mayhew, Lord

1159
Redesdale, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. They have all enriched our discussions on the Bill and I appreciate the constructive way in which they approached often difficult subjects. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken have done us a service. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is with diffidence that I rise to respond to the Motion because my attention has not been wholly concentrated on the Bill. It has been diverted elsewhere in your Lordships' House, as has the noble Earl's attention from time to time.
At Second Reading I expressed our general support for the Bill. It would be wrong for me to withdraw that support. Some difficult issues had to be teased out in the course of debate: the Ministry of Defence Police and the future, the tribunal provisions, the courts martial, the Greenwich problem. I hope that my contribution at Second Reading on the issue of homosexuality was helpful to the Government, despite certain remarks made last Friday by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, from the Liberal Democrat Benches which he subsequently withdrew.
I can only reiterate our support for the Bill and for the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are the Armed Forces of the Crown and not the property of any government. I can assure the noble Earl that in a year or so, when we switch places, we will continue to give the Armed Forces of the Crown the support that we believe the noble Earl has given them. In that spirit, I wish the Bill well and hope that, in whatever theatre they may serve, the Armed Forces will continue to receive the support of governments of whatever party and of your Lordships' House. I am sure that they will.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Earl quite rightly said that compared with preceding Bills this one is important. I agree. It is also a liberal Bill in its balance, especially in the courts martial reforms, which we discussed very little. It is a liberal Bill. That is the highest possible praise that a Bill can be given.
However, it is disappointing that the Third Reading should begin late on a Thursday evening and that the Committee stage should take place below stairs in the Moses Room. I also recall that the estimates debate was on a Friday morning. I must warn the Government that if they are not careful Parliament may resist the trend towards devaluing debates on defence that we have in the House. That may have happened in the opposition to the Bill in that we have not given the Government the benefit of the doubt on certain points: for example, the coming into operation of the pilot scheme. It is also true in the use of the usual channels. We have not given the Government the benefit of the doubt, and part of the reason is that the Government have not been generous to the House in their allocation of time and opportunity.
Nevertheless, we thank the noble Earl. He has taken infinite trouble in replying to our questions, not only courteously but in thorough detail. He never raises his voice in debate, and that is a great point, especially to those of us who come from the other place. If we have
1160
spent years there, it is a great relief to listen to a Minister who does not raise his voice. It is much appreciated. I also wish to thank him because, following the debate on the death penalty in Committee, he wrote to me saying that he proposed to set up an inquiry on issues surrounding the death penalty. It was a long and cautious letter which dealt at length with the statement by Mr. Archie Hamilton that the death penalty would never be imposed in time of peace. I was much encouraged by the noble Earl's statement that:
"These matters will be looked at with an open mind and with no predetermined agenda … I hope you will consider the prospect of a fresh examination of the issues to be a positive development".
I take that to mean that it will be a fairly wide-ranging inquiry. I am glad that the Minister apparently agrees with me. It should have been done long ago. It is 50 years since the death sentence was invoked and it is a remarkable anachronism. I hope that the inquiry will ask pertinent questions.
It is hard to believe that the penalty will ever be used and that is a major point which the inquiry needs to consider. Not only is the number of offences for which it can be imposed limited, but also the offence must be committed with intent to help the enemy. Again, that makes its use unlikely. It is possible, though difficult, to imagine someone in our new volunteer professional Army being guilty of mutiny, but that would not lead to the imposition of the death penalty. It has to be mutiny at a time of war with intent to assist the enemy.
When the inquiry considers such points seriously, I am sure that it will conclude that the death sentence has become a relic, an anachronism which is no longer valid. It is not a matter of great concern. In our debate at the Committee stage I recall that the Minister mentioned strong feelings on the subject. I do not feel very strongly, because I regard the provision as an outworn relic which will never be used. The question the inquiry will have to ask is: what value is it to the Army? If it is not going to be used, what possible value can there be in keeping it? It does not help the image of our new Armed Forces at all. The idea of a firing squad contradicts everything that we project the Army as doing, and the idea of freedom. If the Minister had the desire and drive to abolish the death penalty in the Armed Forces, he would find that it would improve the image of the Army in the minds of the public. It would give it a friendlier feeling; and perhaps mothers and fathers would be rather more inclined to urge their daughters and sons to join.
I thank the Minister for taking this issue seriously and for setting up the inquiry. I am glad to hear that it will raise the fundamental questions involved. If it is properly administered and run, it will reach the conclusion that this is a very sensible, overdue reform.
