Sitting of 5 March 1996

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

    Bosnia
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the implementation force; and if he will make a statement. [16837]
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the work of IFOR to date; and if he will make a statement. [16838]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The implementation force has made considerable progress in helping to implement the Dayton peace agreement. Although there is still a long way to go, it is certainly to be congratulated on its achievements so far.
    Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend will know that the corps headquarters of the Royal Engineers is at the Royal School of Military Engineering in my constituency. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Royal Engineers' enormous work in Bosnia as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force and IFOR? He will also know that the Royal Engineers have served for a very long time in Northern Ireland and that since he last answered Defence questions the IRA ceasefire has broken down. Will he assure the House that if the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorates he will, if necessary, be able to increased forces there and meet the commitment to IFOR?
    Mr. Portillo: The Royal Engineers have done an outstanding job under the UN and NATO and, as my hon. Friend says, in Northern Ireland. They have been building roads, clearing mines and restoring essential services for the forces and the civilian population. When the IRA ceasefire was announced, we were able to reposition three battalions outside Northern Ireland. Although they were relocated, they were not reallocated and were therefore available to be returned to Northern Ireland. Two of them have returned to Northern Ireland and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question but that the British Army is able to undertake its commitment in Bosnia and Northern Ireland simultaneously.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Jerry Hayes.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: He is not here.
    Madam Speaker: I am aware of that. I called his name because he has not sent an apology. I therefore call Mrs. Alice Mahon.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister agree that the considerable number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia are causing a great deal of trouble for our troops? Is it not time that the Government opposed the making and exporting of all such mines?
    Mr. Portillo: It is certainly evident that the mines have caused a great deal of problems, injuries and death among civilians and service personnel. The main responsibility for clearing those mines lies with the former warring factions and they are being overseen in that work by the implementation force. I certainly think that we should work with civilised nations around the world to introduce suitable restrictions on the exports of lethal weapons, but I do not believe that it is possible to ban the use of land mines, or indeed to ban their export. None the less, progress can be made and Britain has been working to make progress knowing that it is better to get an agreement that will stick than to take positions that will not.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that IFOR is receiving full co-operation from the Bosnian Government? What success is it having in persuading the Serbs in certain areas of Sarajevo that they have no need to leave in fear?
    Mr. Portillo: On the whole, implementation of the peace agreement has proceeded quite well, but my hon. Friend will know that there have been instances where each of the former warring factions has been behind in complying with its terms. A summit in Rome in mid-February helped to make some progress in sorting that out. The Bosnian Government have been at pains to make it clear that the Serbs in the suburbs of Sarajevo have no need to fear for their safety. We are certainly urging the Bosnian Government to take every opportunity to repeat those assurances and ensure that the security arrangements in the suburbs are such as to leave no reason for any Serb to leave.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be well aware that, largely because of internal pressures in the United States, the United States component and IFOR has a strict 12-month timetable. Is he concerned, therefore, that there is a danger of a hiatus emerging at the end of that period? If so, what contingency plans have been made to ensure that the withdrawal gives way peacefully and properly to a civilian component?
    Mr. Portillo: This is not a concern exclusively of the United States—all participating nations in NATO are concerned that the deployment is limited in its scope and duration. The tasks that we in NATO have set ourselves—the separation of the warring factions, the exchange of prisoners, the exchange of territory and the holding of free and fair elections—are all achievable within 12 months. It is important that the former warring factions realise that the deployment will be for 12 months and that they must establish within that period conditions in which there can he an enduring peace. So much can change in Bosnia in a short period, and things are different now from the position nine months ago. I see no profit in speculating

    135
    on what might happen at the end of the period. NATO will be there for 12 months, and I hope that that will focus the minds of everyone involved.

    RAF Personnel (Secondment)
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force personnel have been seconded to overseas posts on more than one occasion in the last five years. [16839]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Statistics relating to the secondment of Royal Air Force personnel to overseas posts are not held centrally. In general, the initial period is sometimes extended and some personnel occasionally undertake a second or subsequent period of secondment.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that individuals in some sections of the service are required to do more than others because of the scarcity of personnel with particular skills and experience. Will he confirm that the Government are well aware of the difficulties that have arisen in that area? Will he assure me and the House that something will be done to address what is a relic of "Options for Change"—something for which my hon. Friend bears no responsibility?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a chance to flag up the extraordinary achievements of the RAF in the past few years. The RAF undoubtedly has been through a period of profound change and uncertainty in many different areas, but the Royal Air Force board and all the young men and women in the service have handled those changes with great aplomb, skill and determination. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his former service and the way in which it has coped. There have been difficulties, but the RAF has handled them well. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he wants.
    Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister's answer confirm that the pressure on men and machines in the RAF caused by overstretch is becoming unacceptable? Have not the additional demands on the RAF—the air exclusion zones in Bosnia and in north and south Iraq and the flying in of relief to Sarajevo—put intense pressure on it? Does he intend to announce thousands of further redundancies in the RAF later this month?
    Mr. Soames: By his remarks, the hon. Gentleman shows a profound and true misunderstanding of the RAF and of all those who work in it. Clearly the RAF wants to be involved in these operations, and although it has been busy and the demands on it have been heavy, that is what the RAF exists for. Reductions in the numbers of aircraft and RAF personnel have been carefully planned, and have been approved by the Royal Air Force board. The reductions are entirely consistent with the RAF's commitments and do not compromise either its requirements for training or flight safety. The hon. Gentleman is right that the RAF is busy and stretched, but that is what it needs and wants. We have sympathy and understanding for the RAF as it works its way through a difficult period. It deserves great credit for handling the problems so well.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the RAF on the way in which it has conducted its peacekeeping role in northern and southern Iraq and Bosnia? Does he think that it could continue to perform such peacekeeping roles around the world if he were to follow the policies suggested to Opposition Members by, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union, which, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, advocated an £18 billion cut in defence spending each year?
    Mr. Soames: It would clearly be unable to do so. The defence review cherished by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—which he calls on the services to accept and would ram down their throat—would deny them the chance to undertake the operations at which they excel so brilliantly. It just goes to show that, as we all know, we could not possibly—and never have been able to—trust Labour with defence.

    RAF (Engineering Services)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future provision of engineering services to the RAF from RAF St. Athan. [16840]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): RAF St. Athan provides a high quality and responsive service to the Royal Air Force. The current "Competing for Quality" programme is designed to ensure that that will continue.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply and I am well aware of the excellent service provided by RAF St. Athan on the borders of my constituency. There are concerns about the way in which the service is being stretched. Will the Minister assure me that the service at RAF St. Athan will be maintained at least at its current level—and possibly increased given the need to carry out even more regular checks on our Tornado and other aircraft in the light of the spate of serious crashes earlier this year?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question and for the way in which he put it. I had the great good fortune to visit RAF St. Athan on 22 February and I found there an extremely loyal, hard-working and highly trained work force who give the Royal Air Force everything that it needs in terms of quality and commitment. I was extremely impressed by what they do. We very much regret the recent spate of accidents, particularly those involving loss of life, and we extend our sympathy to the families involved. We have started investigations into all the accidents and it is becoming plain that there is no common thread to them. They involve different types of errors, different types of aircraft and different services—some involve the Royal Air Force and some the Royal Navy. However, we are not complacent and are examining all the accidents with great care.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to maintain within the Royal Air Force maintenance units such as St. Athan for third-line servicing because "Competing for Quality" necessitates a benchmark to

    137
    compete against for the quality of service and standards of servicing required? There will be occasions when industry will not necessarily have the appropriate expertise.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right: the "Competing for Quality" programme involves improvements in quality and a great increase in value for money. We have saved much money for the front line. The Royal Air Force will continue to manage RAF St. Athan. We know that the in-house bid team at RAF St. Athan is highly dedicated and, because of its skills, it is confident that it will be able to win the tender.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the maintenance at RAF St. Athan is top class, particularly for the aircraft that carry out low flying over my constituency and other parts of the south of Scotland? When will those Members, including the right hon. Members for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, receive a report on the reduction in low flying in the borders tactical training area?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I cannot answer that question, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in bringing the subject of low flying into a question about St. Athan. I shall pass on what he says to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary.

    Defence Industry Jobs
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received as to the effect on defence industry jobs of reducing United Kingdom defence expenditure to the European average. [16841]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would result in cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year. This would have a drastic effect on the capability of our armed forces and the future equipment programme. The implications for jobs in the defence industry would be severe.
    Mr. Coombs: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact of the policy decided at the 1995 conference of the Transport and General Workers Union that our defence expenditure should be reduced to the average of all countries across the European Union? Bearing in mind the fact that the TGWU sponsors both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions for which the Government have a responsibility. Will he remember that?
    Mr. Coombs: Bearing in mind the fact that the Transport and General Workers Union sponsors both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, what advice would my hon. Friend the Minister give
    138
    companies in my constituency such as Raychem, which employ thousands of people making defence equipment, about how they should vote?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. I have to tell the House with some astonishment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union, which states:
    "Conference notes that a reduction in military spending to that of other western European countries in percentage GDP terms could mean a peace dividend of over £18 billion a year."
    It is worse than we thought. The Labour party does not want to reduce defence spending by £4.5 billion a year but by £18 billion a year. We know that the TGWU speaks for the Labour party because it sponsors the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We know that he speaks for the Labour party because in the late 1980s he signed an advertisement calling for the removal of nuclear weapons from British territory. We know that that is what the Labour party wants and the TGWU calls for precisely the same thing in its letter.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many people believe that the Government are blithely continuing to accept a much higher share of the burdens of European security than most other western European states? While we retain the presidency of the Western European Union, will he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office seek to persuade our European allies that they should bear a much larger share of responsibility for security, especially since some of those who pay less than average are most vociferous in pursuing the policy of Europe establishing its own security pillar?
    Mr. ArbuthnotThe hon. Gentleman confirms exactly what I said. He confirms that he would like to reduce our defence spending to the European average. I am astonished that that should come from him of all people. I thought that with his experience, he would have wanted this country to take its proper role and responsibilities in the world. That is what we want and that is why we intend to stay in power to achieve it.
    Mr. Mans: In relation to defence expenditure generally, and defence jobs in particular, will my hon. Friend say what stage has been reached in the studies on the updating of the Tornado F3 or leasing of the alternative American F16 aircraft?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, subject to contract, and while we wait for the Eurofighter to form the cornerstone of our defence capability in the next decade, we have decided to place with British Aerospace an order so that advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and advanced short-range air-to-air missiles can be carried on the Tornado F3. That will greatly enhance the Tornado's capability and will cost about £125 million. It will mean that we have a beyond-visual-range missile available for our fighter. That is good news for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Spellar: The earlier exchanges have shown why the Minister does not want to answer for the Government's record. If he did, he would have to explain why the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to award the field ambulance contract to Land Rover; why they have awarded another shells contract to an Italian company involved in fraud and a grenade contract to Israel; why they issued tenders for the helicopter flying school without offset provision; and why they ordered billions of dollars of US equipment without matching orders for British industry. When are they going to stop making party-political broadcasts and start backing British industry?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That was a good try. The problem is that, if the Labour party were in power, none of those contracts would be awarded because it would not have the money. We would not have the Apache helicopter or the land-attack missile. We would not have been able to order three more frigates last week and we would not have been able to sort out the Eurofighter. If the Labour party were in power, defence spending would be reduced to £4 billion—the level of traffic wardens.
    Mr. Atkins: What does my hon. Friend believe is the likely effect on defence industry jobs in Preston and in Lancashire generally of early-day motions, such as those signed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), which suggest that we should not sell the excellent products made by my constituents on behalf of British Aerospace to countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend is right. I was very surprised to see that the hon. Lady had signed the early-day motion calling for literally hundreds of her constituents to be put out of work. However, she must answer for her views to her constituents.

    Armed Forces (Women)
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are currently serving in the armed forces. [16842]
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the number of women serving in the armed forces. [16844]
    Mr. Soames: As at 1 January this year, there were 16,078 women serving in the armed forces. That represents approximately 7 per cent. of the total strength.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that it is International Women's Week? Will he join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in celebrating the work of women in the armed services, particularly their front line peacekeeping work in Bosnia? On behalf of the House, will he send a message of support to those women this week?
    Mr. Soames: I was not aware that it is International Women's Week. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel a tremendous surge of pleasure when we hear that happy news: we salute all women everywhere.
    140
    The hon. Lady makes a very good point and I have great pleasure in endorsing all that she has said. It is clear that women make an enormous contribution to the armed forces. I know that most Labour Members believe that it is a miracle if a woman is capable of licking an envelope, yet women fill some of the most important and responsible jobs in the armed forces. That is a matter of course to those who serve alongside them and we value their contribution enormously. We want to see more women, not fewer, in the armed forces.
    Ms Coffey: Will the Minister confirm whether his Department is a member of Opportunity 2000? If it is, what progress has he made towards achieving the objectives of Opportunity 2000, which aims to promote more women to leadership positions?
    Mr. Soames: It is my experience that the Ministry of Defence is a member of practically everything, so I am sure that we are a member of Opportunity 2000. The fact is that we do not need to be a member of that scheme to promote women into positions of responsibility: they get there under their own steam because they are very good at what they do. There are women at every rank of the armed forces and in every service. They undertake the most responsible, difficult and often dangerous work. I recently met a company commander in the sappers who is leading the company that is undertaking most of the mine clearance operations in Bosnia. We do not need that kind of politically correct nonsense in the armed forces: women succeed on their own account.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standards, the qualities and the ability of Her Majesty's forces are unequalled and envied throughout the world? Will he give the House an undertaking to provide whatever legislation is necessary to prevent our standing from being undermined or tampered with by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality or any stupid, anti-democratic and unaccountable European court?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as a former sapper, speaks with genuine passion on that subject, and he is correct. The armed forces have a distinction and a quality that are unmatched in any institution in British life. They are a golden asset to the country and we shall never do anything that will undermine their fighting effectiveness or fighting power.
    It is a great compliment to the British armed forces that President Chirac should make it plain to a wider public in France that he intends the French forces to be restructured along the lines of our existing British forces. No greater compliment could be paid to the British armed forces.
    Lady Olga Maitland: As a new recruit to the parliamentary armed services scheme, may I say how much I appreciate the opportunity that the armed forces give women? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the opportunities that have been given to women are shown by the fact that we now have two fully qualified fast-jet pilots and 17 fully qualified pilots in the other services, and that women are doing immensely important work in

    141
    the field? Will he confirm that he will continue his endeavours to recruit more women, from whom we get value for money?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend certainly gives value for money and I am grateful for her extremely generous tribute. She has done sterling work on behalf of all three services, and they and I are grateful to her.
    Obviously, women have made giant strides in employment in the armed forces. They are now in significant new areas of opportunity. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do whatever we can to recruit more women, and she has my assurance that we shall do so.
    Mr. Murphy: It is good to hear that the Minister has heard about the Government's policies from the Opposition today.
    The Minister spoke of women in the armed forces being in important jobs. Will he therefore tell the House why, of 509 one-star and above posts in all three armed services, only two are held by women?
    Mr. Soames: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. The two most senior women now serving in the armed forces hold the rank of air commodore—the equivalent of brigadier. As he says, there are two of them. No rank is not open to women. The great surge of women through the armed forces and through the rank structure is starting to be felt. Unlike the Labour party, we do not have to have all-women lists to ensure that women get to where they should be—the top.
    Mr. Jenkin: On what basis does my hon. Friend suppose that the provisions of the EC equal treatment directive do not apply to the armed forces?
    Mr. Soames: I am sorry, but this EC nonsense is way beyond me. I do not understand. [Laughter]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That remark closes that question.

    Abbey Wood
    Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to investigate the overrun on the construction of the new MOD building at Abbey Wood, Bristol; and if he will make a statement. [16845]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Requirements for the buildings at Abbey Wood are being met; costs and risks are being controlled; collocation of procurement executive HQ staff has started and is expected to be complete by this autumn; overruns are not on our agenda. We are committed to achieving the running cost savings that will result.
    Mr. Berry: Will the Minister confirm that the construction contractors have lodged a claim with the MOD for an additional £60 million, which corresponds to a staggering 30 per cent. of construction costs? Is the Minister aware that many subcontractors are suffering from late payment from the contractor because of the contractor's cash-flow problems?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. There is a perfectly constructive and amicable dialogue between the core and shell contractor and the Ministry of Defence, as would occur on any project of this size. This is the largest office building project in Europe, and it is a dramatic success. The question of the health of the relationship between the contractor and the sub-contractors is interesting, and we believe that it is very good. In every contract that we sign, a requirement is placed on our contractors to ensure that they pay their sub-contractors within 30 days of a valid invoice being submitted. We have no reason to believe that there is anything other than a healthy relationship between the contractors and the sub-contractors.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a remarkable transformation in procurement practices under the Government? 1 am referring to the new headquarters for the Procurement Executive. Does he also agree that we are able to afford more equipment and more bangs per buck because the procurement executive has been reorganised and redeployed on much more efficient lines?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Once the building of the Procurement Executive is completed, it will save approximately £105 million a year. It is an astonishing success story, and I am sorry that Labour Members do not recognise that. For example, approximately 1,000 local jobs will be created in the Kingswood area; approximately 200 local firms will be involved in contracting; approximately £200 million will be spent on construction; and approximately £90 million of extra spending power will be realised. The Abbey Wood procurement is a dramatic success story, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to discuss it.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that this was a fixed-price contract? Will he give the House an assurance that, in the event of a cost overrun, not a penny will be spent out of the public purse?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I regret to put it like this: that is a fatuous comment. The contract will be finished on time and within budget—that is what we intend to achieve, that is what we are negotiating to achieve and, so far, it has been a major success story.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the carping from a Labour Member in relation to these additional jobs is reprehensible? Does he agree that, if there is any problem with the people of Bristol wanting to have the jobs, we would be only too pleased to keep the Southwell site open a bit longer on Portland? We are very proud of working for the Royal Navy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for announcing that one of the new frigates will be called HMS Portland, in honour of the excellent work that has been done by my constituents over the decades.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can confirm that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which we have taken up, that we call the new frigate HMS Portland. It is a pity that the good news that is coming to Bristol as a result of the Abbey Wood procurement has not been brought out

    143
    at all. It must be noted that Abbey Wood is a success story. We have had to provide, and we have been willing to provide, significant funds towards the building of a new railway station near Abbey Wood because so many workers are flooding into the area. It is a victim of its own success—and the Labour party simply cannot see that.

    Scott Inquiry
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the findings of the Scott report relating to his Department. [16846]
    Mr. Portillo: My Department will be working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry in its review of export control powers and procedures, and will lead the review of the parliamentary convention on the release of information about defence exports.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scott report found that key documents that would have led to the Matrix Churchill trial being stopped were in the Ministry of Defence, but were not disclosed to either the prosecution or the defence? For example, section G9.2 of the report referred to a letter from a civil servant, Mr. Barrett, to Defence Ministers, which showed that Matrix Churchill lathes were supplying shells to the Iraqis. That being the case—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to his question to the Minister and not give us a long recitation. He must now ask a question directly of the Minister.
    Mr. Hain: That being the case, there were surely massive failures in the Ministry of Defence. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that the failures that Scott revealed are not repeated?
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it perfectly clear that all the Scott recommendations either have been implemented or will be considered carefully. The Scott report points out that we have already taken steps to change and improve our procedures before the report was even brought to fruition. Individual cases will be investigated thoroughly and the House will know the results of those investigations. However, the hon. Gentleman is now dredging pretty deep in a matter that has been discussed exhaustively in the House already.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the lessons that we can learn from the whole affair is that Iraq spent about $80 billion on military procurement during the Iran-Iraq war and only about $750 million of that was spent on British non-lethal equipment? Is that not one of the honest principles that we can demonstrate that the Government strongly stood for during that time?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that Britain can be proud of its record. We did not export any lethal weapons to Iraq during that period. When we fought in the Gulf, our service men were not fighting against British lethal weapons. A number of countries close to us sold tanks and missiles to Iraq during that period. We had in place
    144
    guidelines governing the export of non-lethal equipment and the Scott inquiry was about the way in which those guidelines were interpreted. Britain's record stands comparison with that of any of our competitors and our allies.
    Mr. Dalyell: Did any Minister see Mr. Barrett's letter?
    Mr. Portillo: I am afraid that I do not understand the question.

    Army Cadet Force
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of membership of the Army Cadet Force on the future job prospects of young people. [16847]
    Mr. Soames: The membership of the Army Cadet Force helps to develop self-confidence, initiative and other highly useful skills through such recognised qualifications as the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and the BTEC certificate of achievement. Clearly, such activities can be of great benefit to the young only when they are looking for a job in later life.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend pay a fulsome tribute to the men and women who lead and instruct the young people in our cadet forces? Bearing in mind the fact that investment in the cadet forces and the volunteer reserves is a very good way of spending money, will he have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about ways of involving more people in the cadet forces and their activities as a way of doing down the drop-out culture?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear."
    Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend can see, the cadet forces are very popular. There are about 130,000 cadets, and the Ministry of Defence has an annual budget of about £55 million to run them. I wholly endorse all the points that my hon. Friend has made. It is clear that the cadet forces offer an outstanding start and provide interest, excitement, character development and adventure. They fulfil an extremely important role in the community. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we shall indeed have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who attaches high importance to working with the cadet forces, to see what more we can do so that the cadet forces continue to be a beacon in the communities in which they exist.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the silly ban on homosexuals in the services extend as far as the Army Cadet Force? Should not Ministers take a lead in this matter on principle and not be swayed by a vox pop of service men?
    Mr. Soames: On this occasion, almost uniquely, the hon. Gentleman is completely off beam. The decision that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday was to do with

    145
    the fighting power of the armed forces. The fact that our forces have high morale, are extremely efficient and effective, and have great cohesion—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Prejudice.
    Mr. Soames: No, it is not prejudice. Anything that could undermine that cohesion—it is plain that homosexuality would do so—is not something that any responsible Government could allow.

    Defence Industry (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the competitiveness of the United Kingdom defence industry. [16848]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As a result of its own efforts, and of the competition and procurement policies of the Government, the United Kingdom defence industry is strong and highly competitive. That is evident in its export success. In 1995, it won an estimated 19 per cent. of the world export market, worth £5,000 million.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that defence exports are an excellent example of the British Government and British industry working together in the interests of Britain and of our friends and allies overseas? Does my hon. Friend further agree that half a million people depend on the defence industry for their jobs in this country because its expertise and the quality of the work force are second to none? Is it not the case that if Labour policies—which would question the use of every single set of nuts and bolts—were put in place, those half a million jobs would be at risk?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That is the case. Given the recent call by the Transport and General Workers Union to cut defence spending by £18 billion a year, few export jobs would be available in those circumstances. My hon. Friend is right to say that the defence industry's success rests on a unique partnership between British industry, the British Government and the British armed services—who do a fantastic job in supporting our defence industry's exports abroad. We are well served by forces such as the Red Arrows and the Royal Navy—whose ships go to large number of places.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Ministerial Visits
    Q 1 Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency. [16868]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Before my right hon. Friend fixes a date, can he reassure my constituents in Ruislip-Northwood about the grave consequences of the European Court of Justice's retroactive decision today to
    146
    demand compensation of the British taxpayer for the loss of Spanish fishermen's rights? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister endorse the comments of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), that the quota hoppers must go? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will raise the common fisheries policy at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who have taken the matter extremely seriously. We obviously regret the European Court's decision and we shall certainly take it up in the context of the intergovernmental conference. We believe that there have to be changes.

    Engagements
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16869]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Let me return to the question of the European Court's decision; does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the concept of the common fisheries policy is based on relative stability, with the allocation of quotas within member states according to historic fishing rights? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that the European Court's decision is most unhelpful—the most recent in a series of unhelpful decisions concerning the common fisheries policy? What concrete proposals will Ministers take to the upcoming intergovernmental conference, to stop continuing back-door access to fishing stocks that are so vital to our coastal communities?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: That comes rich from the hon. Gentleman, whose party is committed to giving up the British veto in all circumstances. That is a classic example of the Liberals trying to have it all ways in all circumstances.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16870]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Has my right hon. Friend noticed, when assessing Government policy, that when it is eventually time to put votes in ballot boxes, electorates reject Labour policies and choose Conservative ones, as they have in Australia and Spain? Is this not a sign of what will happen here? After all, these are recent results, and the parties which were beaten were not socialist but new Labour.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I could not help remembering that, not long ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was a fully paid-up member of the Paul Keating fan club. Unfortunately, there are not many others left in that club. The fact of the matter is that, when people have to choose between no Labour and new Labour, they choose no Labour. No leading western European country is left with a Labour Government. I cannot believe for one minute that the United Kingdom will embrace what everybody else has rejected.
    Mr. Prescott: Why is it that in Tory Britain in 1996, 1,000 families every week have their homes repossessed, 120,000 families are homeless, and 1,700,000 families are trapped in negative equity? On that miserable record, is not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition correct in identifying the Conservatives as the party of home wreckers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Nobody would ever accuse the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of being new Labour. He is one of the old lags of the business, and therefore, of course, it is not surprising that his statistics are so carefully selected. The fact is that the number of households that face negative equity is down by 26 per cent. since 1992, and the number of people with mortgage arrears has fallen by 16 per cent. in the past year alone.
    I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition made a speech today about the need for special help for those with negative equity—that may seem to Opposition Members a very interesting and ingenious scheme. I sent out to inquire whether mortgages are available from the building society movement at more than 100 per cent. of the purchase value of homes on the market. The Abbey National, Cheltenham and Gloucester, Alliance and Leicester and the Halifax all have in existence schemes similar to that which the Leader of the Labour party says that his Government would introduce if his party were ever elected. They are already there. Building societies are doing it. The market has spoken. Tory Government works.
    Mr. Prescott rose—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Prescott: How can the right hon. Gentleman be so complacent in the face of the sheer misery created by the Government's policies? If the Government are so proud of their housing record, why not put it to the test by setting the date for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire, and let the people decide?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: This is the Labour party which fought to stop council tenants getting anywhere near owning their own homes. This is the Labour party which has not realised that banks and building societies have approved 13 per cent. more loans in January than they did last June. The Labour party is out of date. The housing market is showing signs of recovery.
    Mr. John Marshall rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Marshall.
    Mr. Marshall: I ask my right hon. Friend to condemn the Hamas guerillas, who have killed 68 Israelis in recent days. Will he offer our sympathy to the relatives of the victims and to the Israeli people as they battle with this attack upon them and their democracy? Will he convey our understanding to the Israeli Government as they react to this attack upon themselves and upon the peace process itself?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the appalling situation in Israel. I am sure also that the House shares my feelings of horror and anger at the renewed terrorist outrages, which have killed more than 30 people over the past two days in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
    I shall make two points. First, it is the duty of the international community to support Israel and the Palestinian Authority in their efforts to keep the peace process on track and to encourage them in their efforts to curb terrorism. We particularly urge President Arafat to do his upmost to step up those efforts. That is a message that we have repeated to him unequivocally since the beginning of this tragic train of events nine days ago.
    Secondly, I make it clear that it is illegal for anyone in this country to support terrorist attacks abroad. We are carefully monitoring the situation of Hamas activists in the United Kingdom. We shall investigate vigorously any evidence of such criminal acts, which will not be tolerated.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16871]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm reports that he has changed his mind and that he now supports a referendum on the single European currency? If he has, is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that anyone of that view is slightly up the creek?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the Government's position, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelt out extremely clearly. It is a position to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully subscribes.
    Mr. Budgen: If the Government's proposals to the intergovernmental conference were accepted by the other members of the European Union, would we have any protection against judgments, such as the recent one in respect of Spanish fishermen?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the reply that I gave some moments ago. I made it clear that we would raise today's judgment in the intergovernmental conference. We believe that there is need for change, and we intend to press that. As my hon. Friend, and the House generally, will be

    149
    aware, the Government intend shortly to publish a White Paper on the Government's policy towards the IGC, which the House will be able to consider carefully.
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16872]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: As a thousand families suffer repossession of their homes every week, by deliberately reducing the income support system for home owners, are not the Government's policies shamelessly ensuring that in our society, after 17 years of Tory rule, if someone loses his job, he will lose his home?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot square that with the facts that I gave the House recently, which show that the number of mortgage arrears has fallen by 16 per cent. and that the housing market is beginning to recover. He will know, of course, that unemployment has been falling for the past 29 months.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16873]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent Lloyds bank business survey report, which shows that businesses in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset have achieved the highest increase in export orders of all regions in the country, and increased investment and profitability? Will he accept the congratulations of all those from the south-west on those results? Would he like to conjecture on what would happen to such achievements if we ever had a Labour Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has commented on what is extremely good news for the west country. As for conjecture about what would happen in the unfortunate
    150
    event of this country electing a Labour Government, we can see, from the facts of what has happened in Europe, what would be likely to happen here. In Spain, nearly one in four people are unemployed. In France, under socialism, nearly one in eight were unemployed, whereas, in this country, the figure is one in 12 and has been falling for 29 months.
    Perhaps the other judgment is that of the international investors. Spain achieved 7 per cent. of inward investment into the European Union and France 18 per cent. whereas the UK attracted 30 per cent., proving beyond peradventure that, under this Government, the UK is the enterprise centre of Europe.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [16874]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: On reflection, does the Deputy Prime Minister regret his refusal to sign a public interest immunity certificate, given that we now know that the Attorney-General was right all along?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has conveniently forgotten that the Attorney-General advised me about the form of the PII certificate that I signed.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he confirm what he said a moment ago, that the UK is the enterprise centre of Europe? Is it not right that the Prime Minister should be in the far east encouraging business men there to invest in this country, and is it not surprising that they invest in this country, given the burdens of the non-labour wage costs that the Europeans must deal with?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is one of the most satisfactory aspects of the many satisfactory aspects of our economic performance that we are attracting inward investment, which has created the jobs leading to enhanced exports—already at record levels. It has come to this country because the Government's policies have made it the most attractive place to invest. One of the reasons for that is that we have avoided the social chapter, which all the Opposition parties are committed to introducing.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I first unreservedly apologise to the House, to you and to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for not being in my place for Question 2 today. There is never any excuse for missing a question without giving notice. There is, however, a mitigating circumstance that I hope you will be kind enough to take into account. As you know, London Radio has just sacked 80 per cent. of its staff and I was summoned to a meeting that went on longer than I thought, but I do apologise.
Madam Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard today that the European Court has sentenced the British taxpayer to pay compensation to the Spanish fishing fleet. That will obviously sit ill with British fishermen. You have also heard that Her Majesty's Government will raise that issue, properly, at the intergovernmental conference. The House would like to know what Her Majesty's Government could achieve by raising the issue at the IGC. Have you heard whether Her Majesty's Government wish to make a statement to the House? It is a matter of fundamental sovereignty about which the House should be informed before too long.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
Madam Speaker: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman because it may be helpful. We have heard the Deputy Prime Minister in the exchanges today. As yet, I have not heard that the Government are seeking to make a
152
statement. As the news came in only about lunchtime, perhaps the Government are reflecting on the matter. We may hear something tomorrow.
Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will not take any further points of order on this matter. It is not a point of order for me. I have dealt with it to the best of my ability. It is for the Government to make a statement and for the House to listen if one is made tomorrow.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Ewing. I hope that it is not the same point of order.
Mrs. Ewing: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It follows from your remark that the Government might be reflecting on the IGC issue and the common fisheries policy. I wonder therefore, given the Deputy Prime Minister's positive remark today, which we all responded to effectively, whether it would be possible for you to use your influence to ensure that a meeting occurs between the Deputy Prime Minister or others who are interested and Back-Bench Members who represent fishing industries to discuss the possibility of the CFP being put on the IGC agenda.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. My point was that perhaps the Government are reflecting on the possibility of making a statement to the House now that the decision is known, so that the House may ask questions on the statement.

BILL PRESENTED
  COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE
  Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth of Europe, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

  Part-Time Employees (Equal Rights to Holidays)
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that employers shall give to their part-time staff either the same holiday entitlements as they do to their full-time staff, or a minimum period as specified.
  The Bill will make it illegal for employers to give part-time staff fewer holidays than full-time staff, and will introduce in Britain minimum holiday entitlements of the kind that will shortly be enjoyed by workers in every other country in the European Union.
  The Bill does not stand on its own. It will prove to be the first of a number of measures to be introduced by hon. Members from different parties—which, I believe, will demonstrate the general feeling in the House that it is time that part-time workers were given a fair deal and the due protection of law. I thank officers of the TUC and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, who have done a great deal to identify the problems of discrimination in the work place which too many part-time workers encounter.
  As hon. Members will know, the number of part-time employees has increased rapidly in recent years. Part-time work now provides employment for some 5 million people. According to the 1993 employment census, at that time there were some 19,000 part-time workers in my borough of Oldham, and some 17,000 in neighbouring Rochdale. The vast majority of those part-time workers are women: nearly half the women who work in my constituency work part time. Part-time work can and should result from a positive choice, but for some it is a necessity. Whatever the motivation, however, it is surely right for Parliament to lay down some basic entitlements for every employee, which should include a minimum period of leave based pro rata on the leave allowed to full-time workers.
  Britain is now the only country in the European Union in which employees have no legal right to paid annual leave—
  Mr. David Evans: Good.
  Mr. Davies:—and part-time workers bear the brunt of that omission. A Conservative Member has just shouted "Good": that pretty well sums up the difference between Conservative and Opposition attitudes to potential employees.
  A third of all part-time workers in this country—1.7 million people—receive no paid holidays; a few, just 13 per cent., receive less than two weeks. Who are we to deny part-time workers even a modest period of paid leave? As Members of Parliament, we claim the right to nearly 20 weeks a year, during which we have the freedom to choose when to take our family holidays. [Interruption.] There is privilege for some, and a denial of rights for others.
  The Bill will impose no burden on the majority of employers, who already show consideration to their part-time staff, but it will bring into line the bosses whose attitude to their employees is one of contempt rather than respect. It is a fact that some employers will take advantage of other human beings in the sure and certain knowledge
  154
  that they can be made to accept not only the low wages that are often part and parcel of part-time work, but the denial of entitlements that other employees expect as a matter of course. That is why we must lay down the basic minimum requirements, and provide statutory protection for employees who are in a weaker position.
  Britain was the first industrial society in the world, and, despite the arguments advanced by some hon. Members who have been calling out from a sedentary position, it need not yet be considered a sweatshop economy in which inequalities will inevitably grow. Good employers, who are determined to build for the long term, recognise that they will gain employee loyalty and high productivity only from a work force that is treated with respect and compassion.
  As a proportion of this country's total wage bill, the cost of creating a minimum entitlement to paid leave for part-time workers will be very small, and it will of course be nil for employers who already ensure that their part-time workers receive proper holiday entitlement. Employers who are forced to meet the cost for the first time should find themselves amply compensated, if they do the job properly and ensure that their employees are properly motivated, by gaining the benefits of enhanced productivity and staff loyalty, which should be the basis for any successful business.
  This measure will not leave Britain in a less competitive position than its European partners—
  Mr. Barry Porter: Oh, yes?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes". It will not leave us in a less competitive position for the very good reason—of which he should be aware—that, in November this year, the European Union's working time directive will come into force and set a minimum three-week holiday requirement for workers throughout the European Union, which will rise to four weeks in 1999, except, of course, in Britain.
  If the Government's current challenge to that directive in the European Court of Justice—that much maligned body—is upheld, they will argue that it should not have been approved by the Council of Ministers, on the basis that it was a piece of health and safety legislation. The Government will argue instead that the legislation affects individual employment conditions and that it should, therefore, have been passed only by a unanimous vote. I have much sympathy for that view, but I have no sympathy at all for the idea that Britain has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by our European partners into adopting some basic employment conditions for our citizens. It is a national humiliation that we are forced to trail in the wake of our European partners on such matters instead of taking a lead.
  This Bill provides and promotes one small aspect of part-time workers' entitlements, but its passage will send a clear message to Britain's 5 million part-time employees that the House values their services, respects their efforts, appreciates their skills and believes that it is high time that they had a fair deal and the support of the law.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I oppose the Bill because this country leads Europe in keeping women and young people employed. This Bill is

  155
  frightening because what seems to be all reason and light from the Liberal Democrats is merely a recipe for bankruptcy and unemployment. The Liberal Democrats make no secret of their love for a federal Europe. They have said so again today. They would give up our veto. This legislation is just another European tax on jobs.
  When Jacques Delors said that Britain's rejection of the social chapter—so beloved of both the Labour and Liberal parties—meant that this country would become an investor's paradise, he was right. Britain attracts well over 40 per cent. of all investment into the European Union from the United States and from Japan, and the remaining 50 per cent. or so is spread thinly among the other 14 EU countries. In the past financial year, 38,876 jobs were created as a direct result of inward investment, and more than 51,000 jobs were safeguarded by inward investment. Since 1992, the United Kingdom has made a stronger recovery from worldwide recession than any other European country. Our economy has grown faster than that of Germany, France, Italy or the EU average. The Bill would jeopardise all that. The social chapter would create unemployment and, through the back door, the Bill is simply part of the social chapter.
  The cathedral city of Lichfield is not only a centre of light industry but a tourist centre, but I was born near Brighton and went to school there. That town depends even more than Lichfield on tourism. How many hotels and restaurants that employ part-time workers would fail if this tax on jobs were imposed? I used to work in the electronics industry—how many part-time workers who provide specialist skills would find themselves out of work because small and growing businesses with tight margins could no longer afford to pay this on-cost? Businesses would have to employ extra workers if they were to meet the Bill's requirements. How many students would find it impossible to get work in their vacations? Inflation is now under 3 per cent., but the Bill would cause prices to rise and would damage our recovery.
  I believe, as do the Government, that holiday entitlement, like other terms and conditions of employment, should remain a matter of negotiation between employers and employees or employee representatives. It should not be the role of Government to intervene through the statute book; nor should it be the role of Government to stand between a man or woman and his or her job.
  It is not by accident that unemployment has been falling month after month for more than two years, while in France, Germany and Spain it continues to soar inexorably. It is not by accident that Britain has more people in work as a proportion of the population than any other major economy in Europe. It is not by accident that this country is enjoying steady and sustainable growth combined with low inflation.
  Does the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wish to return to the dark days under the previous Labour Government when inflation averaged 15.5 per cent? Despite the ominous plans of the Opposition to fall into line with the socialist-dominated European Parliament, this country remains the enterprise centre of Europe. The Conservative Government made this country the enterprise centre of Europe, and we want to keep it the enterprise centre of Europe.
  156
  For the sake of jobs and for the sake of this nation's continuing recovery, I oppose the Bill.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Chris Davies(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Labour Whips to instruct Labour Members to abstain because they are not prepared to make a commitment—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I know nothing about any instructions that may have been given—I do not recognise Whips during this period.
  The House having divided: Ayes 84, Noes 49.

  Division No. 67]

  [3.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Hutton, John

  Alton, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Janner, Greville

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Barnes, Harry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Keen, Alan

  Berry, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McCartney, Robert

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Maddock, Diana

  Chidgey, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Clapham, Michael

  Marek, Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mullin, Chris

  Corston, Jean

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Parry, Robert

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Pike, Peter L

  Dafis, Cynog

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Purchase, Ken

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

  Rendel, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Salmond, Alex

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Eastham, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Etherington, Bill

  Simpson, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Skinner, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Flynn, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Foulkes, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tyler, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hall, Mike

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hanson, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Hoey, Kate

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ms Liz Lynne and

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mr. Don Foster.

  NOES

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Butterfill, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Carrington, Matthew

  157

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Dover, Den

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pawsey, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hendry, Charles

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stephen, Michael

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

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Madel, Sir David

  Marlow, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mr. Jacques Arnold.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Davies, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. David Alton, Mrs. Diana Maddock and Ms Liz Lynne.

  PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (EQUAL RIGHTS TO HOLIDAYS) BILL
  Mr. Chris Davies accordingly presented a Bill to provide that employers shall give to their part-time staff either the same holiday entitlements as they do to their full-time staff, or a minimum period as specified: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  Point of Order
  Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you with this matter, but the Deputy Prime Minister visited my constituency last Friday and I received notice only yesterday that he was to do so, with an apology for the short notice given. Was that not a great discourtesy by the Deputy Prime Minister? The real problem, however, is that he was there to raise funds. I am sure that he was not raising funds on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the Tory party. Is that not an abuse of the Standing Orders of the House?
  Madam Speaker: If he was there doing anything other than parliamentary business, it has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be interested to know that in the past two years I have had the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in my wonderful constituency of Gravesham—neither of whom advised me of their visits in advance.
  Madam Speaker: Others might be interested to know that many Ministers and Members visit my constituency, and they are always most welcome.

  Benefit Fraud
  [Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Social Security Committee concerning Housing Benefit Fraud on 6th December 1995, 13th December 1995, 31st January 1996, 7th February 1996 and 14th February 1996 (House of Commons Papers Nos. HC 90-i to v.]
  4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the priority it has given to tackling benefit fraud, increasing success in detecting and stopping fraud, in particular in achieving benefit savings likely to amount to £1 billion in 1995/96; welcomes the creation of the new Benefit Fraud Investigation Service; commends Her Majesty's Government's proposals to step up its measures against Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud; endorses the increasing emphasis on preventing and deterring fraud; and condemns Labour's lack of positive proposals for tackling fraud.
  The aim of the long-term reform of social security is positive. It is to enable this country to continue to provide a decent level of provision for those in genuine need of help—without the total cost outstripping the nation's ability to pay. We can achieve that only if we focus our huge budget—nearly £90 billion—on those in genuine need and on helping people out of dependency. That means stopping money going to those who do not need it and are not entitled to it. Every pound lost in fraud means a pound less to those in real need or to reward those who support themselves. That is why the battle against fraud has always been my top priority.
  To tackle fraud effectively we need to know how much fraud, of which sort, is perpetrated against each benefit. In the past, nobody—no Government of this country or abroad—knew the extent of fraud. Estimates were based on little more than guess work. I was determined to obtain reliable information. My Department has therefore developed a reliable way of estimating and measuring the extent of fraud. It involves carrying out a survey of a representative sample of claimants of each benefit. During those surveys, investigators are able to probe in sufficient depth to identify and quantify any fraudulent or erroneous claims.
  The first survey of benefit fraud was carried out on income support and unemployment benefit. After examining and cross-checking records of each person's claim, the interviewers visited claimants without prior warning. They made up to four visits to establish the claimant's whereabouts. The review showed previous undetected fraud of about 10 per cent., which amounts to £1.5 billion a year on income support and unemployment benefit alone.
  The second review that we undertook was of housing benefit and council tax benefit. Again, we found widespread abuse, amounting to nearly 10 per cent. of the money in payment. That costs the taxpayer a further £1 billion a year. Those two benefit areas alone are known to be the most vulnerable to abuse, which is why we began with them.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State admit that the process of home visiting to discover the extent of fraud was routine in 1979 and was abolished by this Administration as a way of saving money on staff? Surely that was a false economy.
  Mr. Lilley: I think that the hon. Lady's dates are slightly wrong. The big cut followed the 1976 takeover of
  160
  the economy by the International Monetary Fund after the financial crisis created by the Labour Government. It is far better to do what we are doing and to have targeted visiting than blanket visiting.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State should not pass over the issue too quickly. Does he not recall that the legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), with the assistance of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), removed the necessity to visit people to check on their benefits and removed the obligation on the Department to ensure that everyone was entitled to benefit advice to ensure that they were receiving the proper benefit? It was the Conservative Government who caused so many of the problems in the first place.
  Mr. Lilley: I do not accept that point. The hon. Gentleman must agree that it is better to have targeted visiting rather than blanket visiting. However, although we have carried out reviews in the most vulnerable areas—income support and housing benefits—it would be wrong to assume that all other benefits are liable to a similar level of fraud and abuse.
  By far the largest single benefit is the state retirement pension, which accounts for around a third of total social security spending. The third benefit review, which has just been completed, covered that. It confirms what most of us would expect: that fraud is extremely rare among pensioners. The results suggest that fraud amounts to some £40 million out of a pension bill of more than £30 billion. That is just over £1 in £1,000. Pensioners are generally honest citizens. As retirement pension is a contributory benefit, it is extremely difficult to obtain it fraudulently unless one can concoct a contribution record dating back two decades, which requires some forethought.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall continue, if I may.
  The only other abuse that was at all prevalent in the past involved cases where it was maintained that people were still alive after their decease. That is no longer possible because our records are linked into records of deaths. The only problem occasionally arises abroad in countries that do not have such systematic records of births and deaths. That is why we have posted officers abroad in Bangladesh and Pakistan, as has been mentioned recently in the newspapers, to check that benefits paid there are paid to those genuinely entitled to them and cease when people die.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend said, rightly, that because a pension is a contributory benefit, it is difficult to conduct a fraud on it. Does he agree that, given the experience of Chile and Singapore, if we were to move our social security system to a more insurance-based contribution set-up, we would make enormous progress, not only in achieving more personal responsibility in society but in dealing with benefit fraud?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend must recognise that our system has the positive elements that he finds present in

  161
  the Singaporean and Chilean systems. More than any other country in Europe, we have contribution-funded pensions. Three quarters of those who are entitled to do so opt out of the state scheme to build up their pension provision. That now amounts to some £600 billion of funds—more than all the other countries in the European Community put together.
  If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should do away with non means-tested provision for those who have been unable to provide for themselves, I should say that Singapore's system, which so attracted the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the Leader of the Opposition, makes provision for only about 2,000 people who have not provided for themselves. The rest are left to fend for themselves. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend wishes to follow the Labour party down that draconian route.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will know that his Department gave me an answer recently which, on the subject of elderly people and pensions, said that the social security bill for unfunded pensions in the UK, when spread between the population as a whole, is £500 per person per year; in the Federal Republic of Germany, it is £2,000 per person per year; and by the time today's 30-year-olds in Germany reach pension age, it will be £5,000 per year. Is not that a good reason for not joining a single currency?
  Mr. Lilley: It would be a good reason, should there ever be any suggestion that we do so, to avoid unifying the obligations of different countries in Europe into any common obligation. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would want to go down that route.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not it true that long before Chile and Singapore thought of private institutions to handle pensions and other needs, this country widely used the friendly society system? When we had legislation that required people to have a benefit such as sick pay, the amount that was paid, as a percentage of people's then earnings, was practically higher than it is today. It was the friendly societies that, for example, persuaded doctors to make home visits. They had never done such things before. It was a good way of getting a jolly good welfare system.
  Mr. Lilley: We are fortunate in having roots that go back to the friendly societies. It is perhaps in part through them that we built up the widespread prevalence of occupational, and now personal, pensions that gives us the strength relative to other countries in Europe that I mentioned earlier. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Singapore system is state managed—which is why it is so attractive to Labour Front Benchers. It has received a return of only 2 per cent. a year in real terms since 1980, whereas private pension schemes in this country have yielded nearly 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation since 1980.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: It is becoming rather like Question Time, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee.
  Mr. Field: While it is important to stress that no serious group in this country would advocate the
  162
  Singapore model, in dismissing it, I ask the Secretary of State to be careful about his record. Those who depend on the state pension do not receive a 2 per cent. real-terms increase in their pensions compared with those who are in the state-run scheme in Singapore. On that basis, the figures that he has given show that the Singapore scheme is a better bet for pensioners than the scheme of which he has stewardship in this country.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman says that no one serious would advocate the Singapore system. I urge him to read the recent book entitled "The Blair Revolution" by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)— who is spin doctor and guru to the Leader of the Opposition. He advocates the Singapore system, although apparently the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has fallen out of love with it since his brief holiday flirtation on that island.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Field: The operative word in my intervention was "serious".
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point pellucidly clear. I must now make some progress before I give way again—although if future interventions are of the same quality as the last, I shall be very willing to do so.
  Last July I announced a five-year security strategy to tackle fraud and abuse in the benefit system—particularly with regard to the benefits handled directly by my Department. My strategy aims to make the whole benefit payment pipeline secure against fraud from the initial claim, through internal processing and the means of payment, to any changes in circumstances affecting entitlement. It then aims to shift the emphasis from detection to prevention and deterrence. As a result, it should reduce substantially the cost of fraud losses to the taxpayer, saving some £2.5 billion in 1998–99 from all the anti-fraud work carried out by the DSS. That figure includes local authority savings.
  As to the benefits handled by the Benefits Agency, my strategy contains three main elements. First, the agency will more than double the number of home visits to check new claims for benefit and undertake far more checks on existing claims. I am therefore asking for 600,000 home visits to be undertaken to check new claims for income support and jobseeker's allowance, and for more than 1 million reviews and checks of existing claims.
  If those visits are targeted properly, they will be a highly effective way of preventing fraud—especially at the outset of a claim. More than 30 per cent. of home visits to new claimants since target visiting was established in July 1995 have resulted in action to prevent incorrect claims from being accepted.
  Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady must permit me to make a little progress.
  Secondly, we are using developments in new technology to target our checks and visits better. The Benefits Agency is using one of the most powerful new

  163
  computer systems in the world to cross-check the consistency of information that it holds about benefit claims. We plan to extend gradually the range of information from different sources which can be cross-checked by the computer. We are currently piloting a new system to match national insurance data with benefit claims in order to check on fraudsters who are both working and claiming.
  Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Lilley: I have just refused the hon. Member for Vauxhall, so I must make a little progress before I give way to my hon. Friend. We already use information from a number of other Government Departments—for example, we use Home Office data to prevent prisoners from continuing to claim benefits to which they are not entitled while in gaol. We are carefully considering a wide range of other data that we might use without compromising data protection and our duty of confidentiality, such as data from the Inland Revenue on the P46 forms that an employer completes when an employee starts work and does not have a national insurance number.
  Mr. Couchman: On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the P46 does not ask a signatory whether he or she is in receipt of benefit while signing that the job may be his or her main job, is a weakness that encourages those who are working and signing to believe that they can get away with it?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which I will certainly take into account in the work that we are doing.
  Miss Hoey: I am a bit concerned that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned child benefit, and I am especially concerned that there appears to be no method of preventing people who move abroad from continuing to claim child benefit. How is that being tackled?
  Mr. Lilley: I cannot remember off-hand the rules governing how long people are entitled to benefit when they move abroad, but I can write to the hon. Lady with that information and any further information that would elaborate on that point.
  Miss Hoey: Perhaps if I could just—
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Lady wishes to answer her own question, perhaps she will do so in a later speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I give way.
  Miss Hoey: It is important that the Secretary of State understands what I am trying to ask. It seems as though, after people move abroad, every year a letter is sent to what was their home, asking them whether circumstances have changed. They do not have to reply to that letter unless circumstances have changed. They may well be living in Greece or Spain—I have gained evidence of that
  164
  recently—and continuing to claim child benefit. There appears to be no way of checking when a person moves abroad.
  Mr. Lilley: As I said, I will follow up that point and respond to the hon. Lady in due course.
  The third element of our strategy is virtually to eliminate fraud in the payment system by introducing a benefit payment card to replace order books and giro-cheques for payment through post offices. Invitations to tender were issued to three consortiums on 29 February 1996. I hope to be able to announce the successful supplier of the new system in May 1996, and to see the start of the roll-out of the new system from the autumn onwards.
  The five-year security strategy involves the investment of additional ring-fenced resources on top of the money already spent by the DSS on anti-fraud work. In the current financial year, we are investing more than £100 million of extra resources. Even in this first year, the investment is repaying itself nearly fourfold, with extra savings of more than £400 million. That will bring total fraud savings in the Benefits Agency this year to about £1 billion and next year we expect them to rise a further 50 per cent. to reach £1.5 billion.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury recently suggested that my plans to achieve a 25 per cent. step improvement in the productivity of my Department would not be achieved, and certainly not without undermining our battle against fraud. I was delighted when the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), contradicted him, writing in a leaked letter that
  "the advice I am getting … suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of the investment already undertaken."
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to make progress?
  There is no suggestion of sacrificing anti-fraud activity to achieve our efficiency objectives. The extra funds secured for the security programme are ring-fenced and cannot be diverted to other activities. Moreover, the fraud reviews enable us, for the first time, to measure the current level of fraud benefit by benefit, to set targets for reducing it and to measure achievement against those targets. We have no intention of relaxing the target of reducing the level of fraud by 70 per cent. during the five-year security strategy period. The essence of my efficiency programme is to specify objectives and then improve our methods and processes to enable us to meet or surpass those targets.
  General steps to simplify entitlement, to improve accuracy of initial claims, to bring together all customer information in one customer account and other components of the efficiency programme will all make fraud more difficult, not easier. The programme will enable all our staff to be directly involved in the battle against fraud by getting claims right first time, keeping claims right, and putting them right whenever fraud and error occur.
  Ms Eagle rose
  Mr. Lilley: I have already given way to the hon. Lady, and I wish to complete my speech. In April we shall create

  165
  the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service, which will bring together specialised security staff from both the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. Up to 1,100 Employment Service investigators will join the Benefits Agency and bring their specialised knowledge in tackling the most common benefit fraud: working and claiming. The benefit review of income support showed this form of fraud to comprise almost 30 per cent. of all fraud. The Employment Service will also bring knowledge of fraud risks specific to each employment sector. The combined investigation service will have a dedicated staff of almost 5,000.
  I want to give further impetus to our drive against fraud. So I can announce today plans for a series of local anti-fraud drives, beginning in April.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am sure that hon. Members support Secretary of State and congratulate him on the credible work that is taking place to combat fraud. However, is he aware that there is no such strategy in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland may be different, but why does it not have such a strategy?
  Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Northern Ireland Office is responsible for social security and, in most respects, it mirrors what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom. My officials work with and consult their counterparts in Northern Ireland to ensure that what we do is compatible and that no leakages enter the system from one side or the other. I will report his remarks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is directly responsible for social security in the Province.
  Mr. Forsythe rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point, and he may care to elaborate on it during his contribution to the debate—if he succeeds in catching your eye, Madam Speaker. I refer to a series of anti-fraud drives that will begin in April. Each month we will select a small number of distinct areas and focus effort on them. The prime objective of the drive will be to encourage those who have drifted into abusing the benefit system to put their claims right and to crack down hard on those who fail to take the opportunity to do so.
  Each local campaign will be preceded by a couple of weeks of intense local publicity, which will warn people that a fraud clean-up will begin in their area shortly. It will remind people that we look favourably on those who voluntarily acknowledge that their claim has been false, set it in order and agree to remedy past errors and omissions.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I shall complete my announcement and then deal with any interventions that hon. Members may have. Although, of course, we shall need to look at each case on its merits, those who come forward voluntarily would be unlikely to be prosecuted. Even in the most serious cases—such as large-scale organised fraud—where a prosecution would be necessary, the courts will look leniently on a fraudster who voluntarily throws in the towel. Those who fail to come clean will face a far higher risk of being brought to book.
  166
  We shall open a freephone hotline for members of the public to tell Department of Social Security staff, in confidence, about suspected fraud—which we will then investigate. Pilot schemes have shown that these initiatives can be successful. In just five months, they have saved £800,000, have cost less than £20,000 and have had 275 successful outcomes. We shall be piloting the use of our powerful new data-matching programmes to target those most likely to be involved in frauds that are particularly prevalent in each campaign area. We shall increase the number of visits to existing claimants in circumstances where experience shows that fraud is most likely to be detected. We shall increase the number of visits to people making new claims to benefits. Bar code scanners will be introduced in local post offices to detect lost or stolen order books.
  Trained investigators will focus on those categories of employers locally who are most likely to be colluding with employees in claiming out-of-work benefits and on those categories of self-employed people most likely to be involved in benefit fraud. Where fraudsters who have ignored the chance to come clean are caught, we shall be more disposed to prosecute, if appropriate, and the courts may well prove tougher in those circumstances.
  Our local anti-fraud drives will be spearheaded by Benefits Agency staff. They will involve the entire DSS and we are looking to involve other Government Departments and agencies. That will include staff, claimants and the public in a concentrated attack on fraud. I shall also invite local authorities in each area to take part.
  I believe that those area crackdowns will make a valuable contribution to the success of our strategy and make our determination even more visible.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Lilley: A queue is building up. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) first.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his characteristic courtesy. I do not suppose that his Scottish officials have told him of the recent, highly publicised case in the Greenock sheriff court of a woman being convicted of fraud while being employed at the local Benefits Agency office. Setting that extreme example to one side, will he confirm that the incidence of fraud in the Greenock and Port Glasgow area is very low? How many investigators will be located in Scotland?
  Mr. Lilley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the serious nature of any fraud involving members of the DSS staff. They are much more likely to be prosecuted than an individual member of the public who may have drifted into fraud, serious though that is. We take those cases very seriously. I have no particular measure of the precise incidence of fraud in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I accept his assurance that it is very low.
  We shall target different parts of the country not on the basis they are particularly prone to fraud. Our nationwide studies suggest that fraud is prevalent throughout the country and is not localised in particular areas, although

  167
  there is some evidence of it being rather more serious in central London, so we shall be choosing areas on the grounds of their compactness, among other factors.
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Sir Peter Hordern rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has had a go and my right hon. Friend has not.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The figures that he has given for the amount of benefit reclaimed in relation to the number of investigators appointed are so impressive that I am led to wonder whether it would be worth appointing many more investigators. At what point does that favourable ratio no longer apply? Would not it be a good idea to appoint far more investigators than he has so far in mind?
  Mr. Lilley: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the additional ring-fenced amounts of more than £100 million are being used to provide a mixture of extra investigation and information technology that is most effective. I asked my officials whether we could further accelerate the process of building up that work. We were able to do so more or less up to what we considered to be the optimum point. One can reach the point at which one can have too many cooks spoiling the broth or accelerating faster than the vehicle will take. We are doing it at the right pace and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making available the extra money.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State said that it was important to look at London, but why should the House take his announcement seriously after looking at the track record? On 19 January he told the House that there was £10 million of challenge money. When the various interested bodies were taken to the Adelphi six days later, £2 million of that £10 million had been nicked—rather appropriately, as it was intended to combat fraud. It was the total budget. Various groups have proposed co-ordinating their efforts across London—a really crucial activity. That activity is one that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support. I believe that he found £500,000 from his own budget as seed corn for those groups, to draw on the challenge money. I understand that the Treasury vetoed the right hon. Gentleman using that money. Why should we believe the Secretary of State's announcement today about increasing resources when in the crucial move to co-ordinate action against fraud in London, particularly landlord fraud, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to beat the Treasury in freeing his own funds to fight fraud?
  Mr. Lilley: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman a different perspective. I said that up to £10 million—then we specified that it would be £8 million—would be available for challenge funding. In the context of the large sum that I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the hon. Gentleman should not think that the difference of £2 million is crucial.
  168
  I hope that a co-ordinated team specialising in combating organised fraud will be established. That proposal is still under discussion in respect of challenge funding. Decisions will be made on the basis of the sort of return that the parties concerned convince us that they can achieve. In any case, that is not the only way in which such schemes can be financed, if local authorities see merit in them. I will refer to that specific point later.
  As to housing benefits—which are handled by local authorities, not the Benefits Agency—we shall seek to involve local authorities fully in the local benefit crackdowns. Last month, I announced to the House that I have been using the results of the housing benefit fraud study to develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle housing benefit fraud. I have earmarked up to £8 million for a challenge fund, to help local authorities to finance innovative schemes to tackle fraud.
  From this April, I am setting more demanding targets for local authorities to detect fraud, with higher rewards for those who meet them and stiffer penalties for those who make no effort. The national threshold for savings for all local authorities will increase from £100 million to £150 million. That is challenging but realistic, and well within the levels of fraud savings that local authorities are now achieving.
  The proportion of savings above the threshold that local authorities will be allowed to keep will be increased from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. The few authorities that devote little or no effort to protecting public funds from fraudsters will suffer increased financial penalties. Any local authority achieving less than half the new threshold will have the penalty increased to £1 in the pound.
  I am also establishing from the summer a national central register of housing benefit claims, which will provide a powerful tool for local authorities in carrying out data-matching exercises. It will enable local authorities to check housing benefit claims in their area with those elsewhere in the country, to weed out multiple claims and to check claims data for consistency with other DSS data on related benefits.
  The central register will be a major advance, but it will still be limited in scope. It will enable each local authority to make one-off checks of their existing claimants against other data. That will help in detecting fraud, but there will be no direct on-line link to check out new claims before they are awarded. Therefore, the register will not be able to help in preventing fraud.
  Direct on-line checks are virtually impossible at present, because as each local authority has its own computer system—there are more than 400 of them—any pre-claim checks can be carried out only by cumbersome, time-consuming and often clerical procedures. The Benefits Agency is developing a unified database for agency benefit data, with an individual payment account for each claimant—but local authority and housing benefit data will not at present be linked to it. I am inviting the local authority associations to join in a study of how local authority systems can be linked, to share information with each other and with the new Benefits Agency computer systems. In particular, it will examine the merits of introducing a unified computer system covering all local authorities' housing benefit

  169
  work. It could eliminate the paper chase between local authorities and the Benefits Agency and be a powerful weapon against fraud and multiple cross-border fraud.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the whole House for being what I believe to be the toughest Secretary of State for Social Security and clamping down on fraud? Will he accept our congratulations on tackling the difficult issue of housing benefit, where local authorities have different computer systems? From evidence received by the Social Security Select Committee to date, it appears that different computer systems in local authorities may account for the fact that housing benefit fraud could be as high as £1.5 billion or £2 billion—equivalent to 5 per cent. on pensioners' state pension or 1 p off income tax. We are very grateful that he is tackling this important issue.
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of encouragement. He will, of course, have noticed that no positive proposals have ever been made by the Opposition on this or any other issue, and it is precisely to that area that I want to turn now, because no one doubts—
  Miss Hoey: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: A last chance for the hon. Lady.
  Miss Hoey: Before the Secretary of State moves away from local authorities, will he congratulate the London borough of Lambeth—my authority? Although I have been a critic of it over the years, I believe that it has now turned around. Will he congratulate in particular its fraud unit, which recently discovered that some 105 members of staff were involved in one way or another in fraud, and welcome the fact that local authorities across London are co-operating to ensure that the ordinary ratepayer is not ripped off by people who work either in the council or outside it?
  Mr. Lilley: I welcome, of course, any action that local authorities take to tackle fraud, particularly following the sticks and carrots that we introduced to prompt, force and goad them into taking such measures. I welcome the points that the hon. Lady made and the action that Lambeth council has taken in that area. She referred to the long time that it has taken for such action to be introduced. She should apply that test to herself and her own local authority.
  No one doubts the Government's dedication to curbing fraud. We have demonstrated that by the priority that we have given it in the Department of Social Security, the extra resources that we have committed to it and the effort and imagination that we have devoted to developing new approaches to tackling fraud.
  The Labour party has always been soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), in our previous major debate on the subject, said:
  "We must place the issue of fraud in context … We should continually bear in mind the fact that, in the context of the overall budget, even £1 billion"—
  of fraud—
  "is not a large amount … There is some danger of overstating the amount of fraud in the system."
  170
  One of the attitudes of Opposition Front-Benchers to fraud is to pretend that it is not very big; the other is to say that it is not very important. Their attitude to fraud is similar to the attitude of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on shoplifting, who said:
  "Shoplifting is just a case of lone parents and other poor people helping themselves to a treat."
  Opposition Members see fraud in a rather similar light.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, in the same debate, I said right at the beginning:
  "I wish to place on record immediately that the Labour party is as committed as any other party or the Government to rooting out fraud. We certainly support the measures that the Government have announced to ensure that the fraud crackdown continues."— [Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1253–55.]?
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving that he has the essential qualification for serving on the Front Bench of the Labour party: an ability to contradict himself in the same speech.
  On another occasion, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the Labour party has too long been associated with the freeloader. Opposition Members were anxious to try to get away from that message.
  I acknowledge, however, that the Opposition have now, belatedly, reluctantly and grudgingly, come round to acknowledging the need to tackle fraud, but it is no more than lip service. Their hearts are not in it and nor are their minds. I have checked every reference to fraud by a Front Bench Labour spokesman in Hansard that I can find and I have not been able to locate one positive proposal from any of them on how to combat fraud.
  I challenge the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to correct me. Perhaps he will remind me if I am wrong about the Opposition's plans and proposals for tackling fraud. Has he come up with any such proposals in the past? The hon. Gentleman is now more than halfway through his root-and-branch appraisal and review of Labour's social security policy. Does he now have any ideas that he is prepared to share with the House on how we can improve our efforts to combat fraud? He may not have found a root or a branch but has he found a leaf of an idea of Labour policy in this area?
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may be the exception that proves the rule. He may be the solitary socialist with a good track record in combating fraud. The Opposition's amendment harks back 17 years and condemns by implication the 1979 Conservative Government for a lack of activity in tackling fraud in the early 1980s.
  But the only participant in the debate who was responsible for combating fraud in those days was the hon. Gentleman. Between May 1981 and June 1983 he was chairman of Islington council's housing committee. In that role he was responsible for preventing housing benefit fraud. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to remind the House of the initiatives that he took to curb fraud and to combat it.
  I well remember the hon. Gentleman's period in office because at that time I was living full time in Islington. I remember that it was punctured by a period of Social Democratic party rule. The hon. Gentleman was ousted as

  171
  chairman of housing for a few months. His job was taken by a member of the SDP, who naturally followed closely the hon. Gentleman's record while chairman of the housing committee. He has today issued a statement, which reads:
  "To my recollection, Chris Smith was not at all interested in the issue of Housing Benefit fraud while Chairman of the Islington Housing Committee. And such interest would have been totally contrary to the spirit of the Islington Labour Party at the time."
  Mr. Chris Smith (: As the gentleman that the Secretary of State has quoted stood against me at the last general election and was roundly defeated into third place by me, he might perhaps be somewhat parti pris in his comments.
  Mr. Lilley: Is the gentleman wrong or is he right? That is the issue. The hon. Gentleman failed in his intervention to set things right. We must assume that the gentleman won the argument, even if he did not win Islington, South and Finsbury at the election.
  The legacy which the hon. Gentleman left behind of fraud in Islington was pretty lamentable. Until Islington council was goaded into action by the measures that we have taken—the sticks and carrots to which I have referred of about four years ago—it did not take much interest in housing benefit fraud. Since then, however, I am happy to say that the amount of fraud that it has uncovered has quintupled. The sum that they have uncovered is £2.5 million more than that uncovered four years ago. That is a pretty good measure of the minimum amount of unidentified fraud that was going on before we prompted the council into action.
  The Opposition say through their amendment that the level of fraud is attributable to means testing in the benefits system. That assertion displays an extraordinary attitude. If all benefits were universally available without condition there would be no fraud because there would be no need for it. Of course there would be no need for fraud if everyone received benefits automatically.
  Are the Opposition saying that they will do away with means testing and that they will pay housing benefit to anyone regardless of income with no test of the rent incurred? Will they send the equivalent of income support to everybody? A basic benefit, as some propose, might drastically reduce the level of fraud but it would dramatically increase costs to the taxpayer by a multiple of any fraud savings. Of course, the Labour party does not mean that.
  When Labour Members speak today, however, I ask them to say what they propose to do if they believe that the cause of fraud is means testing. What do they propose to do about means testing in the benefits system? As far as we know, their only proposal is to extend the benefit system by introducing a guaranteed minimum income. We are assured by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that although the Leader of the Opposition is committed to a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners, he, the hon. Gentleman, is against a guaranteed minimum pension, and believes that the two are in some obscure way different.
  The Labour party is unhappy with fraud in social security because the party's entire approach to social security is intrinsically fraudulent. The Labour party seeks
  172
  to convince the British people that they can have more for less—in other words, that we can enhance benefits and avoid the savings and changes that I have introduced over the years, all of which the Opposition have opposed and rejected, without increasing the costs that are borne by the taxpayer. That is nonsensical. It is intrinsically fraudulent. It is a fraud that we will expose at the next general election.
  Genuine fraud in the social security system is a serious issue. It is an attack on both the taxpayer and genuine benefit claimants. We owe it to them to stamp it out. The measures that I have announced today will set record but achievable fraud and security spending saving targets. They will involve staff, claimants and members of the public in local anti-fraud drives. They will challenge local authorities to bring their fraud savings up to the levels of the best achievers.
  I commend the motion and our measures to the House. 4.46 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `notes that after seventeen years Her Majesty's Government has belatedly begun to realise the extent of benefit fraud; further notes that its massive extension of means-testing in the benefit system, and introduction of increasingly complex procedures for the claiming of benefits, have made the fight against fraud more difficult; believes that Her Majesty's Government's proposed moves towards self-assessment procedure will further hamper both the detection and deterrence of fraud; congratulates the many Labour-controlled local authorities which have had substantial success in tackling housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud; regrets the inadequate support and liaison from government departments in assisting local authorities in this work; and believes that successful action against fraud is worth far more than repeated government rhetoric.'.
  The Government have tabled an interesting motion. The most remarkable thing about it is that it started life in a rather more interesting form. The Government's original motion referred to
  "benefit savings"—
  that is, from detecting and stopping fraud—
  "likely to amount to over £1 billion in 1995/96".
  It later stated that the House
  "endorses its future programme, which, through innovative techniques and additional resources, is expected to achieve £1.5 billion of benefit savings in 1996/97."
  You will immediately notice two specific changes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lilley: The changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers were designed to make way, as I wanted to keep the motion brief, for our challenge to the Labour party to come up with positive proposals. We wait for it to rise to that challenge. I reiterated the target of £1.5 billion in my speech. The hon. Gentleman should therefore see nothing sinister in the brevity of the motion.
  Mr. Smith: I note that the Secretary of State was so desperate to reduce the size of the motion that he deleted "over" from the calculation of savings that he is achieving in the current financial year. He has given us, as set out in the answer in today's Order Paper, a figure of £1.5 billion as a "target". The right hon. Gentleman has used an important word.

  173
  The Government are all over the place on their estimated savings from fighting fraud. The Red Book, issued at the same time as the Budget, says that £2.5 billion a year will be saved by 1998–99. The following day, in his uprating statement, the Secretary of State for Social Security spoke about £2.5 billion over three years, so my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) immediately tabled a parliamentary question asking what the Government actually meant they would save: was it £2.5 billion spread over three years or £2.5 billion in one year? My hon. Friend still awaits an answer.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: For all those estimates of what might or might not be saved, in all the months that the hon. Gentleman has been a Front-Bench spokesman, and in all the years that his predecessor, now Labour Chief Whip, who is present, and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), were Front-Bench spokesmen, what single constructive point did any of them come up with to counter fraud? Name one.
  Mr. Smith: I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. The difference between £1.5 billion and £2.5 billion estimated savings from fraud is important. To dismiss the dubiety of the figures, as the hon. Gentleman does, diminishes the issue's seriousness. If he is patient for about a quarter of an hour, he will receive the answer that he is looking for, when I make eight specific proposals that the Government should be implementing, have not implemented and are not making, to assist the fight against fraud.
  The other thing that the Government should take into account is how those figures of savings are calculated. Is the 32-week computation they use in calculating them sound? We need more clarity from the Government on what figures they are talking about, and whether £2.5 billion a year by 1998 is the figure to which they are working, so that we can test them against whether they will achieve it.
  We know that, over recent years, fraud and error in the system have increased. The Comptroller and Auditor General has told us so. He has qualified his accounts on income support every year since it was introduced, and this year he said that the error level in the income support system was the highest ever. He identified, as the Select Committee on Social Security has in its report, a high and alarming level of fraud.
  One of the reasons why fraud and error have increased is because of what the Government have done to the social security system. They have presided over the doubling of means testing. When they took office in 1979, 17 per cent. of benefit expenditure was means-tested; the figure is now 35 per cent. Inevitably, if one increases the amount of means testing in the system, one is bound to increase the scope for fraud. The Select Committee specifically identified that as an issue.
  Mr. Lilley: Would the hon. Gentleman reduce the amount of means testing in the system?
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State should consider paragraph 6 of the Select Committee report, which states:
  "In particular, means tests tend to tax effort, as benefit is withdrawn against rising income, to undermine savings, since accumulated savings disqualify people from benefit, and to penalise honesty."
  174
  That paragraph was amended and included in the report by the Conservative majority on the Select Committee. The Secretary of State should recognise that that problem is an inevitable consequence of the way in which the system operates.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I will give way, because it is the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question: would the Labour party reduce the level of means testing in the system?
  Mr. Smith: We are preparing a series of proposals to have a serious benefit-to-work strategy in the welfare system. That will make a fundamental difference to the problems that the Government's means-testing approach has brought to the system.
  As well as increasing the amount of means testing, the Government have increased the system's complexity. The replacement of supplementary benefit by income support, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance and of incapacity benefit, and the development of the social fund, the administrative costs of which amount to 61 per cent. of all the money that is allocated to the fund, have increased that complexity.
  Ms Eagle: Has my hon. Friend read the document recently leaked about the running costs review in the Department of Social Security? It considers self-assessment of benefit, having benefit claims decided over the telephone, and the loss of up to 20,000 jobs in the Benefits Agency, but it does not mention fraud. Is he worried that such changes will increase the scope for fraud in the system rather than improve the position?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are proposing a series of major changes to the Department's administration. We know that the Secretary of State is looking for 25 per cent. cuts in administrative costs over three years. In the wonderful jargon of the age, he calls it a "step improvement", but it threatens the Department's efficiency in the fight against fraud
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman is so dismissive of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security suggests, will he confirm that he wrote to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and said that those savings were feasible, given the scope for efficiency savings?
  Mr. Smith: I did not write to my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman has misread his central office briefing. In his letter to me, my hon. Friend said:
  "savings in running costs of this magnitude are feasible".
  I say just three things in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, my hon. Friend was reporting internal proposals in the Department of Social Security—he was not making his own proposals. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the sensible step of reading the entire letter rather than the particular sentence presented

  175
  to him, he would know that my hon. Friend made clear in his letter the dangers and difficulties involved in any such process in such a time scale.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman needs to get his English right, because what is feasible is not necessarily desirable. If he reads the "Oxford English Dictionary", he will find that the word "feasible" is defined as "capable of being done"—not as "desirable", "worthy" or "admirable".
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Smith: I will give way for the last time, to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has always been very fair in these matters.
  Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would have us read the letter thus: "The advice I am getting … nevertheless suggests that savings and running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, but not desirable."
  Mr. Smith: That is precisely what I am suggesting. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the advice that I gave his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), he would have read further. In his letter, my hon. Friend says:
  "There must be doubts about the wisdom of trying to achieve so much in so short a time."
  I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. This is what confused the hon. Member for Harrow, West: the Secretary of State did indeed write a letter to his Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in October last year. In that letter, he wrote:
  "Your proposed settlement on running costs fills me with despair. The impact on operations will be devastating."
  Yet, when precisely the same proposals are made, the Secretary of State tells us that they are all for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I will not. I have already given way a good many times.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is on a different issue.
  Mr. Hughes: Is it not a courtesy of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member who has referred to another to give way to him subsequently?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Courtesy is very different from requirement.
  Mr. Smith: I would also point out that I referred to the hon. Gentleman because I was responding to his intervention—a rather predictable and not particularly useful intervention, at that.
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Smith: I must make progress. I have given way many times.
  176
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised an important and serious point. The running costs review unit is currently considering these matters within the Department of Social Security, and the minutes of its meeting of 19 October have now surfaced in the public domain. They are very revealing.
  It seems that the unit intends to recommend a number of what it describes as "quick-wind savings". It goes on to refer to a longer-term, more radical approach, and to discuss self-assessment before benefit. It describes that process in the minutes—minutes of important discussions taking place in the Department. Self-assessment, it says,
  "would change if the onus was put entirely on the customer. Claim forms would give clear instructions on what verification was required. Customers would be able to seek advice about this, but BA"-
  that is, the Benefits Agency—
  "staff would take no action to gather the information themselves and the date of claim would become the date that all the information required was submitted. No backdating would be involved … On changes of circumstances, the change would be implemented from the first payday following report. If the change was to the customer's advantage, no backdating would take place. However, in other cases, any overpayment would be calculated in full."
  Quite apart from the obvious lack of even-handedness that is proposed in the administration of benefits, that illustrates the difficulty that will confront many elderly, disabled or inarticulate claimants who are faced with a terrifying system, and with the need to produce full documentation before their claims can even be considered.
  Moreover, the system will not stop the fraudsters. They will sail through it. They will know which documents they must produce, and will have them ready on demand. It is the innocent, legitimate claimants who will be harmed by the self-assessment procedure: it is the genuine citizen who will be caught. I believe that the procedure will make the fight against fraud more rather than less difficult.
  Now, rather belatedly—after 17 years in office—the Government want to proclaim a great crusade against fraud. We are entirely in accord with their intention; every pound defrauded from the system is a pound less for those in real need. I might add that the drive for accuracy should cut both ways: the Government should be just as assiduous in ensuring that those who are entitled to benefit receive it. Fighting fraud and improving genuine take-up are two sides of the same coin. I wish that the Government would see it that way more often.
  Even on the fraud issue, however, the Government are not waking up to the full extent of the problem; nor are they proposing sufficient remedies. They have undertaken two reviews recedntly. The first examined the extent of fraud relating to income support and unemployment benefit. The Government have proposed a number of steps, as they said in their response to the select Committee, and most of them were repeated in the Secretary of State's speech today.
  The Government have proposed the deployment of information technology, and spoken of the importance of data matching and the development of central registers. That is all well and good, but it should be pointed out that central registers and data matching pick up claims only when they are made in the same or similar identities; they are not a wholesale answer to the problem of fraud.
  May I ask the Secretary of State when all parts of the Department will be able to match their computer records with those of all the other parts? When will they be able

  177
  to link automatically with local authority systems? The Government say that they are going to sit down and talk to the local authority associations. Where on earth have they been for the past 17 years?
  The Government are also relying on the private finance initiative to fund the development of the new technology. Just four months ago, the firms that are likely to bid for the new Post Office Counters technology expressed considerable concern about the way in which the PFI was operating: they complained about the reams of paperwork, and the red tape that was strangling the processes that had to be undergone. I certainly hope that the PFI' s success rate in this instance will not mirror what happened in the saga of the Scottish air traffic control centre. Because of the nature of the PFI, the completion date has slipped from 1997 to, probably, the turn of the century.
  Even worse, the Government are now in danger of making a complete mess of the introduction of benefit cards to be used with the new technology. On 12 February, the Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) an astonishing answer. My hon. Friend had asked the Secretary of State
  "if the proposed social security smart card will bear a photograph of the claimant and have a memory capacity."
  The Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "The card technology and security features are a matter for the supplier under the private finance initiative."—[0fficial Report, 12 February 1996; Vol.271, c. 466]
  In other words, the Government are leaving the crucial question of what is to be on the card and how it is to be produced entirely to the private sector company that will be involved. That is not a matter of semantics. There is a crucial difference between having the cheap option with a card, which is a magnetic strip, and having a proper smart card with built-in technology.
  A magnetic strip is much easier to defraud than a smart card, but the magnetic strip is cheaper to produce. Which are we likely to get from the private sector company? As the Government develop this technology, it is absolutely essential that they do it properly and give us a card that cannot be defrauded, rather than the one that we are at present likely to get.
  The Government have told us that there will also be more home visits. There were roughly 500,000 visits in the past year, we are told, and that number will now increase to about 1.5 million, and take into account new claimants and existing claimants. That is all very well, but does the Secretary of State know how many home visits took place under the old system, in 1979, when the Government took office? There were 6.5 million home visits that year. The Secretary of State clearly did not know that, because he mumbled inanities about the International Monetary Fund in 1976, which is completely irrelevant in this context.
  The Secretary of State has also said that targeted visiting is much better than random, blanket visiting. That sounds fine. However, if one knew where to target in the first place, there would be much less of a problem from the start. Random, blanket visiting is terribly useful—it was during the period of the old system—precisely because one often does not know where to target.
  178
  We have had a second review from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, for the very last time.
  Mr. Nicholson: Since the hon. Gentleman has given a figure of 6.5 million home visits in the last year of the previous Labour Government, perhaps he can tell the House—I am genuinely interested—what that Labour Government's record was in detecting and exposing fraud, and how much money was recovered.
  Mr. Smith: Home visiting was meant to ensure that there was far less fraud in the first place. It was routine, it followed every claim that was made, and the information that was held by the then Department of Health and Social Security was far more accurate.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way—for the very last time?
  Mr. Smith: I shall break my rule because my hon. Friend asks to intervene.
  Mr. Corbyn: Should not my hon. Friend also emphasise the point that, in 1979, there was a far more positive relationship between the then DHSS and its customers or clients—whatever one likes to call them—than there is now? Those visits were supportive and helpful, and they also ensured that people who were under-claiming were able to claim. We now have a type of snooper's charter that has no interest whatsoever in people who are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. Under the old home visiting system, the officers were first looking for fraud, but they were also looking for the take-up of entitlements. Those two features should go together in any sane, sensible and humane system.
  The Government have had a second review, this time of housing benefit and council tax benefit. The review has estimated that there is about £1 billion of fraud in the system, but that is almost certainly a serious underestimate, because the methodology of the work done in it was seriously flawed. The first flaw was that the sample was less than 5,000 cases, and local authorities, in particular, have raised major concerns about how representative it was.
  Secondly, the survey essentially relied on a memory test that checked the claimant's current statements against previous statements. Any serious fraudster would be able to pass the memory test with flying colours, and it was the small fish that tended to be picked up by that survey.
  Thirdly, and most importantly, the entire concentration of the survey was on claimant rather than landlord fraud. Organised, deliberate fraud by landlords is almost certainly more significant than tenant-claimant fraud. The Government review said that about 6.3 per cent. of claims by claimants are definitely fraudulent, and that a further

  179
  1 per cent. are possibly so. So, according to the Government's survey, claimant fraud represents about 7.5 per cent. of claims.
  The borough of Haringey carried out an intensive investigation of landlords there who were receiving direct payments. It interviewed 1,100 such landlords—the Government could only manage to interview 5,000 across the entire country—and more than 200 were found to be making fraudulent claims. That was 21 per cent. of the landlords who were receiving direct payments. The level of landlord fraud that was identified in one survey in one London borough is three times the level of claimant fraud identified by the Government in their survey.
  Haringey is one of many local authorities—many are Labour-controlled, but some are hung or controlled by the Liberal Democrats—that are acting very successfully against fraud. Haringey has 21 staff who are specifically deployed to deal with housing benefit fraud. It has nine officers who, between them, are carrying out some 50 home visits every day, and they have visited their entire live case load of housing benefit claimants in the past 14 months. That record is commendable.
  The London borough of Camden, which is next door to Haringey, has been awarded a charter mark by the Prime Minister for its work in countering housing benefit fraud. Recently, it also achieved the acclaim of an ISO standard.
  Last summer, the council in Reading saw the launch of its innovative "fraudwatch" scheme by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). That scheme is being taken up elsewhere around the country, and I see that it is now one of the Government's suggestions.
  This year, local authorities will save £217 million on housing benefit fraud, for a £26 million outlay from the Secretary of State's Department. That is an 815 per cent. return for the Department. So Ministers should not dare to say that the Labour party is doing nothing or proposing nothing on fraud. In local authorities up and down the country, the Labour party is doing precisely that, and providing an extremely good return to the Department.
  The Government are supposedly launching new challenge funding for local authorities. They announced a figure of £10 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rightly pointed out, however, a couple of days later, when the local authorities sat down to look at the facts, the amount turned out to be £8 million rather than £10 million. It then turned out that £5 million of the £8 billion was from money that was already allocated for local authority work against fraud. So the new money from the Government actually amounted to £3 million.
  That should be seen against the background of the Government reducing the funds made available to local authorities. Under the current funding formulae, the £26.7 million in the current financial year will be reduced to £13.7 million in the next financial year. So this is hardly a Government who are serious about helping local authorities in the battle against housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud. Why, if they are serious about it, is the return expected from local authority schemes introduced under the challenge funding expected to meet a ratio of 3.5:1, whereas the Benefits Agency itself is expected to meet a ratio of only 2.2:1?
  180
  Why in the assessment criteria is speed of effect given a weighting of 4, whereas innovation, which the Government say they are interested in promoting, is given a weighting of only 1? Why, when local authorities want information from the Department of Employment, the Post Office or, at times, from the DSS itself in the fight against fraud, is it sometimes so difficult to obtain?
  The Select Committee on Social Security's fifth report is very revealing on that point. Paragraph 8 states:
  "We are disturbed that the threat of such fraud is taken far too lightly by some of the Government Agencies we questioned".
  The Government are supposed to have launched a great, determined, consistent fight against fraud, yet, when the Select Committee interviewed a series of Government agencies, it found that
  "the threat of …fraud is taken far too lightly".
  All that the Government have done is announce new money that is not new. They have said that they are going to establish a central register, which is a welcome but limited proposal. They are going to go in for a lot of data matching and new information technology, which is fine. They are going to have a series of local drives which mirror what many local authorities are already doing. It would appear that they have entirely ignored the situation in Northern Ireland in doing that.
  The Government have also said that they are going to return the number of home visits to a quarter of what they were before they took office. There is, of course, much more that they could do. I have eight specific proposals to make to the Secretary of State.
  First, the Government could tell the House today that they are going to scrap any moves towards self-assessment procedures in applications for benefit.
  Secondly, the Government could establish a special unit of investigators across local authorities, starting in London, to tackle organised landlord and managing agent fraud. Landlords use false tenant identities, switch tenants between properties and claim more rent than is actually being paid. Local authorities have been asking for such a unit to be established and supported by the Government for the past four years, yet the Government are today still saying that they are discussing it. I suggest that they make a start now, and give the money to establish the unit, which would pay for itself 100 times over.
  Thirdly, the Government should give local authorities the right to obtain proof from managing agents and landlords of their right to control a property, to identify the real owners and to withhold benefit if they are not satisfied with the answers that they receive.
  Fourthly, the Government should drastically tighten the issuing of national insurance numbers. The Select Committee in particular expressed concern about this matter, but the Government's response consisted only of bland assurances.
  Incidentally, the Government have given a series of different answers in relation to how many national insurance numbers are in circulation. One representative of the Department said that 62 million numbers were in circulation. Another said that 65 million were in circulation, but, in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead last year, the Government said that 56 million national insurance numbers were in circulation.

  181
  It would be very useful to know exactly how many are in circulation. There needs to be clarity and specificity in relation to national insurance numbers. Surely it must be possible to have specific numbers for specific citizens—if the credit card companies can do it, for heaven's sake the Department of Social Security can surely do it.
  Fifthly, the Department should end the "finders, keepers" rule between the Benefits Agency and the local authorities.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): A great deal of information about national insurance numbers has been bandied around, but the Select Committee was given a very full presentation of the numbers and the two computer systems, and the figures were reconciled. If the hon. Gentleman would like a copy of that presentation, I should be only too happy to arrange it.
  Mr. Smith: I notice that the Minister omitted to give us the crucial information, which is how many national insurance numbers are in circulation. I am sure that the Select Committee had a wonderful presentation, and that there was all sorts of reconciliation going on between all sorts of figures that the Government have come up with, but the Select Committee was not satisfied, and I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. We ought to be able to ensure the tagging of an individual national insurance number to an individual identified citizen. It must not be beyond the wit of Government to produce a precise match.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall not, because I must make progress.
  Fifthly, the Government should end the "finders, keepers" rule between the Benefits Agency and the local authorities, because it leads to competition between them for the same fraudsters. It has on occasion led to Benefits Agency investigating officers sitting in court when local authorities prosecute fraudsters in order to note down names and addresses, bung them on to the computer and claim the saving for the Benefits Agency rather than the local authorities. I suggest that there are better things that investigators from the Benefits Agency could and should be doing with their time.
  The system should state clearly that the Benefits Agency can claim savings when income support fraud is identified, and that local authority benefits agencies can claim the savings when housing benefit fraud is identified. There should be close liaison and co-operation between the two, rather than the existing absurd competition.
  Sixthly, we could ensure that the Benefits Agency fraud figures are audited in the same way that local authority fraud figures are audited. We know the accuracy of the local authority figures, because they have to go through an auditing process, whereas those of the Benefits Agency do not.
  Seventhly, we should tackle the issue of postal redirects. At the moment, if they are sending cheques to a particular address and the cheques are being forwarded to another address by the Post Office, the Benefits Agency and the local authority are not told about the redirection of the mail. We should allow local authorities and the agency to have a list of all redirected mail for claimants.
  182
  Eighthly, employment offices ought to inform local authorities automatically when claimants cease to claim unemployment benefit or jobseeker's allowance. That happens most of the time with the Benefits Agency and income support. It is still patchy across the country, but improvements have been made. However, there is no rule relating to employment benefit offices to say that, once someone comes off unemployment benefit or jobseeker's allowance, the local authority paying housing benefit must automatically be informed. Such a rule would assist the fight against fraud.
  I have outlined eight specific things that the Government could do now to assist the fight against fraud. Yes, prevention, detection and deterrence are important. It is not only the claimants we need to be examining, but organised gangs, landlords and managing agents. Yes, we need innovative information technology and administration changes, but much more is needed than the Government envisage.
  We need better support and liaison for local authorities from the DSS, the Post Office and the Employment Service. We need a commitment from the Government to stop making things worse. We need a serious tightening up on the issuing of national insurance numbers. We need a more secure and sensible approach to the issuing of benefit cards.
  Above all, we need dedication to ensuring that the money saved by the fight against fraud is deployed in helping people in real need. I am afraid that the Government's belated endeavours do not measure up to the task of meeting those objectives and needs.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I did not think that I would be called so early and therefore felt a little trepidation at the prospect of having to prepare a response to Labour's eight stunning points. I am glad that no such response is needed because the hon. Gentleman cited a list of things that the Government are already doing. I therefore hope that at the end of the debate the Labour Front-Bench team will encourage their colleagues to vote with the Government and encourage the Government in their efforts to improve the tackling of fraud.
  Although I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is sincere in what he is saying and is trying to help, his statement on how Labour will tackle benefit fraud was absolutely pitiful and demonstrated that his party is bereft of ideas. Indeed, the fact that it has no other ideas for fundamental change emphasises that the Government's policies must be right.
  Whenever I start a speech I always declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members' Interests. Indeed, I have been somewhat critical of colleagues for not having done so. Although none of the organisations that I advise has in any way helped with my speech or anything else, it is relevant to declare that I advise the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services and the Telecommunications Managers Association. Some of the

  183
  remarks that I shall make are certainly as a result of the benefit of working with those organisations and knowing what is going on in the real world outside.
  Mr. Corbyn: How much do they pay you?
  Mr. Bruce: That is also stated in the register.
  Mr. Corbyn: Tell us now.
  Mr. Bruce: It is a matter of public record. I shall make my speech in my own way.
  Whenever any of us talk to business men or others on their doorsteps, whether they be Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Ulster Unionists or any others—I do not meet too many Ulster Unionists on doorsteps in my constituency—people are adamant that they do not want others to rip off the state. They know very well that that is ripping them off as taxpayers and they are very keen to ensure that we work as hard as possible to eliminate fraud in the system.
  The man in the street is often somewhat dismissive of people who genuinely claim benefit. People who are genuinely in need of some benefit are attacked simply because of the fraud that is going on. It is therefore imperative that the House sends out a clear message about our determination to find the fraudsters.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the success of the studies. It is impossible to identify all fraud accurately and exactly, but unless we make an effort to measure it sensibly, which the Government have done, the size of the problem cannot be determined and we cannot assess where it should be tackled. The usual Pareto analysis applies to fraud: if 10 or 20 per cent. of the problem is tackled, 80 or 90 per cent. of the fraud will be found. There is no point in spending £1 million if only £100,000 is saved. We must ensure that we spend taxpayers' money correctly in targeting fraud.
  Many of the important areas identified by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury are clearly common ground across the Floor of the House. The reports produced by the Select Committee on Social Security demonstrate that we must all be aware of the issue and that we are all very keen that it is tackled. I congratulate the Labour party on not having any fresh proposals, on the basis that it clearly understands that the Government are going in the right direction.
  The Government are right to emphasise that we have gone too far in withdrawing home visits and that we must find ways of checking up on people and discovering fraud. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that there are other simple methods by which we can find out whether people are defrauding the state. For instance, benefit claimants could be telephoned during the normal working day, perhaps after the children have returned from school. It is amazing how many young children answer the telephone and say, "Sorry, Daddy and Mummy can't come to the phone, they are both still at work." Such calls would determine whether people are working and claiming benefit.
  Other methods, including letters asking for information, tend to make people who are defrauding the system nervous. If people are asked to give additional information
  184
  by letter, they think that somebody is checking up on them and decide to sign off, which is clearly what we are trying to get them to do if they are defrauding the system. People could be asked to call into the local office, especially at times when it would be difficult for them to get away from their jobs. We should remember that claimants would be travelling to such appointments in their own time and therefore such visits would be more easily accommodated by a genuine claimant than by an officer who had to make home visits. Those methods can and should be used much more. It is extremely important to use all possible flexibility.
  I mentioned that I am an adviser to the Telecommunication Managers Association and I am a keen advocate of the use of information technology. I congratulate the Government on taking their first steps in that area. They are fairly tentative first steps, but there has already been some success. Data matching has been used very successfully in other countries. Australia, under new Labour, was one of the first. Perhaps if Labour had introduced data matching a little earlier it might not have been so whitewashed in the recent election.
  The Government have been very supportive of the Post Office and sub-post offices over the use of information technology, and a number of companies and individuals have given presentations to some of our Back-Bench committees on how it will be used. The House might like to know that when somebody claims their benefit in future, postmasters will be connected to a computer in another area that will carry live information as opposed to all the intelligence being kept on a smart card.
  Although that system is quite expensive, it is a very good way to check up on fraud and identify people who have lost an intelligent piece of information that could be used fraudulently. As soon as a loss is reported, the information can be immediately entered on the computer and the postmaster dealing with the claim can be alerted. That is beneficial, and I very much hope that information technology will be used successfully by the Department of Social Security.
  I hope, too, that many of the benefits gained from using such a system will extend to other parts of the economy. The Government are large users of computing technology, and if they sign up to a particular type of technology and use IT, it will encourage other parts of the economy to do the same.
  I echo some of the concerns expressed about the private finance initiative, which is a matter for the Treasury rather than for the DSS. As the guardian of public funds, the Treasury is keen to stop fraud, but it is somewhat over-bureaucratic—if not over-zealous—in the types of documentation that it requires. The DSS is working vigorously with would-be suppliers to get over the problems, but we should be aware of them and ensure that something is done to help.
  I should be most grateful to learn how the new incapacity benefit is working in terms of weeding out those who have been defrauding the system. No hon. Member could oppose a disabled person who cannot work receiving help from the state. After all, if we are in Parliament for any reason, it is surely to help those who are most vulnerable. I do not want in any way to suggest that I am against ensuring that disabled people get suitable benefits—the Secretary of State and all Ministers are devoted to ensuring that they do—but it is extremely

  185
  important that people who are denied benefits because they have plenty of savings are not allowed to get a doctor's note saying that they are disabled and should receive incapacity benefit. We must carry out objective and sensible tests to ensure that claimants do not rip off the system.
  One of my constituents—a vigorous worker for the Labour party and many other good causes—is energetic, is always rushing around and is happy to deal with her work. She often comes here to ask me to take up issues on her behalf. It was somewhat surprising, therefore, that when the Government introduced incapacity benefit she told me that she was worried about the new incapacity benefit. She had been claiming disability benefit for the past eight years, and was rather worried that the Government were going to take it away from her. I was able to reassure her that she had reached the cut-off age, and could not have the benefit taken away. But, frankly, here was someone receiving disability benefit who was, to my mind, as fit and able to work as anybody. She worked tirelessly for the community, the Labour party and many other organisations, but did not think that she was ripping off the taxpayer.
  If people can work, they should be on the right benefit and should not try to claim incapacity benefit. By doing so, they may make a genuine claimant think that others believe that he is scrounging because, unfortunately, so many people in the past claimed the benefit incorrectly. I hope that we will hear how incapacity benefit is working in that regard.
  I sat next to a number of people from the pharmaceutical industry at a dinner that I attended last night. When I referred to the subjects that the House would be debating this week, the issue of prescription forms was brought up. I know that such forms are not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he will know that exemptions from prescription charges are generally based on benefits. A lady at the dinner was quite adamant—as was the whole table—that the Government are not making sufficient checks on those who simply tick the box on the back of the form to state that they are entitled to benefits. They then sign their name, and their prescription is completely free.
  I understand that someone who is found to be ticking the box incorrectly receives a polite letter from the health service asking him to send only the amount that he has defrauded the system. In other words, there is no disincentive for people to tick the box incorrectly and see whether anybody finds out. I understand that few checks are made on prescription forms, as they deal with a small amount of money but require a lot of clerical effort. The Government should look at that matter and ensure that people who incorrectly fill in prescription forms feel vulnerable to prosecution. We must, on occasion, prosecute fairly minor frauds to draw a line in the sand and to show our seriousness. We know how much the taxpayer pays towards prescriptions—some 80 per cent. of prescriptions are supposedly free. That figure may be boosted by some people claiming a false entitlement to free prescriptions.
  All hon. Members will have had constituents coming to see them about the Child Support Agency and its funding. I do not wish to go into great detail about the CSA, and I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be grateful for that, but time and again parents with
  186
  care and absent parents are adamant that the individual whom they must pay or from whom they are receiving payments is defrauding the social security benefits system. Those parents often feel frustrated that, despite their passing information to the CSA, nothing is done about the complaint.
  The Benefits Agency could target the CSA to deal with such fraud, resulting in an enormous saving to the taxpayer. In addition, those involved with the CSA may feel that they are being treated fairly. That is important, as people often complain more about being treated unfairly than about not having enough to look after their children. I urge my hon. Friends to look at the matter and ensure that information from the CSA gets through to the Benefits Agency.
  Whenever I go to a village to canvass I always say hello to the local postmaster and ask what is happening. All of them know of at least one individual who is collecting a large amount of benefit to which he or she is not entitled. Most postmasters will inform the Benefits Agency of blatant cases, but they too are worried that the agency is not following up information. It is extremely important that there is such feedback.
  When I am given information of an alleged benefit fraud, I can write to the Benefits Agency, which then gives me a full, but confidential, report on the case. I am duty-bound, however, not to pass on the report to the informant. All I can do is write to the informant to thank him for passing on the information, and assure him that the case has been fully considered.
  An individual's right of confidentiality must, of course, be preserved, except when that individual is ripping off the system. If that person has had to pay money back or has stopped his claim, those facts should be available to the person who originally provided the information. That provides a bit of an incentive; it also prevents the situation from arising whereby someone says, "I have provided the information, but the individual seems to be carrying on as normal and I have received no firm information as to whether the claim is genuine."
  I understand that often individuals will not be identified—whether or not they are receiving benefit—because that would break their right to confidentiality. But if there is a genuine case and we are ensuring that people are being found out, that information should be put in the public domain. The more that we put information in the public domain via newspapers, the better it will be for everyone because the climate will start to change. If we prosecute someone, the newspapers pick up the story and print it. We must consider how to get the information to the people.
  I wonder whether we should examine one aspect of housing benefit to see whether it might be more appropriate to return it to the Benefits Agency's remit. It is important that the partnership—if there is one—between housing benefit offices and the DSS works well; it must be a seamless operation. If it does not work well and if we cannot continue to ensure that local authorities take action against fraud—as we have in recent years—we must consider the possibility of bringing the issue back under one roof. That is particularly important if the information that is available on the Government's computer systems cannot be shared around the housing benefit offices. It is important to ensure that the system is seamless and that we get rid of delays. People often tell

  187
  their landlord that they are receiving housing benefit. The landlord then decides that he will allow them to stay without worrying about the rent coming in at the right time as he believes that the DSS will eventually pay. We should be worried about long delays.
  I have one final tale from my days of running an employment agency. It is a cautionary tale that my colleagues may have heard before. I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire for 12 years. In all that time, everyone who came into the agency was put on the national insurance system, and paid their taxes and their national insurance. Only once in all that time did the DSS want to come and check up because it had found that someone was defrauding the system—the person had four jobs and was claiming benefit. It asked us for a list of the people who worked for us in a particular week. Some 30 per cent. of those people were working for us, paying their taxes and national insurance and claiming, but the DSS had not discovered that.
  Organisations such as employment agencies should be asked to co-operate; they will be happy to co-operate with the DSS to ensure that people are not claiming as well as working. The Department needs to liaise with employers, employment agencies and everyone else to carry out that job. All of us should ensure that the system is not ripped off by fraudsters.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for, like him, I wish to congratulate the Government, but for very different reasons. I want to congratulate the Government on their sheer nerve and effrontery in coming here today and presenting themselves as the friend of the taxpayer, given their record of the past 17 years.
  If I am able to keep the attention of the House for a short period, I want to argue why not only the House but the country should condemn the Government for their lack of stewardship in safeguarding taxpayers' money over the past 17 years. In deploying that charge against the Government, we need to consider both fraud that is undertaken by claimants and fraud that is undertaken by gangs of highly motivated individuals—as the late leader of the Labour party once described such groups—to discover what action the Government have taken.
  Clearly, whatever their circumstances, some people who claim benefit would happily commit fraud against their fellow citizens and fellow taxpayers. Others are pushed into doing so because of the circumstances in which they find themselves. I do not stand here today to make excuses for them—I have always stood up and condemned them—but I am minded to draw attention to the fact that they may have better reasons for committing fraud than other groups.
  Unlike those on the Treasury Bench, I take seriously the fact that my constituents are men and women who are interested in economics and who respond to incentives and opportunities offered to them. That was why it was so important for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to draw attention to the massive extension of means tests under this Government which has perverted our social security system.
  When Attlee finished the job of implementing his wave of reforms, for each £10 paid in welfare only £1 was paid in means-tested support. Now, under this Government, for
  188
  each £3 paid in welfare £1 is paid in means-tested support. We all know how means tests operate on human character, especially when there is a scarcity of jobs—given the opportunity, all our constituents would like to take jobs. We know that means tests penalise people who work harder and penalise people who move off benefit. We know that means tests strike at that group of the population whom the Tories used to think constituted the bedrock of their support. Those people thought that saving was important and that such action would be rewarded, saluted and commended by the Government as proper behaviour, not mocked. Those people saw that they would lose out in the welfare state.
  With the extension of means tests, massive penalties have been placed on people who tell the truth. Far from having a welfare state that supports those verities that any civilised, sensible society would wish to support—hard work, the search for work, savings and honesty—the Government have rescheduled the welfare state to attack those verities.
  The first part of the charge sheet against the Government draws attention to their sheer nerve in coming here and saying that they are tough on fraud. It rams home the fact that, although the Government say that they know how ordinary men and women respond to economic incentives, they clearly fail to comprehend what that means in the welfare state. In addition, we must get to grips with how nasty some people are—particularly, how some of those nasty people are prepared to operate in gangs.
  The Select Committee has been undertaking the inquiry not merely to try to prod the Government into some action or to find out more information than the Government have, but, in our own small way. to try to advance, support and invite those members of the public services who try to crack down on fraud—I do not say that lightly, as it is getting tougher for such people. Within the year, people who have checked up on MOT tests have been murdered by those wanting to dispense with the people who uncovered their fraud. If we took the problem seriously, they would be the most prized people in public service. There would have to be more than mere lip service offered: we would have to pay people properly for the risks that they take on our behalf in trying to get to grips with gang attacks on the social security system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury drew attention to the Government's somewhat complacent view of the extent of fraud. It is not just a personal game that I like to have with the Secretary of State when I draw attention to the way in which he keeps revising his estimates of the extent of fraud as he is pushed into further measures. I am pleased that he takes them. Later, I shall underline how honest such an approach is, given that none of us can know the true extent of fraud.
  Let us take the example of Haringey, a borough that is serious in cracking down on fraud and not only saying that it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury told us about the number of staff involved in dealing with fraud. Landlord fraud is the biggest problem with housing benefit—that does not apply to other benefits—and involves at least three, and perhaps four, times the amount of fraud that the Government imagine exists.s
  Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Field: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but if this debates helps in one way I hope that it will be by making it clear to him that he is still not taking seriously enough the size of the problem of housing benefit fraud. That is the second part of the charge sheet. The right hon. Gentleman helps me to make that charge by saying that I am over-egging my case.
  There is a third, more important, charge to be made against the Government. They have allowed the national insurance system, which should have been the fail-safe mechanism of the whole social security system, to become riddled with fraud. I do not want take too much time, so I shall give only one example of that.
  We recently debated asylum seekers. I commiserated with the Secretary of State on the fact that he had been pushed by his colleagues, because of the failure of the Home Office to guard our borders properly, into using the social security system as a way of trying to control illegal immigrants. I said that I thought that he had totally misread the situation. We now have a policy of starving out asylum seekers who do not get their claims recognised. Before long, the right hon. Gentleman will rue the day he introduced those regulations, when the press wake up to the people who are already homeless and hungry and who are being serviced by charities and churches. Those people will soon set up camp cities. It will go on day in, day out. That will not be a pleasant case for him to answer.
  Equally serious is the way in which the Government allowed asylum seekers to build up their claims over most of the Government's period of stewardship. If the Secretary of State had gone to the centre at Croydon during much of the Government's time in office, he would have found that the crucial role of checking whether people were genuine—whether there were real individuals at the end of claims—was performed by two government officials. They sat in their office with ring files in front of them, turning over the photographs and trying to recognise photographs on the applications that might have looked like others that they had seen five or 10 minutes ago—let alone 10 hours ago. That was the check. It was easy for people to claim that they were asylum seekers when they were nothing of the sort, to build up a series of claims, get the crucial note from the Home Office accepting that they were asylum seekers and thereby get their national insurance numbers. That is why we have large numbers of people trading in national insurance numbers.
  Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Field: The Secretary of State again seems to disagree, but time will tell which of us was more right. That helps to explain why, when anti-fraud officers raid some London homes, they find claimants of housing benefit or landlords with 50 or more false identities, each with different national insurance numbers. Often, they have got references through their cheque cards, bills or driving licences. We are not dealing with simple social security frauds; one fraud is reinforced by others, with addresses right across London and beyond. Much of that problem stems from the Government's continual failure to secure our borders safely. We are in an appalling state when the Secretary of State has not only to safeguard the social security budget but to act as a policeman in a way in which the Home Office is failing to do.
  190
  Far from having a secure national insurance number system that acts as gate-keeper of the huge budget to which all our constituents contribute as taxpayers, we have a series of estimates of the number of loose national insurance numbers that are running around. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), rightly said that the Select Committee had had a most interesting trip to the Contributions Agency, but he could not give us the crucial information on how many national insurance numbers are loose in the system. I will return to how crucial that point is, if I can keep the attention of the House, when I consider a programme for reform.
  The last part of the charge sheet involves the lack of any overall drive from the very top in Government which recognises how serious the issue is. It is not only a matter of social security because, as I have tried to illustrate, the frauds do not come in nice little boxes.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman constantly talks about national insurance numbers being loose in the system. I was sorry that he was not able to attend the presentation in Newcastle last week, but I offer it to him as well. What on earth does he mean by "loose in the system"? The numbers are accounted for.
  Mr. Field: We are now into the world of Alice in Wonderland. The Government have given two estimates of the total number. They say that there are two different systems. Ministers do not understand what a giveaway it is to say that there are two totals because there are two systems. We are trying to a develop a safe system of entry into our social security system. We have various explanations of why some of those numbers exist. The numbers far exceed the working population. Some people have died or moved abroad and we have to keep their files open. Those are reasons for having more national insurance numbers than people in the working population, but they do not show whether the number is X million, X plus 2 million or X plus 3 million. The Minister has not answered the crucial question: why is there not a single total?
  Mr. Heald: There are two computer systems. The NIBS computer, or national insurance recording system, lists all the national insurance contributions that are paid and keeps those contribution records. There are 63.6 million records on it. We keep the records of people who have died, because their wives may wish to claim. People who have gone abroad may wish to make a claim in the future. We need their insurance records. We tag records if they are inactive.
  The other system, the departmental central index or DCI system, has on it all the people who are claiming benefits. Some of them have a national insurance number but never make contributions. There are people who have never paid national insurance contributions who are entitled to benefits such as people with category D pensions. There are 77 million numbers on that computer system. The difference is simply explained: it is the difference between those whose contribution records have been kept and those who are entitled to claim benefits, some of whom never paid national insurance contributions. I can give the hon. Gentleman the fullest

  191
  possible breakdown. I can account for it. If he had attended the presentation in Newcastle, our staff would have been only too willing to do that.
  Mr. Field: I did not attend the presentation, because I was sick. I feel sick whenever I deal with fraud. I am extremely angry that taxpayers in my constituency are being ripped off by fraud and that it is so difficult to get the Government to take the issue seriously. The Under-Secretary may believe that the system is foolproof, but when I am visiting the Benefits Agency in Newcastle perhaps he would like to accompany the London anti-fraud squad on its patrols.
  Mr. Heald: In London?
  Mr. Field: The Under-Secretary would not have to travel any distance. He might explain how he can be complacent when that squad discovers people claiming housing benefit who have 50 or 76 false identities with live national insurance numbers.
  Mr. Heald: The Government are not complacent: we have introduced a range of measures to toughen the system. The hon. Gentleman will concede that in the case to which he referred the police, the Benefits Agency and the local authority co-operated to catch those concerned.
  Mr. Field: Precisely. That is an example of how easy it is for people to attain not just the odd national insurance number but fistfuls of them.
  Mr. Heald: We caught them.
  Mr. Field: Ministers did not catch them. They were caught by officers in the field. Those officers are investigating such cases, despite the difficulties they face in attracting and maintaining staff in light of the present subsidy arrangement. When the number of unemployed falls, Ministers say, "We have created more jobs." When unemployment rises, Ministers say, "It is the world economy; entrepreneurial skills are failing." We all know that the Government like to acknowledge success and ignore failure. I am simply advocating more, rather than fewer, successes.
  Ministers should be horrified and shamed by the fact that anti-fraud officers can find people who have national insurance numbers which can be activated against other forms of identity, such as birth certificates. The Government should renew their efforts to combat fraud rather than maintaining that the national insurance number system—which has two computers producing two different results—is safe in Treasury hands. The clear evidence is that it is not.
  I am glad that the Under-Secretary is present because, before he intervened, I was saying that the centre of Government must take the issue seriously. Today we are debating fraud in the DSS and we are not discussing neat little frauds which occur only in that Department—we are up against some very serious criminals who operate in both the public and the private sectors. If insurance companies had been included in the raid to which I
  192
  referred, we would have found that people had made an extraordinary number of claims to the private sector about all sorts of policies.
  Some time ago, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister asking him whether he was taking the lead in co-ordinating the Government's anti-fraud campaign. Given the level of fraud that I suspect is in the system, it seems absurd that the Government should go through their yearly exercise of trying—and failing—to control public expenditure when part of that very large public expenditure budget is being stolen. I believe that those two points are related.
  The Prime Minister referred my question to the Secretary of State who referred it to the Under-Secretary. We all must start somewhere in Government, and I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary. However, I believe that that is a visible sign of how seriously the centre of Government treats the issue. Instead of dealing with the problem himself, the Prime Minister thought that it was more appropriate for one of his most junior Ministers to do so. I do not mean to be personal.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is.
  Mr. Field: I have said already that we all must start somewhere. Many hon. Members—including some of my colleagues—would be delighted to have the Under-Secretary's job. We are all aware of the hierarchy: Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State like to keep certain issues to themselves, while pushing other issues down through the Department for others to deal with. We all know that that occurs. The Prime Minister's actions in that case say something about the Government's priorities—what they think is important. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary on the Treasury Bench tonight; I am simply saying that it tells us something about the Prime Minister's thoughts on the issue. We must change his views.
  Mr. Lilley: For the sake of the record, I remind the House that both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his predecessor held the same position as my hon. Friend at the beginning of their careers. It is an extremely distinguished and prominent post. As a result, the Prime Minister takes a great interest in those subjects and he discusses them frequently with me and my team. It is a perfectly normal, if not the invariable, practice for Prime Ministers to pass questions of a departmental nature to the Departments concerned. I see the answer to every question emanating from my Department.
  Mr. Field: I am pleased to be reminded of where previous Prime Ministers began their careers. When the Secretary of State next meets his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he should tell him to watch his back if the Under-Secretary ever has toothache.
  I am attempting to draw attention to the need to change the culture of addressing fraud. That is illustrated partly in the disputes between the Benefits Agency and local authorities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred. It shows that the Government are more interested—perhaps naturally—in meeting their target than in combating fraud.
  That is evident in the difficulty that the Secretary of State is having spending his challenge money. In light of today's debate, I hope that he will receive a letter from

  193
  the Treasury saying that the initiative in London to co-ordinate a campaign against fraud should go ahead. I hope that the seed money from his Department, which will be added to the challenge money, will be forthcoming. That is not a minor point. The Treasury has sensibly laid down returns on the use of that money. That is all right if there is existing machinery, as one can hit the ground running on day one. However, it takes time to set up new machinery and there are clear difficulties in meeting the returns on challenge money if one is starting from scratch rather than building on existing framework. They are the charges that are levelled against the Government.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—as I am a taxpayer who does not claim benefit in his constituency, I am sure that he will forgive me for intervening. I am puzzled about his rather virulent attack on means-tested benefits. If he is advocating their abolition, that would mean either that the benefits would be devalued if they were spread more widely or that the Treasury would pay much more. Has the hon. Gentleman costed that idea? Would it have any effect on fraud? He knows as well as I do that fraud has been refined into an art form in our part of the world.
  Mr. Field: I bring a certain amount of anger to the debate partly because of what some of my constituents have taught me: I am angry that they must work the system rather than work with the system and I am angry that others, who are not much better placed, must foot the bill. Any solution will take time, but the Government must make a commitment to prevent the spread of means testing. How they do that is important and it will cost money in the short term. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who has left the Chamber, referred to the fact that the self-employed are much more effective in policing their organisations than are companies that belong to the state.
  Mr. Nicholls: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about means testing and I concede that means-testing benefits has implications for fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as about 89 per cent. of contributors towards tax are basic rate taxpayers, if benefits are not means-tested, in many cases the working poor would pay non-means-tested benefits to people such as me and the hon. Gentleman, who do not need them? Whatever complications are inherent in means testing, although it is an imperfect instrument it is the only instrument for getting benefits to people who need them and not giving them in a blanket way to people such as the hon. Gentleman and me, who do not.
  Mr. Field: I hope that we will hold a debate on wider-scale reform another time, when I can deploy arguments about how means testing—targeting in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just said—often fails to achieve the intended goal. One sees that most clearly with unemployment benefit.
  There are increasing numbers of no-wage households with two, three or four wage earners. One reason is that once the senior partner—the main breadwinner—loses his job and then falls out of credit for unemployment benefit, it does not pay the wife to work because the benefit system pays the household more. A wife earning £100 a week when
  194
  income support and housing benefit offer £150 a week has to be of extraordinary courage and resolve not to choose to be £50 a week better off. Many of our constituents choose not to be better off in that way, but we cannot blame constituents who, acting like rational economic men and women, take the better deal.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—he is probably the only Opposition Member who would have the courage to admit this if he does—that he makes a powerful case for deciding that no one should ever be paid more on benefit than he or she would be capable of earning in the local job market if there were a job for a person of their skills? The hon. Gentleman is opening up a debate about whether we should reduce benefit so much that people with ordinary skills and talents are capable of earning more than they could ever get on benefit. That is a dangerous line of argument; it seems that the hon. Gentleman is going down that path.
  Mr. Field: No, I am not. I hope that we shall debate that subject before too long, but briefly, if we were to rebuild an insurance system for which one had to pay, the system should give incentives to people to take work, to take risks, to keep partners in work and so on. That would have a lower net cost, for them as contributors and generally for us as taxpayers, than the morass that we are in. Sadly, £1 of means-tested benefit helps generate the next £1 of means-tested benefit because it is so difficult, once one is on means-tested support, to disengage oneself and get off it, especially given what has happened to the bottom end of the job market.
  Average wages for re-entry jobs are at or below a quarter of median earnings; they are £56 a week or less. It is difficult not to be better off on benefit when wages are so low. We need a benefit system that encourages people to take the risk that is often involved in accepting a job so that their wives and other family members can continue in work and the family is not brought down on to means-tested assistance, from which it is so difficult to escape.
  The House will forgive me if I do not continue to argue that case. I hope that we have a chance to do so in future. In the second half of this brief contribution, I shall list the proposals that I should make if we had a Government who were serious about fraud.
  First, the highest priority should be given to delivering to taxpayers a safe national insurance system. It was significant, was it not, that there was no mention of such a programme in the wonderful unveiling today of yet more measures to tackle fraud?
  Secondly. there should be a determined attempt, from the Prime Minister downwards, to change the national culture from one that often turns a blind eye to fraud to one that opposes fraud, so that are not talking, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) did earlier, about whether people should report people who were committing fraud; there would be no question about it.
  Thirdly, there would be a Secretary of State who was anxious to support his own fraud teams and—equally important—the local authority fraud teams in a way that enabled them to plan long term. Obviously there are difficulties because, if one gives things too easily to people, we well know that they will settle down to an easy life. I accept the stick-and-carrot approach that the Secretary of State has deployed for some time with local

  195
  authorities, but to attract high-quality staff, some of whom will risk their physical safety, it is important to offer contracts that extend beyond one year during which the Secretary of State will judge whether one's subsidy will continue or not.
  Fourthly, if the Government were really serious about tackling fraud, maximum flexibility would be shown in the deployment of funds to counter fraud. The example cited earlier of the London initiative that was stopped by the Treasury would be the first and last example of that to be exchanged across the Dispatch Box.
  Fifthly, to obtain widespread public support against fraud, we might use the savings made in tackling fraud to finance a better welfare state. Instead of announcing cuts, more cuts and yet more cuts, the Secretary of State would win the support of his colleagues to say, "I believe that the issue has been much underestimated. This is the sort of delivery that we believe we can make. We want to spend a fair share of that on improving welfare for the most vulnerable members of our community."
  That brings me to my last suggestion. If we want voters to take the matter seriously, the Secretary of State should not only make announcements about new anti-fraud campaigns but place equal emphasis on the fact that the Department's second duty is to ensure that all those who are entitled to benefit gain the benefits to which, by law, they are entitled.
  It has not been said so far that, even on the Secretary of State's estimate of fraud, in all probability a larger sum is left in the Treasury by those who are poor and who do not claim. If the Government were serious about tackling fraud—on which they must do much better—and if they were humane in their approach to the issue, Ministers would never speak at the Dispatch Box about anti-fraud measures without speaking about measures to ensure that the millions of claimants who do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled were similarly helped.
  6.27 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on social security fraud. I start by placing on record my congratulations to the Government on the initiatives that they have taken to combat bogus claims for benefit and on the new measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier. My right hon. Friend reminded us that fraud, which cheats the needy and deprives of benefit those who have a genuine claim, also cheats the hard-pressed taxpayer, who must find the money to fund bogus claims.
  I am pleased to say that Broxbourne borough council, which covers most of my constituency in Hertfordshire and serves a population of about 83,000 people, takes housing and council tax benefit fraud very seriously. Since the Government's action against fraud initiative was introduced in 1994, the council has set up an investigation and recovery section, which tackles the difficult task of fraud investigation and debt recovery. The section conducts inquiries and has a good working relationship with various agencies, such as the police, the Department of Social Security fraud inspectors and the Benefits Agency. The Government's scheme focuses on the savings to the public purse that follow from tackling fraud—a system of penalties and incentives to reward authorities that achieve target levels of savings, as set out by the Department of Social Security.
  196
  In the first 11 months of 1995–96, Broxbourne borough council identified weekly benefit savings of £381,324 against the target of £90,205. The council has earned £64,171 in cash bonuses, identified £76,835 of fraudulent overpayment and recovered £40,333 so far. It has also recovered seven council houses and flats that were bought fraudulently.
  When the scheme was first established, there were suspicions that the work would become more difficult once the easy cases had been tackled, but that has not been the case—there is no shortage of work. Fraud is found in 52 per cent. of the cases that are referred to the council by the public or by the council's housing benefits administration contractor. The total case load so far this year is 456, or 4.3 per cent. of the total of 10,419 housing and council tax benefit claims.
  The incentive to tackle benefit fraud is welcomed by everyone, but one must ask: if the scale of benefit fraud is so high in a small and mainly suburban area of the home counties, what is it in inner cities? Broxbourne borough council's work has uncovered a possible sub-culture of benefit abuse, including a number of cases of organised landlord fraud—which is difficult to prove.
  The London boroughs fraud investigators group recently gave a presentation to the Conservative social security committee—of which I am chairman—and drew to our attention a number of concerns, one of which was organised housing benefit fraud. The income support rate for a single person is currently £45.70, hut, in a large city such as London, many landlords charge a single person two or three times that amount because of the nature of the housing market, so housing benefit fraud can be much more lucrative than income support fraud.
  It is claimed that organised housing benefit fraud is much more likely to be perpetrated by managing agents or landlords than by claimants. While some claimants perpetrate organised housing benefit fraud—and make or use forged documents to do so—landlords often need to collude to be successful. Managing agents and landlords have a ready-made base of addresses that they control or own from which to perpetrate the fraud. A minimum requirement is for housing benefit claims to be substantiated by means of proof of rent and tenancy, which would be signed by the landlord.
  If further action is taken to verify the claim, the landlord might be asked to confirm the details that have been given. In addition, housing benefit can be paid direct to the landlord—indeed, some landlords insist on it. In such cases, landlords often control the claim: the forms are completed in the landlord's handwriting and give the landlord's authority to discuss the claim direct with the local authority benefits section and the landlord sends in the claim form and rings up the benefit section with queries about the claim. Most cases of organised housing benefit fraud involve claims where the benefit is paid direct to the landlord or to the managing agent. Landlords will insist that the person who is claiming is living at the stated address—they would, wouldn't they—because they would lose a considerable amount of housing benefits if they did not. When visits are made to check residency, there is often no reply—but that, in itself, may prove little. Those concerned could always be out, so repeated visits should be made at different times of the day and on different days of the week.

  197
  Often, landlords use false identities or seek out real tenants who speak or write very little English. There are several advantages to them in doing so—real tenants of that type are unlikely to be aware of their housing or benefit rights, there is an apparently good reason for the managing agent or landlord completing the benefit claim forms, the managing agent or landlord is better able to tell the tenant or the claimant what to do best to suit his financial advantage and the landlord can accuse anyone of racism if they seek to investigate the claim. I understand that that is frequently done.
  The frauds are usually worked in two ways. First, a completely fictitious identity is set up—which is not too difficult if the type of identity chosen is of an asylum seeker or person from abroad. In this type of a case, it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person does not exist, so while it may be possible to cease a claim, it is harder to prosecute for fraud. The second way in which fraud is perpetrated initially involves real people. The managing agents move claimants on to another of their properties, often in another borough, so that the borough's computer will not show up two claims as soon as the claim is put into payment. They then ensure that a new claim is put in for the new address, while they knowingly continue to receive payments for the address the tenants have left. New real tenants will, in all likelihood, already be claiming from the first address.
  Moneys obtained from benefit fraud are often used to fund mortgage fraud. Managing agents, only controlling other people's properties, seek to build themselves into property-owing landlords. This is a serious problem. It is serious financial crime—far different from the image of benefit fraud. For example, a managing agent who controls, say, 30 properties containing bedsits might be able to charge an average of £70 per week per bedsit, with four bedsits per property. The experience of investigators in London is that fraudulent managing agents will operate the fraud in between 35 and 50 per cent. of the properties that they control. That means that they will fraudulently obtain between £2,940 and £4,200 a week—and many control more than 30 properties. Practitioners estimate that, across London, as much as £40 million a year may be fraudulently obtained in that way.
  London local authorities must face up to the problem and take appropriate steps to tackle it. I should mention, however, that the Labour party's proposals, which we heard this afternoon, are not original. I am aware that those working in the field, such as the London boroughs fraud investigators group, favour the creation of a specialist team of investigators who would mirror the Benefits Agency multiple claims team's work on organised income support fraud. An organised housing benefit fraud team in London could work alongside the multiple claims team, where appropriate, and link up with investigations into other types of fraud against local authorities in London via the London team against fraud.
  The London boroughs fraud investigators group also argues for changes to the housing benefit regulations, first, to give local authorities the right to obtain proof from managing agents and landlords of their right to control a property and of the real owner's identity as a condition of putting a claim into payment where benefit is to be paid directly to the landlord and, secondly, to give local authorities the right to refuse to put a case into payment to the managing agent or landlord where there is a refusal to provide information requested or where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud.
  198
  I hope that the measures that the Government have proposed today will address those concerns and give further support to local authorities to prevent and deter organised housing benefit fraud. There is no doubt that serious financial crime is taking place. The benefits system, which is designed to benefit the poorer sections of society, is being exploited by some managing agents and landlords to enrich themselves and to build property portfolios. Serious and speedy action needs to be taken, and 1 hope that the Government will address those issues quickly.
  6.41 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: There is no question but that benefit fraud is a huge problem in Britain today. Only now is the real size and extent of the problem coming to light. I find it incredible that, before last year, the Government had not conducted a survey on the extent of benefit fraud in Britain.
  Mr. Heald: Britain was the first country in the world to do it. Was the hon. Lady suggesting it?
  Ms Lynne: Yes. All hon. Members have been suggesting that we should find out how much benefit fraud has been going on. The Government have had 17 years to carry out such a survey, yet only last year did the Department of Social Security actually decide to do so.
  Mr. Heald: It was our idea.
  Ms Lynne: The hon. Gentleman said that it was their idea, but the Government he supports have had 17 years to implement it. According to the first major survey by the DSS of income support and unemployment benefit fraud, £1.4 billion a year has been wasted and one in 10 claims is fraudulent. When we add the £546 million that is overpaid in income support alone—mainly due to official error—it is clear that there is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money.
  This year, there was another Department of Social Security survey, which I welcome. I welcome the fact that, at long last, the Government are doing something about benefit fraud. The survey stated that £1 billion in housing benefit is wasted through benefit fraud—for which the taxpayer is paying—and that one in five housing benefit claims is fraudulent.
  The fight has only just started. Most people think that benefit fraud is mainly down to individuals, but a survey in the January edition of Computing magazine estimated that overall benefit fraud was in the region of £5 billion and that organised gangs and terrorist organisations accounted for £1 billion of computerised benefit losses. I do not know how accurate the Computing survey was, but it is certainly interesting to consider that the extent of benefit fraud could be as much as £5 billion. None the less, we have to accept that criminals are not only ripping off the taxpayer, but financing further criminal activity.
  Benefit fraud is a huge problem, but what is the way forward? We have to consider several possible solutions and look at the operation of the agencies and local councils. A parliamentary answer stated that theft in the Department of Social Security had quadrupled from the 1993–94 figure of £222,000 to £850,000 in 1995 and that housing benefit fraud was occasionally—although it is not widespread—down to local government employees.

  199
  The co-ordinator of the local authority investigation officers group said that 20 per cent. of housing benefit fraud could be internal. I do not know how accurate the surveys are, but we must take them into account. The Minister shakes his head. I should be grateful if he would tell us whether he agrees with the estimate that 20 per cent. of housing benefit fraud is internal.
  We have only to look at what happened in Lambeth under the Labour-controlled council. In January, when the council was under no overall control, more than 100 council staff were involved in a crackdown and anti-fraud measures were introduced. They faced accusations that they had been making fraudulent claims in housing benefit and income support. The workers were not the only ones involved. On 21 March, there will be a by-election in Lambeth because the deputy leader of the Tory group pleaded guilty to defrauding the council of housing benefit.
  Local councils face a difficult problem, because many claimants move between different council areas. There is no way of checking on whether they are already claiming in another council area. Individual councils cannot address that difficulty alone, so I welcomed the announcement the Secretary of State made in January—whatever the figure is, whether it is £10 million or £8 million—that the Government are providing money to help local councils tackle those problems. I hope that they look into other such measures.
  Hopefully—I say hopefully as the Secretary of State seemed unsure about when it might happen—a national register of council tax and housing benefit will be set up so that data matching by councils can be undertaken on a national basis. It has my full support, but it must be carefully monitored to ensure that confidential information is protected.
  In answer to my recent parliamentary question about how those working in different benefit organisations had improperly used confidential information, I was informed that two employees in the Benefits Agency and one in the Contributions Agency had been dismissed. The figure relating to the Child Support Agency was larger. Since 1993, eight members of staff have been dismissed and 10 have faced disciplinary action. Although the number is small, we must assume that the problem is wider—I assume that many fraudsters have not yet come to light. The Government already have generalised matching services for other benefits. It makes sense to extend those safeguards to income support, but mainly to housing benefit—but we must be aware of the pitfalls.
  Home visits are another way of overcoming benefit fraud. I welcome the announcement that they are to be increased—they should not have been cut in the first place. They prevented many people from perpetrating benefit fraud. I hope that home visits will not be jeopardised by the staff cuts that the Secretary of State announced recently. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
  The Secretary of State announced that 1,100 Employment Service investigators are to go to the Benefits Agency. Will that represent an overall increase in fraud officers or a decrease? I am not sure of the number of investigators in the Employment Service and the DSS respectively and would be grateful for clarification.
  200
  Staff must be properly checked. Were the 100 or so Lambeth staff checked properly? I doubt it. Checks are particularly important in respect of staff tackling benefit fraud. The Government's response to the Social Security Committee report ruled out tighter training and closer scrutiny of staff dealing with benefit fraud in particular. I hope that the Government will change their mind, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment.
  In another investigation by the magazine Computing, it claimed to have seen internal DSS documents showing that, in London alone, 120 staff were suspended for giving information to criminals, credit reference agencies, debt recovery groups and others seeking private information. I should like the Minister to confirm or deny the accuracy of that report when he winds up. It is vital that the situation does not worsen. If the DSS and its agencies fail to protect confidential information, and if some of its employees are on the fiddle, benefit fraud will become more difficult to tackle.
  The fight against benefit fraud is welcome and I support the Government's recently announced initiatives. I shall continue to do so, provided that two criteria are met—people should be deemed innocent until found guilty, and confidential information should not be used improperly. It is often said that benefit cheats must be stopped, because every £1 that they take is snatched from someone who desperately needs it. How true—but the fight against benefit fraud must go hand in hand with a tightening up of overpayments by Benefits Agency staff and with encouraging pensioners in particular to take up the benefits that are theirs by right.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate benefit fraud again. The debate recognises the extent to which fraud is perpetrated and its draining effect on the social security budget. I warmly congratulate in his absence my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on his excellent speech. He more than anyone has done much over the past two or three years, in his time at the Department of Social Security, to raise the profile of the fight against fraud. Sadly, we heard little that was new from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I was particularly disappointed at his reluctance to give way in his speech, after my right hon. Friend entered into the true spirit of social security debates by giving way to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on at least four occasions. I was sorry not to have the opportunity to intervene on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury because he used one quote from the Select Committee's report extremely selectively. I refer to paragraph 6, on means-tested benefits. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee criticised means testing, but omitted the next sentence:
  "The alternative of universal benefits, however, would spread disincentives to seek employment and to save for future self-provision across the whole population, as well as being prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, all benefits are subject to fraud."
  The hon. Gentleman would have done us all a favour if he had given the full quotation.
  The most telling remark was that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. When the Select Committee heard evidence on 7 February, he said that

  201
  "when we announced as a Committee that we were doing an inquiry into benefit fraud, one of my colleagues sidled up and said, 'Typical! Another right-wing strategy from you.' It never struck me that being against fraud was actually a right-wing stance."
  Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I wondered whether he was the colleague who had sidled up to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, to comment that the investigation was yet another shamefully right-wing decision by the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, as Chairman of the Select Committee. I have been privileged to serve under him since the beginning of this Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman has done more than any other member of the Committee to highlight benefit fraud and drive forward the Committee's investigations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to give evidence to the Committee tomorrow. I am not sure whether that means that today's debate was well timed or poorly timed. It might have been better to have waited until hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say tomorrow, but I look forward to hearing his evidence.
  I warmly welcome the mechanisms already put in place by my right hon. Friend, to some of which he referred today. On 10 July 1995, my right hon. Friend set out in his paper "The Right Money to the Right People" the extent of benefit fraud as the Department perceived it and his strategy for combating it. My right hon. Friend revealed in that paper, and did so again today, that fraudulent income support and unemployment benefit claims alone were costing a crippling £1.4 billion a year. He revealed that the review's investigators proved or found strong evidence of fraud in one in 10 cases. The largest proportion of income support and unemployment benefit frauds took the form of people claiming while working—a staggering £560 million of the £1.4 billion total. The second largest type of fraud, amounting to £450 million, resulted from people claiming to be single when they were living as a couple.
  Those findings combined with others led my right hon. Friend to determine the new priorities for fighting fraud that he announced last July. What has been achieved to date? My right hon. Friend established the fraud strategy group, to co-ordinate anti-fraud work across the Department and its agencies. The Select Committee's fifth report in 1995 welcomed that recognition of the need for closer liaison. It heard evidence from the chief executive of the Contributions Agency that the group was "a genuinely useful forum" in which ideas and information could be exchanged under the chairmanship of a Minister. However, the Committee is also concerned to hear how liaison between agencies works at ground level. Later, I will touch on one or two of the problems that the Committee has identified from subsequent evidence, when further or much closer liaison could have been undertaken between the various agencies.
  My right hon. Friend's announcements today go a long way to calming some fears. I particularly welcome the establishment of the benefits fraud investigation service, which will bring together the Employment Service and Benefits Agency in tackling the 30 per cent. of fraud in which an individual claims not to be working when he or she is doing so. My right hon. Friend has also established dedicated fraud teams at local level, about which the Select Committee has taken considerable evidence. I particularly welcome today's announcement that benefits fraud crackdowns will begin by area from April.
  202
  Last year's benefit reviews enabled my right hon. Friend to build on the work that had already been undertaken and to institute a new security approach, and we heard a good deal today about that success. I very much hope that such benefit reviews will be a continuing process, enabling the Government to measure the success of their strategy against the initial yardstick. My right hon. Friend's new security strategy has three key elements. Obviously, the first is to make the system secure. I have no doubt that the new plastic benefit card that he announced last year will make a considerable difference, but I echo one thing that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said.
  We heard today that my right hon. Friend has gone out to the consortiums that will be asked to bid to produce the new benefit card. I hope that, in the wind-up or at some stage, we can hear a little more about the criteria that have been set for the consortiums. We await further details on how the card will work, and assurances and proof that the technology is proven, but surely the most important thing about the card succeeding is that the identifying factor, whether it is a photograph or whatever, is secure. I quote from Mr. Rob Elliot of the London boroughs fraud investigators group, who pointed out to us in evidence:
  "In the case of a photograph, unless all photographs were collated and were able to be compared then I do not think that a photograph is secure £ Some people might suggest that a fingerprint on an ID card might be a more secure method of doing it."
  He went on to say, in response to the Chairman, who asked what we would need if we were in Utopia:
  "I would not be adverse to providing both a fingerprint and a DNA sample."
  These questions will have to be considered, but it is very important that the identifying mechanism on the card is secure so that the public will have confidence in how it works.
  Secondly, new guidance has been issued to staff who are at the sharp end—distributing the benefits—to improve the identity checks that they undertake. Thirdly, the number of checks to ensure that the correct amount of benefit is paid will be increased. Between July last year and the end of this month, an additional 1 million home visits will have been made by DSS officers to check the validity of claimants. It is worth putting on record the savings that have been made. Fraud savings for 1994–95 were £717.6 million—up from £654 million the previous year and a welcome £64 million ahead of target. There is more to be done, however, as my right hon. Friend and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House, acknowledged today.
  The Select Committee is currently considering where the war against fraud could be tightened still further. Although it is currently looking specifically at housing benefit fraud, I shall highlight briefly one or two of the obvious areas of concern, some of which will undoubtedly feature in our report when it is produced.
  There are discrepancies about the scale of the problem. We heard a great deal today from hon. Members on the extent of the problem, dividing it into different categories for different benefits and how those benefits are prone to fraud. There still seems to be much confusion about the scale and the extent of fraud. On housing benefit alone, my right hon. Friend told us that it could possibly be as high as £1 billion, according to Government figures. Yet in evidence that it gave to us, the Audit Commission

  203
  refused to be drawn any further than the figures that it gave in its 1995 update, "Protecting the Public Purse", a document that calculates the detected housing benefit fraud in local authorities at just £40 million per annum.
  At the other end of the scale, the local authority investigation officers group, which also gave evidence, suggests that housing benefit fraud could range between 6 per cent. in local authorities that are well set up to fight it to as much as 12 per cent. in those that are not—an annual bill, possibly, of up to £1.2 billion that is being wasted on housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons, perhaps, for housing benefit fraud is that the Government's fair rents policy in the early 1980s drove up rents and drove people into a system that they did not really want to get into, but, having got into it, they found that they were locked into it, and in many places locked out of employment? Is not housing benefit fraud very much the consequence of Government decisions on housing at free-market prices in the early 1980s?
  Mr. Faber: I do not accept that anyone is driven into fraud. It is a conscious decision that someone takes. One of the things that we found in our report is that the vast majority of housing benefit fraud is perpetrated by landlords. Hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench acknowledged that earlier. It is clearly not something that someone is driven into. It is a conscious decision that someone takes to defraud the taxpayer.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here during my right hon. Friend's speech, but he might have welcomed the proposals that my right hon. Friend made to target certain areas from April and to announce two weeks in advance that squads would be going into those areas. Although I very much hope that no one will think that we are offering an amnesty to those who have, as my right hon. Friend put it, "drifted into fraud", there are some who may have been caught up in fraud. I hope that they will be alerted to that fact and will come off the benefit that they should not be on very quickly indeed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not there an argument that if one reduces the number of houses in the public sector and follows a policy of ending public housing building programmes, which we had in the 1960s and 1970s, but which were terminated in the early 1980s, and drives people into the private sector, people would be drawn into the private sector, with high rents, who otherwise would never have gone into that business? If much of the housing benefit fraud is landlord induced, it is only because of the shift to dependence on private sector housing allocation.
  Mr. Faber: I can repeat only what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention. If people are being brought into housing benefit fraud, they are still criminals. People who defraud the public purse are still criminals. There is no excuse for housing benefit fraud or organised fraud. I do not suggest for a second that the hon. Gentleman suggested that. Landlords go out with a conscious decision to commit fraud, and one cannot possibly condone it.
  204
  I repeat what I said a moment ago. I acknowledge that there are those—I think that this was the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's first intervention—who may have drifted inadvertently into fraud. I do not particularly like that expression, but there are people who may be on the wrong benefit and do not realise that they are. I very much hope that such people will look long and hard at what benefits they should be on and take advantage of the proposals that my right hon. Friend unveiled today, where teams will go into specific areas after publicity has been given, and, I hope, will pull them off benefit.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Faber: I shall continue, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  My right hon. Friend gave us an assurance today that the figures in the benefit reviews would provide reliable information. I very much welcome that and urge him to continue to collect definitive data on the scale of the problem—data that can be used and acknowledged by everyone as the true figures. I hope that that will put an end to some of the discrepancies that exist between the various data that are available to us.
  The second area that the Select Committee is examining is the way in which various agencies fight and contest fraud, and effective liaison and communication between them when dealing with specific cases. That subject was covered in our fifth report last year on the work of the DSS and its agencies. As a Committee, we remain concerned at the possible fragmentation and diminution of scope for joint initiatives between some of the agencies involved, for instance, where several agencies are affected by a single fraudster. There are two different perceptions of how successful it might be. On the one hand, several agencies will provide different opportunities to detect the fraud in each agency. On the other hand, there is often the possibility that agencies will assume that responsibility lies elsewhere and that action is being taken.
  Evidence of that was given last year by the Contributions Agency, when it became clear that, in a number of areas, the Benefits Agency was considered to have prime responsibility for detecting fraud. Yet when the Benefits Agency was subsequently examined, the then acting chief executive suggested that the Benefits Agency could act only if it was certain of its source of information. That is especially relevant to the Child Support Agency, which has not been mentioned today, but on which the Committee has spent a great deal of time in the past two or three years.
  I think that we have all had surgery experience of someone passing on information that is supposed evidence of fraud within the system, often involving a former partner, husband or wife. We know that such information always needs to be treated with great care. It is often based on malice, and frequently it is not based on fact. There needs to be a mechanism, however, whereby the Benefits Agency can investigate the information fully, which often may be specifically targeted and, therefore, easily and quickly investigated. It seems that too often such information can be ignored. Alternatively, its true value can be underestimated, despite the caveat that I have already entered that it could possibly have been motivated by malice.

  205
  I welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that fraud hotlines will be introduced locally as part of local anti-fraud drives. Too often members of the public complain that it is made difficult for them to pass on information that they believe to be of value.
  Last month, the deputy head of the security branch of the Benefits Agency told us that in the previous financial year alone the agency had received over 1 million potential fraud referrals from the public. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon that in five pilot schemes with hotlines the outcome has been an £800,000 saving for £20,000-worth of expenditure. I hope that my right hon. Friend might consider extending the system further, if not nationwide. It seems that the money would be well spent if that were to be the rate of return from whistleblowers' hotlines. Obviously, we would not wish to use tabloid language to describe such a system.
  I move on to the much debated issue of national insurance numbers. Like the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, I was unable to be part of the Newcastle visit.
  Mr. Bradley: Was the hon. Gentleman sick?
  Mr. Faber: No, I was not sick, unlike the Chairman. I was unable to make the journey on the specific day.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for trying to clarify some of the differences between the two approaches to national insurance numbers. The system is still perceived as being extremely confusing. It is very difficult for some people to understand it. I think that it was Mr. Rob Elliot of the fraud investigators' group who said that it was difficult to do justice to national insurance numbers. He believes that they are not a sound base for investigating fraud. There is considerable confusion over the two current systems—the national insurance recording system and the departmental central index. Despite the enlightenment offered by my hon. Friend, there is still confusion over the roles that the two systems play.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that his Department will be pioneering the introduction of a single national computer system. Against the background of the current confusion that I have described, that is especially to be welcomed. Similarly, any steps that the Government can take or are taking to improve the security of national insurance numbers, cleaning both duplicate and redundant records, are much needed. We all look forward to hearing more about such an operation in due course, including especially a system of computer cross-checks and the harmonisation of housing benefit computers throughout local authorities.
  There is also the relationship between the Benefits Agency and local authorities. The Select Committee heard conflicting evidence on service level agreements and their effectiveness in ensuring good working relationships. In evidence given last month by representatives of the Benefits Agency, we heard that by and large it encouraged locally based agreements with local authorities, and that those agreements are effective. The vast majority of Benefits Agency district offices are happy with their relationships with local authorities, and they insist that local authorities consider that the system works well from their point of view.
  206
  In previous evidence, however, especially from the London boroughs' fraud investigators, we heard that most local relationships work only moderately well and that some do not work at all. When the Committee's report is published, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of the Government will consider carefully the obvious discrepancy in evidence to which I have referred and seek to reassure some local authorities. We have heard from the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, about some of the concerns that authorities may have. I hope that the Government will consider carefully those concerns in terms of the Benefits Agency's role in investigating fraud in individual areas.
  Today's welcome announcement that a programme of crackdowns area by area, which will begin in April, will give local authorities in specific areas a crucial role. It will be vital that they work closely with the national Benefits Agency to maximise the programme's impact. I hope that all local authorities will respond to my right hon. Friend's appeal to come together to study a unified computer system for dealing with housing benefit across the board. That would surely go a great way to eradicating housing benefit fraud.
  I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements. It has been an excellent debate so far. The Opposition are keen on saying that the Government have had 17 years to crack down on benefit fraud. It should be understood, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is tackling the issues on which they are asking him to take action. I think that the hon. Member for Birkenhead must hold back some of his more venomous remarks for the Chamber. He certainly lured us into a false sense of security with some of the praise that he has heaped on the Government during sittings of the Select Committee.
  I am delighted to support the motion.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Before us are a motion and an amendment, but I am sure that the House generally would support action against fraud to ensure that benefits are targeted on those who require them and are entitled to them. That is especially the position in Northern Ireland, where consumers face higher costs. Electricity is one example.
  Figures have been bandied about on the extent of fraud and how much it is costing. We have also heard about how much will be spent to combat it. The Secretary of State has made various other announcements, which I support and welcome.
  I would wish to compare Great Britain with Northern Ireland. When I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech, he invited me to try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair in letting him know to what I was referring. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is now unable to be in the Chamber. I am sure, however, that the information will be conveyed to him.
  I tell the House again that there is no fraud strategy in Northern Ireland. Evidence was taken last week in Northern Ireland, and we were told that there was no strategy, even though one has been introduced in Great Britain, which in many areas seems to be working well.
  Perhaps some hon. Members are not aware that, in Northern Ireland, local authorities do not have anything to do with social security. Similarly, they have nothing to

  207
  do with housing benefit and housing. Those matters are handled by the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive.
  In those circumstances, there is surely an excellent opportunity to introduce one housing organisation or one social security agency. I am speaking of a small area of the United Kingdom in which there are about 1.5 million people. A new strategy could have been brought into place, where it would have worked better than elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues and I have gained the impression that it appears to be assumed that everything is all right in dealing with fraud in Northern Ireland, even though no measurement is available. The assumption was that, because safeguards were in place, it automatically followed that no fraud was taking place. I will mention some of the frauds that are taking place in Northern Ireland.
  In Northern Ireland, we have—I do not know whether they are called this in the rest of the United Kingdom—what are known as Giro drops: houses that people claiming benefit use as an address and where their benefit cheque is sent, even though they do not live there. The Giro drops through the letter box—that is why it is called a Giro drop. No matter how we check on housing benefit or any other sort of fraud, we would have to call at all the houses, discover where the people lived, and visit them. I am pleased that there will be more visitors at least in Great Britain. I am sure that the Minister will pass on my comments, so that such visitors will be introduced in Northern Ireland as well.
  While in the building construction industry, I worked on building sites with plumbers and heating engineers. Even in those days, on certain days of the week, people "doing the double" disappeared from the site and returned after an appreciable period. They had signed on and returned to work—known by most people as doing the double. As is well known, that still goes on in parts of Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
  We have a border, boundary, frontier—I leave it to hon. Members to decide what to call it—between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but the social security system in the Republic is different from the one in the UK. It is not unknown for people living in the Republic of Ireland to claim benefit not only in the Republic, but in Northern Ireland, and vice versa.
  There is another example of a fraud strategy being required in Northern Ireland. I know—and the Select Committee on Social Security took evidence on this—that there is contact and close co-operation between the Department in Northern Ireland and the Department in Dublin on that fraud, but how do we know what the position is if there is no strategy and we cannot obtain any figures?

  There is another serious example involving benefit fraud in Northern Ireland. Some people claiming benefit are undertaking other activities—and I do not mean that they are working. The great problem in dealing with those claimants is simple: they are handled, under their normal duties, by junior staff, who are placed in a difficult position. Other senior officials do not handle those claimants.
  It is well known, and has been mentioned in various places in Northern Ireland, that those things are happening. That is another example of fraud. All the things that I have
  208
  mentioned have been and are going on, and, as has been admitted, we do not have a fraud strategy in Northern Ireland comparable with that in the rest of the UK.
  Another example of fraud applies to the rest of the UK as well: in certain circumstances, employers do not pay national insurance contributions for employees. As a result, if those employees are made redundant or lose their jobs, they cannot claim benefit, because the required national insurance contributions have not been paid.
  The local government auditor's 1994 report recommended that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should have a dedicated fraud team. I was interested to hear that some of today's suggestions head in that direction. I do not wish to place the Minister in the difficult position that he seemed to be placed in by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), even though I know that, as Chairman of the Select Committee—of which I am honoured to be a member—he did not mean anything personal about it.
  The Minister may not have the advisers here that he may require to answer some of my points. I do not wish to let him off the hook, but I will understand if, in his winding-up speech, he cannot answer some of my queries, and I receive replies later.
  However, much of the Select Committee's evidence shows that, in bringing people who have committed fraud before the courts, the Theft Act 1968 is used rather than social security legislation. The local government auditor's report commented that, under social security legislation, someone claiming benefit fraudulently could be sentenced to three months in prison. It seems strange that that Act, which involves a cumbersome operation, is often used. Surely social security legislation should be considered and implemented in appropriate cases.
  In Northern Ireland, we have no measurement of fraud, so we cannot ask how much fraud there is, how it can be or has been measured, or how it will be stopped, even though the Minister and Secretary of State may say, "These are the measures that should be used to stop benefit fraud." I hope that the people in charge of these matters in Northern Ireland will note what has been said, and that something will be done.
  On national insurance numbers, along with other colleagues, I was delighted to be in Newcastle. We had an excellent, well-prepared presentation—I congratulate the Minister on that. Sufficient officials were there to answer all our many questions. The majority of their answers were good and we accepted them, as we always do, but I was concerned about a couple.
  I do not think that I received the answer—I may have misunderstood what was said—on piggy-backing, where someone uses another person's national insurance number. A person could be employed and paying national insurance contributions, although, at the same time, someone using his or her national insurance number is drawing benefit. That concerned the whole Committee. 1 should add that it is a very happy Committee: we work very well together. I hope that I am doing no one any harm by speaking in this way. Incidentally, the Committee also has an excellent Chairman.
  I understood the Minister's observation that, when someone dies, the person left behind may need to use the national insurance number for some reason, and that it should therefore remain in existence. What I cannot understand is why the national insurance number of a

  209
  single person with no relatives should remain on the record. I am not nit-picking, but I feel that such numbers could be removed from the system. The word "clutter" should not be used in this context, but the Minister will know what I am saying. Perhaps at least some of the numbers could be removed.
  I welcome all proposals to prevent fraud, and to ensure that those who should receive money receive it. I feel, however, that Northern Ireland should have a proper strategy to deal with fraud, and that those concerned should be adequately trained—even members of staff. Perhaps there should be joint initiatives involving the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Social Security Agency, and, indeed, the Department of Health and Social Services, as it still is in Northern Ireland. Secondments would provide members of those bodies with experience. At least, at this stage, Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the sums involved. Perhaps because debates such as this take on a timeless quality over the years, I sometimes feel that the sums that we discuss are so vast that the public—who have hurried off to HMSO in the morning to buy their copies of Hansard—probably decide that they are meaningless.
  The figures involved in social security debates are, in fact, so large that even those who feel that they are being beaten into the ground with percentages may begin to realise just how large they are. It is not simply a case of the social security budget being larger than the education or defence budgets: it is well over twice the size of the two combined.
  There are various ways of expressing the £90 billion that is spent on social security. One way is this: it is equivalent to £15 in respect of every person for every working day. Obviously, when disbursing such a huge amount on behalf of the taxpayer, the state should pay attention to where it goes.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—and, I think, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—implied that the Government had discovered the situation suddenly, rather late in the day. Apparently they have a right-wing agenda, according to some anonymous person—perhaps not the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but some other Labour Member. This, it seems, is part of some dark right-wing agenda that the Government have dreamed up in the last few hours, or at best, the last few months.
  I do not consider that entirely fair. I have been in the House since 1983, and I do not think that a month, or even a week, has gone by without some reference—perhaps in a parliamentary question, in an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time or in a well-attended debate such as this—to the fact that the wicked old Tory Government are out there grinding the faces of the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the confirmation; I knew that I had heard it before.
  The Government have been out there trying to tighten up on fraud, crack down, and make the criminal law more effective. The idea that what is currently happening is spanking new is without foundation. There may, however, be a reason for its superficial credibility. The suppression
  210
  of fraud is not an end in itself; it is part and parcel of the attempt to ensure that benefits go to the people for whom they are intended. We can argue, as did the hon. Member for Birkenhead, whether benefits should be means-tested more or less, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the money should go to those to whom Parliament wants it to go.
  When the Government came to power in 1979, the benefits system was, in a sense, wide open. In those days, the test governing whether a person received what is now known as income support was whether that person was available for work. The concept of availability for work seemed all right to begin with, but ultimately came to be seen as a complete sham. It was simply a case of "I am at home; if the telephone rings and someone wants to offer me a job, I might entertain the idea." Many people who were making no real effort were freeloading on the system. In a sense, that was a fraud on the taxpayer: money was going to people to whom it was clearly not intended to go.
  To counter that, the Government introduced the concept of "actively seeking work". As soon as the two tests were applied together, the opportunity for fraud on the taxpayer in the literal sense was removed: benefits were going to those to whom they should be going. Those were the days of peace convoys cruising around the country, and social security officers taking their mobile paying-out clinics to peace convoy meetings. All that nonsense—which went on in my constituency—was dealt with by the introduction of more stringent tests.
  The agenda of the 1980s was to ensure that the law was properly defined, so that only those who went out of the benefit should receive them. That was integral to the debate about fraud: until that side had been got right, there was not much point in trying to come up with "technical" mechanisms to deal with the problem. The claim that we have been doing nothing about it since 1979 is without basis: the facts do not bear it out for a moment.
  It was particularly interesting for anyone with a penchant for blood sports to observe the state that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury got into when taking Conservative interventions. I must tell the hon. Gentleman—hoping, perhaps, to add to his discomfort—that I am a great admirer of his: he is a man of considerable intellectual rigour and considerable personal courage. In some ways, I pitied him for having the brief that he had been given. Faced with such a wicket, some of his hon. Friends would have resorted to a venomous opacity, kept their heads down, read out the speech without understanding it, and reached the end of it in that way. But the hon. Gentleman is not like that: when asked some pertinent questions to which he knew that there were no answers, being the honest man he is, he did not answer them.
  Two questions did need answering, however. First, what has the hon. Gentleman's party done since 1979 to support the Government's attempts to crack down on benefit fraud? There is no answer to that—or, rather there is: Labour has done absolutely nothing. The beefing up of the "availability for work" test with an "actively seeking work" test was opposed by the party at the time.
  Labour also opposed the attempts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—attempts that were largely, if not entirely, successful—to ensure that the availability of benefits was based on net rather than gross income, the idea being that people should always be better off in work than out of work. Such steps were part and parcel of fraud prevention.

  211
  Let me help the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and repeat the answer to the question that he did not wish to answer: the Labour party has done absolutely nothing.
  The hon. Gentleman next blamed means testing. That really is pushing it. When he was asked what benefits would be means-tested under a Labour Government, answer came there none. I have genuinely never understood why on earth the Opposition are against the concept of means testing properly carried out.
  No one is saying that one should go back to the situation that obtained in the 1920s and 1930s, when an audit of the most brutal and undignified kind was done on a person claiming state benefit. We are saying that, if we are going to take money from people, we should at least make sure that it goes to those for whom it is intended.
  Of course, some people say that means testing is undignified, and if we jack up the taxes on the rich, we shall not have to go through that unhappy process. That might sound like a good idea, but I understand that it has been repressed on the Opposition Benches today. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is no longer here, because I had hoped that he would add that suggestion to the debate.
  The fact is that we can think of income tax as a means-tested benefit. As I said in an exchange with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the overwhelming proportion of taxes is provided not by the rich—there are not enough of them to soak—but by basic rate taxpayers. About 87 or 88 per cent. of the total tax take in this country is provided by ordinary working people, those who pay basic rate tax and never reach the higher rate. If they are means-tested and being asked how much they earn so that we can tax their income and spend it elsewhere, I can see nothing wrong in means-testing the recipients of that money, providing that process is carried out decently and carefully, and in a dignified manner.
  I put that matter to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, whom I admire enormously. Like the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), I have served on the Select Committee on Social Security. This phrase is often used too casually, but it was a privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who has an extraordinary grip of the subject.
  Frankly, a well-prepared and highly competent Secretary of State should have nothing to fear from an Opposition Back Bencher—it is an unequal contest, whichever party is in government. It says a great deal for the hon. Member for Birkenhead that, over the years, I have seen him press highly skilled and highly competent Secretaries of State, like my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Social Security.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead is really a remarkable performer. However, when I pressed him on what he had against means testing, he entered very dangerous territory. It says much for him that he was prepared to enter that territory. Some pretty hard choices follow if one says that fraud is going to occur because the level of benefit is such that, if one wage earner in a household loses that wage, the family will be better off on benefit.
  What are we doing for the dignity and credibility of a potential average wage earner if we so subvert what his own talents can achieve and earn for him that we pay
  212
  him so much for not working? What does that do for his self-esteem? Nothing that we do tonight will solve that problem, but we have created a situation in which the whole structure of benefits completely undermines the working poor. There is far larger argument about the effects of this on the family, and on young males in society. A great deal of good material has been produced by sociologists here and on the other side of the Atlantic.
  The idea that there is something wrong with means-tested benefit has some curious implications for the debate on fraud. At some stage, we shall have to consider why it is thought to be a good idea that the basic rate taxpayer should contribute to the child benefit that I, as a higher rate taxpayer, receive. I am grateful for it—it is useful and pays for a holiday every now and again—but I sometimes find it difficult to look into the face of the working poor and say to myself that I am part of a system that produces such an anomaly. At some stage, we shall have to get to grips with it.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not agree with my hon. Friend at all. He has paid into the system all his life. It is supposed, in some sense at least, to be a contributory system, so, if he has paid in, why should he not get something back? After all, if he has children, expenses are accrued. I see no reason why he should be cheated out of the money.
  Mr. Nicholls: There are three reasons why I pay into the system. First, I have no choice, and I should get done if I did not. Secondly, bearing in mind that I have an earning potential considerably greater than the average, I need to pay into a common tax pool to help look after those people who cannot look after themselves. Thirdly, if I ever fall on hard times, I would expect to be able to say that, having paid in during my good years, I now want to draw something out in my bad years. However, it is inefficient in the meantime to give me a non-means-tested benefit on the off-chance that it might be useful to me.
  My hon. Friend knows as well as I that some people's livelihood and the food on the table that very day depends on their getting child benefit, whereas for others child benefit is simply drawn out once a year to be spent on a holiday. That is not an efficient way in which to run our benefit system.
  Mr. Chris Smith rose—
  Mr. Nicholls: Yes, I shall give way, because I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Smith: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with considerable care and interest. Would he apply the principle that he has just applied to child benefit to the old age pension, which takes far and away the largest slice of the Department's expenditure but which is based precisely on the contributory principle, and is paid whether or not one is in need of it?
  Mr. Nicholls: No. I do not think that the analogy is fair, for a number of reasons, the principal one being that very few people are entirely dependent on a retirement pension. Their income is topped up in a variety of ways, if necessary, by income support. Increasingly, I am pleased to say, under this Government it will also be topped up by the provision made by people during their lifetime. For many people, although not the majority, the

  213
  retirement pension will not be a particularly significant part of their maintenance. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making a useful point, but it is by no means a direct analogy.
  I had not forgotten entirely what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. It says something about his party's attitude to the problem that he got into real difficulties when mention was made of the letter that he wrote to the shadow Chief Secretary. A section of it is worth reading out again in view of what he said. The letter says:
  "The advice I am getting, which is necessarily incomplete, nevertheless suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of investment already undertaken".
  It says something about what the Government have done that, in private correspondence at least, the hon. Gentleman refers to "investment already undertaken". I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman—the last thing anyone wants is to have his private correspondence read out on the Floor of the House, although one does it without malice but with a great deal of glee.
  The hon. Gentleman then said that we had got it all wrong and should look up the word "feasible" in the dictionary, because it means only possible, not desirable. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he accepted that it was possible to make savings for the taxpayer, but not desirable.
  Mr. Smith: I intervene wearily, because the hon. Gentleman is making precisely the same point that one of his colleagues made. He is also making the same mistake. I did not write the letter to which he refers; it was written by the shadow Chief Secretary to me. If he read the whole letter, he would have seen that my hon. Friend said clearly:
  "There must be doubts about the wisdom of trying to achieve so much in so short a time."
  My hon. Friend was not endorsing the suggestions or saying that they were desirable, but that they were active suggestions in the Department and that he had doubts about whether they were achievable.
  Mr. Nicholls: So he was not saying that they were completely unacceptable, wrong, morally outrageous and risible, and should be rejected out of hand and scorned, but that there might be doubts about them. Fine—if the hon. Gentleman wants to put that gloss on matters, I am happy that he should do so.
  I suspect that the explanation goes back to the underlying feeling that, for all that we see a new model Labour party, old ideas die hard. That was summed up very well by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who is reported in the Daily Mirror—and, therefore, I assume, not misquoted—as criticising the use of new technology against fraudsters. He said:
  "Benefit claimants may soon have to pass a palm print screening test to collect their State cash. It's one option now being considered in a fraud crackdown review, Social Security Peter Lilley revealed today. But Labour spokesman Donald Dewar denounced Government palm or finger printing, warning it would make pensioners claiming income support think that they are second class citizens".
  He must be joking. I assume pretty much the same sort of people go to his surgery as come to mine. I find that people are outraged by the idea that some claimants are ripping off the system. The people who take the most
  214
  exception to fraud are not wealthy toffs and Members of Parliament on their inflated salaries: they are the working poor who get up early on a wet morning to do a boring, mundane job to support themselves, and who find that two doors down somebody is ripping off the system.
  If people, be they claimants or pensioners, were told that the vast majority of claimants were honest, desperately sad about being out of work and anxious to get back to work, but that others were ripping off the system, and were asked whether they would co-operate in introducing a new-style pass using photographs, magnetic strips, DNA testing or whatever to ensure that they received the maximum amount of benefit and the rascals were stopped, an overwhelming majority—especially of those who complain to me about the benefits system—would reckon that was pretty much okay. That is the fault line running through Labour Members' thought. They seem to assume that, if one is claiming benefits, all inquiry must stop about whether one is entitled to those benefits.
  Such a dichotomy is evident in relation to not only benefit fraud but asylum seekers. As far as the Labour party is concerned, anybody who says he is an asylum seeker is an asylum seeker. The fact that 90 per cent. of the claimants turn out to be bogus and fraudulent does not matter two hoots—it must not be tidied up. If somebody says he is a refugee, he is a refugee. It is an extraordinary flight from reality, and ultimately intellectually dishonest.
  Until relatively recently, if a claimant had their mortgage paid by the Benefits Agency, they were paid an amount to hand over to the building society. Inevitably, a few people ripped off that system, and kept the money for themselves. That vice had to be stopped, because ultimately such people's houses would be repossessed, they would be made homeless, they would then present themselves to the local authority as having been made compulsorily homeless, and they would ask to be rehoused. That is not a sensible use of taxpayers' money.
  I discovered two constituency cases relevant to that process. One was of a man who was severely disabled by polio in his youth, and, as a result of a number of extremely unpleasant and painful operations, was able to work. He worked his way up from a labourer to a management post, finally found that his health was breaking down, and had to give up work. To ensure that he was putting something into society, he took part in a number of charitable activities, and contributed a great deal.
  One day he found that he was no longer—as he would see it subjectively—capable of looking after his own finances, and that his mortgage had to be paid for him. He eventually came to see me, because the Benefits Agency was paying in arrears, not in advance, and, given his contract with the building society and through absolutely no fault of his own, he suddenly had a notional amount of one month's arrears throughout the year, which resulted in typical correspondence with the building society.
  The other case was of a person who had run a small independent school, fell on hard times, became a claimant, always discharged his mortgage, never misapplied the funds he received, and in due course found that he too was not allowed to pay his mortgage any longer. He got letters from the building society threatening repossession, because some arrears had accrued.

  215
  It is not simply a question of people being honest. If one finds that one has to live in straitened circumstances—extremely straitened circumstances in the cases to which I have referred—and one is able to do so competently and honestly, it ought to be possible in the system to distinguish between such people and the feckless and rascals.
  Both my constituents asked why it was not possible to allow them to continue to discharge their liabilities unless and until there was some default. Both said that, as a result of an increased awareness of and campaign against fraudsters, of which they both entirely approved, almost unknowingly their dignity had been infringed—yet they had never let the system down.
  I am not asking my hon. Friend the Minister to reply on that point in the debate. I have already written to him about both the people to whom I have referred. It is, however, relevant to the debate to say that we must always ensure that, in cracking down on the few who are ripping off the system, we never allow those who are behaving honestly to feel that the system is in some way directed against them.
  There is no doubt that some people think that those living on benefits must be defrauding the system. Being a Member of Parliament brings one into contact with a cross-section of society whom we simply would not otherwise meet. That, apart from anything else, has convinced me of how honest the overwhelming majority of people are. My experience is that those who have fallen unexpectedly on hard times feel embarrassed and suspect that they are being tarred with a brush that applies to very few.
  Cracking down on fraud is therefore not simply about being efficient and ensuring that taxpayers' money is being properly applied: it is the discharge of a duty to those who have no choice but to be on benefits; to ensure that they can still hold their heads up in society. The assumption is that the system should be efficient and rigorous enough to ensure that people receiving benefits are right in doing so. I think that many people who unexpectedly find themselves on hard times would associate themselves with that argument if they heard me say it.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As I seem to be the last line of defence on the Opposition Benches, I shall try to live up to the responsibility. I feel as though I am intruding on a meeting of a club of past and present members of the Social Security Select Committee, former Ministers and spokespersons. Despite the trepidation that I feel in front of all those experts, I shall do my best to acquit myself in presenting the Labour party's point of view.
  Conservative Members try to impute a mindset to Labour Members. The Secretary of State tried to do it again in this debate with his soundbite that Labour is soft on fraud. I cannot put myself into a frame of mind to accept that charge or see any justification for it. As some hon. Members have said, people from my type of background most bitterly resent fraud. I do not therefore accept that Labour is soft on fraud. Nor do I accept Conservative Members' mindset that we are that way inclined.
  216
  I join my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in welcoming this opportunity to discuss the Government's first systematic attempt in 17 years to combat fraud. Points have been made about certain initiatives, but I have not heard any Conservative Member offer an exposition of the systematic attempt to sort out fraud, ascertain its nature and define the extent of the problem. We have always been opposed to social security fraud in all its forms because we believe that any Government have a duty to strike at that abuse wherever it is found.
  The much-quoted, happy Select Committee on Social Security said:
  "anti-fraud activities are an integral part of ensuring that social security spending goes to those who need it most".
  I very strongly agree with that. As many hon. Members have said, every pound wasted on fraud is a pound less going to someone who genuinely needs it and is legally entitled to it. I have absolutely no time for people who defraud the public purse. In committing that crime, they ensure that a man, woman or child who could do with that money and support does not get it.
  Starting with the Secretary of State, every Tory Member failed to mention the two sides of the coin, and I shall wait to see whether the Tories' last line of defence also fails to mention it. As well as their duty to stamp out fraud, there is a duty on the Government to ensure that all those who are legally entitled to benefits claim them: not one Tory Member has mentioned that.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right that the take-up of benefits has not been mentioned, but there is a good reason for that—the debate is not about the take-up of benefits. He is right that it is an important subject, but there have been some impressive campaigns recently—I say impressive because of their effect on the take-up of various benefits—on the subject. He is right that that effort should continue, but he should not criticise hon. Members for not mentioning something that is not the subject of the debate.
  Mr. McAvoy: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not valid. He is trying to close debate and prevent hon. Members from mentioning the overall situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the two sides of the coin, and it is reasonable to expect at least some response from Tory Members to a point made by a Labour Front Bencher.
  Perhaps the real reason why no Tory has mentioned the matter is that, by the Government's own estimates, £2 billion of social security benefits are not being claimed by those legally entitled to them. If the Government are as keen as Tory Members make out, why are they planning to abolish all the services that would encourage the take-up of that £2 billion of unclaimed benefits? There is a hidden agenda. Opposition Members—[Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip—I am looking ahead to the next few months. Tory Members have not mentioned the other side of the coin.
  No firm estimate of the extent of social security fraud has been made, although claims have been made about possible savings from anti-fraud measures. I repeat that no Opposition Member wants to side with criminals, which is what benefit fraudsters are. Britain was the pioneer of social security after the war, and it is as necessary now as it was then. For the system to function effectively, however, it must be protected from corruption and abuse.

  217
  One of the great and sometimes endearing features of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—to whom tribute has been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House—is that he thinks and says the unthinkable. That is to his credit, but we have not seen much of that attitude from Tories. A point of view expressed by my hon. Friend—a point that is appearing more and more in the policies of the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—is that the welfare state was never intended to become a permanent way of life for its users. It was intended for emergency periods in people's lives and a safety net to help those who had fallen on hard times. It was intended to provide a guaranteed minimum standard of living for people in need until they were able to support themselves. The message that receiving social security is a right and not an act of charity has been put across successfully.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to the means testing system used in the 1920s and 1930s. My mother, father and grandparents were subjected to that system at that time and, although it may be dismissed lightly now, we should not forget such things. I remember hearing my parents' and grandparents' experiences of that system, and Tory Members should never forget that Opposition Members—the descendants of people who were means-tested—know how that system operated. Sometimes Tory Members seem keen to implement such a system again, although I exempt the hon. Member for Teignbridge from that.
  If we are to have a cohesive society, social security must play a part, but it must be conveyed more and more that the right to social security is accompanied by a responsibility. The system cannot hope to function properly if it is used irresponsibly, and those who misuse it are robbing those in genuine need. Why have the Government not responded to the problem sooner? The House heard a detailed debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and Tory Members on the effect of means-testing benefits, and we need a separate debate on that subject.
  As the percentage of means-tested benefits rises, the Government will have to accept that there will be suspicion among Opposition Members and throughout the country about their motives. If they want to extend means testing to different types of benefit and to maintain a socially cohesive society, there will have to be consultation between the Government and the Opposition. If there is a genuine desire for progress, there should be a consensus on the type of benefits to be means tested. If the Government merely impose the scheme, they will arouse suspicion. If they propose more intensive means testing, I will oppose it unless they give specific and justified reasons for doing so.
  We must investigate cases of genuine need, although over-extending interrogation—as that is what investigation can amount to—might reintroduce the stigma that characterised means testing in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, the system is ineffective and inefficient as it encourages false claims.
  The Secretary of State lauded the concept of home visits, but what he did not say—perhaps the Minister will do so—was that even if the number of annual home visits is increased by 1 million, it will still make a total of only
  218
  1.5 million visits, as opposed to 6.5 million in the year when the Tories came to power. If home visits are so good, why have they been reduced so drastically by the Government?
  The Secretary of State's idea of hit-squads targeting certain areas and advertising that the DSS will be conducting a thorough investigation will, I hope, not mean harassment, and that proposal must be scrutinised and debated. I can think of several areas in my constituency that would appear to fit the Government's criteria for such a hit-squad. I shall consider the matter and conduct some research into it. I hope to hear some more information from the Minister on it. The idea strikes fear in my heart because it immediately sections off parts of our community and makes them targets. It also displays a mindset that particular areas and particular income groups will be targeted in that manner. It seems to be accepted by the Government that certain geographical areas in this country, by definition, contain people on social security benefit and consequently should be targeted.
  Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there was no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The spotlight campaigns will be focused on different areas; it has not been suggested that any specific type of area should be chosen. The evidence obtained through the benefit reviews shows that benefit fraud is widespread in different areas.
  Mr. McAvoy: That intervention hints at the sort of debate that I should like to see before there is general acceptance of the policy. I accept that the Minister is not trying to mislead, but how will the Department pick an area? Will the choice be based on geography or the number of claimants? The system that will need to be created to manage the targeting smacks of big brother, Stalinism and fascism—both sides of the spectrum.
  I am not a social engineer or a great sociologist, but I have experience of my community and of life. If parts of a community are targeted—which clearly will happen—what effect will that have on social cohesiveness? I do not want to start sounding like a social worker or a community worker, but what does that do to the self-esteem of individuals in the community and the community itself? The Department will immediately divide and rule, and turn areas and people into outcasts. I should like to hear more from the Government about exactly how they will choose and manage the areas that are to be targeted. It is a horrible, horrifying idea that will lead us into trouble in future.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for raising the subject of landlord fraud. We all know that local councils, especially in Scotland, face dreadful problems in terms of Government support for their reorganisation. I have read about what has happened in Haringey and heard, from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, about what can happen when a council investigates its own area and digs deep into the fraud carried out by landlords. If each council had a grant support settlement that enabled it to develop that aspect of its work, surely that would be cost-effective, bring in money and sort out fraud. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House—it does not seem to be a matter of contention—that landlord fraud is extensive and should be investigated. That would be a cost-effective way of tackling fraud.

  219
  I agree with some of the points that have been made about the dependency culture; it is a fact of life that such a culture can build up. It would be helpful if we could break it. We have also discussed means testing and the overall picture of society. Surely the only way to tackle such problems is to consider the wider picture. Labour party policies such as the statutory minimum wage, job creation, nursery provision and incentives to work would reduce the burden on the social security budget. We should take a two-pronged approach—we should not just attack fraud, but remove poverty and unemployment, which make people claim benefits. Surely there should be a two-way attack. Instead of paying vast sums of money from the social security budget, we should get people into work and create taxpayers who contribute to the country and who have disposable incomes. That is how the system was originally intended to operate and it is the only way in which it can work.
  The Secretary of State charged the Labour party with being soft on fraud. I contrast that charge with the effective, constructive, hard-headed and realistic policy proposed by the shadow Chancellor in an attempt to give young people incentives to get into work, while linking that policy to benefits. I know that such a concept is not entirely welcomed by all hon. Members, but linking benefits with a back-to-work scheme for youngsters reflects the reality that, for 17 years, our young people have not had much hope of obtaining employment, which has inculcated in them a sense of dependency. I accept that, in some areas, claiming benefit is a way of life, but that way of life must be broken; the scheme of my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would go some way towards doing so.
  I am sometimes a cynical and suspicious person, and it strikes me as curious that the Government have brought up the subject now in the run-up to the general election, especially when not one Conservative Member mentioned the other side of the coin—encouraging people to claim benefits to which they are legally entitled. The fact that the Conservatives have raised the subject now shows that they are making a desperate attempt to score cheap political points by making scapegoats of those in need. There is nothing more unedifying than the sight of the Conservative party losing its grip on power, its fingernails scraping down the wall as it becomes more and more desperate. Today's debate is part of that desperation.
  The Government always place great faith in concepts such as efficiency. If they are genuinely concerned about benefits that are paid out inappropriately, they should tackle the overpayments made by their civil servants at the DSS. According to the Public Accounts Committee's report for 1993–94, those civil servants made overpayments of £500 million, affecting 642,000 claimants. The Government might say that the payments were not made on purpose, but they are ministerially responsible for them and, as far as I can make out, they have done nothing about them. They have merely come forward with cheap headlines that attack poor people, irrespective of the merits or honesty of their case. They have done so purely and simply to get headlines because they know that most of those people will not vote for them. Those are the actions of a cynical Conservative Government.
  220
  The Treasury's proposed 25 per cent. cut in DSS running costs may be economical, but it should not be confused with efficiency. Earlier, some hon. Members read from a leaked letter—Conservative Members kept making mistakes about who had sent which letter to whom. I shall finish with a quote from the letter sent from the Secretary of State to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I accept that it is annoying when letters are leaked. It stated:
  "Your proposed settlement on running costs fills me with despair".
  The Secretary of State has not denied that statement so, by definition, the letter and his comment are accurate.
  I do not think that anyone in the House would question the Secretary of State's grasp and knowledge of the subject, so if he makes such a statement it shows that the exchange of letters between my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and for Islington, South and Finsbury were not an endorsement of, or support for, something that the Secretary of State said filled him with despair.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: From listening to the debate, I believe that there is no doubt that the Opposition have moved on since the last time we debated the subject, in 1993. The trouble with such a subject—and, I suspect, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was keen to have this debate—is that the more we hear from Labour Back Benchers, the less they seem to have moved on. Old Labour comes shining through. The party has not changed much.
  From what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said—and from the rather partial defence of his own record by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley)—I take it that the hon. Gentleman repudiates what the hon. Member for Withington said in the 1993 debate. It is all very well to quote the odd bit saying that Labour is opposed to social security fraud but then spend the rest of the speech attacking any attack on social security fraud.
  I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the two speeches of the hon. Member for Withington in that debate, and very boring they were, too. Nobody could read them, or could have been present at the debate, and come away without the impression that the hon. Gentleman did not believe that this was a serious issue worthy of investigation. It is pretty fatuous, in the language of a true plutocrat, to say,
  "In terms of overall expenditure on benefits, £1 billion is barely more than 1 per cent.—a tiny figure."—[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1255.]
  It may be a tiny figure to him but it is not to me, to my constituents or to the Government.
  I waited with bated breath for the eight policy announcements that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury promised us.
  Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman was asleep.
  Mr. Hughes: It was boring, but I was not asleep. I wrote the policy announcements down for greater

  221
  accuracy. I separate the first, scrapping self-assessment, from the other seven. It is populist and sounds good. The Government's idea is not that radical because most private companies have made that step-change. The successful ones have said, "Let's look at our administration. Can we save money? Can we make the savings that people have thought to be impossible before?" and they have succeeded.
  The target set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, welcome and sensible though it is, is quite modest when compared with what several companies have done. It is certainly achievable. In Opposition, it is easier to say that it is outrageous, unachievable and will destroy the present system. Scrapping self-assessment had to be No. 1 on their list. It is safe for them to witter on about that without anyone attacking them.
  The other seven promises were a lazy man's view of making policy. If that is as far as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has got, now that he is halfway through his review of social security policy, it is not impressive stuff. I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) that, as a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I am a member of the club that he mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has simply got a researcher to go through the transcripts of Social Security Committee hearings and glean anything that sounded like a reasonably good idea. He has strung all seven together and called it the Labour party's programme. That is not greatly impressive and does not amount to a policy platform. He is going to have to do a great deal better if he is to carry conviction and fight off the repeated rumours in the press that, were there to be a Labour Government, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would be Secretary of State.
  We accept that the Labour party has moved, but it has not moved far. People will recognise that as time goes on.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman can do better than this.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that I can do better than this. If he does not think much of this speech, I might say that I am merely following his lead.
  The Labour party has not been in favour of fighting fraud. That has been shown not only in the speech of the hon. Member for Withington two years ago but in the whole ethos whereby the Labour party argues that to attack fraud in the social security system is, by definition, to attack people who misrepresent their circumstances but who are poor. The Labour party argues that such fraud does not matter and that those people are just trying to get a bit of extra money to keep their families together. Those arguments are understandable.
  As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) pointed out, such fraud is often given folksy, acceptable names to make people think that it is not so bad. The hon. Member talked about the double—people who work on building sites and claim social security. That is one of the problems. People think that it is an acceptable crime. I believe that those days are ending. As one or two Opposition Members have said, people are concerned about the issue, whatever their circumstances, background or politics. However, the Labour party has never bothered to have a strategy on that.
  222
  There are Labour councils where fraud is endemic. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) talked about the fraud squad in Lambeth council. One is tempted to think that there are two fraud squads in Lambeth council: the majority of people carrying fraud out and the small team trying to stamp it out. One is reminded of the true story of when there was a flood in Lambeth. The mayor, rightly, went around the council estate that had been flooded to talk to the people who had been flooded out of their homes. As he went from house to house, one of his flunkeys had a list of tenants. After a while, it became a farce because they could not find anyone on the list of tenants that coincided with the names of the people who were living in the houses.
  There are perhaps quite a few such Labour councils in London. I accept that it is not all councils, but that problem became endemic in central London. There was so much housing fraud that Lambeth had lost control of its housing stock. Despite having trawled the evidence to the Select Committee, Labour Members have not mentioned the evidence that we took from Bernard Crofton, who was treated disgracefully by Hackney council.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is a Labour council.
  Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend points out, it is a Labour council. Labour Members would prefer that people forgot that. Bernard Crofton, who I remember as a housing officer on Greater London council, has shown enormous bravery in battling against the people who wanted to stifle the facts that he was bringing out. In November 1994, The Guardian quoted someone in Hackney as saying:
  "The basic story is that Hackney has a huge fraud problem. Bernard Crofton wants it dealt with. Others at Hackney do not."
  The article continued:
  "During the inquiry, employees were found to be illegally letting council flats in "keys for cash schemes", others were fraudulently claiming housing benefit, and there were council properties stuffed with fraudulently obtained mail order goods."
  In his evidence to the Select Committee, Bernard Crofton pointed out that it was clearly an organised fraud. When some of the flats were raided, mail order goods were found crated up to be returned to Nigeria. I make that not as a race point but to say that there is a considerable problem. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Withington wants to be silly, that is fine. If he has a serious point, I would be happy to give way.
  There is a huge problem, which has been pointed out several times in the press and on television, of specially trained people coming to Britain to try to take advantage of our social security system. Although I shall return to this theme, it is a truism that every time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cracks down on the problems of benefit tourists or changes the asylum seekers benefit regulations, the Labour party opposes him every inch of the way. Therefore, it is very difficult to take the Labour party seriously.
  The article in The Guardian continued:
  "His enquiries revealed that employees were being appointed with phoney references, bogus employment histories and false qualifications. He also claims to have found a number of illegal immigrants among council staff'.
  Hackney council has never admitted that. There are other questions and claims that no one has ever denied—perhaps a Labour Member will deny them tonight. Where

  223
  do the proceeds of fraud go? There are stories about a political slush fund in Hackney that have never been denied. We have read those stories in the newspapers and they are very convincing. If they are wrong, someone should deny them. No one has denied that the slush fund exists. If it does, where is the money going?
  I think that there is a cosy consensus within the Department of Social Security—it is certainly within the Labour party—dating back many years that somehow fraud is not an important issue. Every time a Minister tried to do something about it, people asked whether it was the right time and whether it was really an important issue. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for taking up the important battle against fraud. It is all very well Labour Members banging on about 17 years of Conservative Government—one would think that 1979 was year zero and that nothing happened before then; certainly nothing was done to combat fraud before 1979. I commend my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for putting a strategy in place.
  I shall mention a few of the measures that my right hon. and hon. Friend have introduced. First, as to the organisational structure, the fraud strategy group has been established to co-ordinate anti-fraud work across the DSS and its agencies, with a senior official appointed to develop the strategy. I have argued that that official should be of a higher grade—I am sure that the individual concerned believes that he should; who does not? That person must command great respect across the DSS.
  Secondly, dedicated fraud teams have been established at local level, preventing staff from being diverted from fighting fraud to other work. That will inevitably occur if the work builds up. Thirdly, the central computer system, initially covering 24 London boroughs, has been piloted to cross-check multiple housing benefit claims. The Government have closed legal loopholes, such as those that permitted people who entered the United Kingdom on condition that they would not be a burden on public funds to claim income support and housing benefit.
  I look forward to the time when the Labour party accepts publicly that that was a responsible and a reasonable move by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We all know that many Labour Members believe privately that it was a reasonable and a responsible measure: I look forward to their having the guts to say so in public.
  The Government have prevented benefit tourism and they have stopped the avoidance of national insurance contributions whereby people were paid in bullion and fine wines and through the other scams that went on.
  Another part of the battle against fraud concerns investment. Fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated so, if we are to be successful in the battle against them, the system must be sophisticated also. Girocheques and order books have been redesigned to make them harder to forge and the Government have invested in security training and information technology. Lastly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech, the Government have given incentives to local authorities which administer housing benefit to expose and stop fraudulent claims. That has proved a spur for local authorities to take the problem seriously. On a non-partisan basis, I pay tribute to the work of London boroughs in concert which have sought to save money in that way.
  224
  A secure payment strategy is an important part of the Government's approach and I shall mention some aspects of it. We have the world's biggest social security data-checking operation. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that data checking was inadequate. However, until recently, powerful computers were not available. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out by way of intervention, we have the world's first and biggest data-checking operation which highlights fiddles and multiple claims. Of course, much more can be done and I shall return to that point later. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Government are taking the lead on that issue.
  Post office staff are being rewarded for catching fraudsters, and benefit claimants in the south-east have their claim books scanned electronically to check whether they are forged or stolen. Five pilot helplines have been set up to make it easier to report benefit fraud, new guidance has been issued to staff to help them to make more rigorous identity checks and a central database is assisting local authorities in identifying fraudulent claims for housing benefit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred to the organised fraud in housing benefit, and undoubtedly many people are involved in it. A number of private landlords—I do not know how many—are either conniving in that fraud or actively part of it. That is costing a great deal of money and there must be a crackdown.
  However, there is a second type of fraud that is apparently acceptable and quite