Will the Minister tell the House a little about the administration of the inquiry? Who are to be its members, and when will it report? We shall follow the issue keenly and not wait for the next Bill in five years' time to raise it again. If, after 15 years, I am still spokesman on defence for the Liberal Democrats in this House, I shall certainly raise the matter when the provisions are renewed in a year's time.

1161
Finally, I thank my absent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who did the hard work in Committee. Again I express our warm appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl has answered our questions.
9 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to this Motion, not least because I have not yet had a substantial meal today. I listened with interest to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He referred to the proceedings in the Moses Room. Those proceedings went extremely well, particularly in relation to the Reserve Forces Bill and, to a slightly lesser extent, on this Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to our tradition of having the debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates late in the Session. Matters have improved quite a lot. My recollection is that, the year before last, it was practically the last business we took; the year before that it was definitely the last business. So the debate is being taken at a better time.
Perhaps I may address one or two other matters. I was disappointed that we did not have a full debate on the difficult question of homosexuality in the services—simply because this House has so much experience of service matters. I should like to have seen the balance of the arguments explored in this place. I feel that the debate could probably have been won by those who want a relaxation in the rules.
1162
Taking part in the proceedings on this Bill has been a fascinating business. I am grateful to all who contributed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am conscious of the hour. I shall simply say that I am grateful for the remarks of all three noble Lords who just spoke.
In response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the terms of reference of the review that we propose to undertake will be widely drawn. We are drawing them up now. We intend it to be an internal review involving officials, members of the Armed Forces and Ministers. I am not yet sure how long the review will take. We want it to be thorough. We want it to examine exactly those questions which the noble Lord raised. I am sure that when we have reached a conclusion, we shall wish to have a full debate. I have no doubt that your Lordships will not be slow in prompting such a debate. Having welcomed all the contributions that have been made, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
Returned from the Commons with one of the Lords amendments disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to. Commons reason ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  The Tote
  The Tote
  Drugs Prevention Initiative: Progress
  Drugs Prevention Initiative: Progress
  Conventions on the Rights of Migrant Workers and of Women
  Conventions on the Rights of Migrant Workers and of Women
  Deportation: Matters Considered before Enforcement
  Deportation: Matters Considered before Enforcement
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Trade Unions in the Public Service: Strikes
  Trade Unions in the Public Service: Strikes
  Government Departments: Payment of Bills
  Government Departments: Payment of Bills
  Post Office: Statutory Monopoly
  Post Office: Statutory Monopoly
  Drought Management: Environment Agency
  Drought Management: Environment Agency
  Surface Water Abstraction: Licensing Policy
  Surface Water Abstraction: Licensing Policy
  Empty Homes in the Civil Estate
  Empty Homes in the Civil Estate
  Footpath Management
  Footpath Management
  Defence Procurement
  Defence Procurement
  Defence Procurement; Proportion of Budget Spent in USA
  Defence Procurement; Proportion of Budget Spent in USA
  Defence Procurement: Evolving Technologies
  Defence Procurement: Evolving Technologies
  Trident
  Trident
  US Intelligence Sorties from British Bases: Terms of Use
  US Intelligence Sorties from British Bases: Terms of Use
  US Intelligence Sorties: Access to Information
  US Intelligence Sorties: Access to Information
  Gulf Veterans: Brainstem Encephalitis
  Gulf Veterans: Brainstem Encephalitis
  Gulf Veterans: Gynaecological Opinion
  Gulf Veterans: Gynaecological Opinion
  Gulf War: Research into Health Issues
  Gulf War: Research into Health Issues
  Arms Sales: Replies to Parliamentary Questions
  Arms Sales: Replies to Parliamentary Questions
  Technologies to Determine Foetal Sex
  Technologies to Determine Foetal Sex
  Abortion of Female Babies
  Abortion of Female Babies
  House of Lords: Times of Sitting
  House of Lords: Times of Sitting
  UK Maritime Skills: Report
  UK Maritime Skills: Report
  Mauritania: Fisheries Agreement Compensation
  Mauritania: Fisheries Agreement Compensation
  Mauritania: Beneficiaries of Fisheries Agreement
  Mauritania: Beneficiaries of Fisheries Agreement
  Senegal: Fisheries Agreement
  Senegal: Fisheries Agreement
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy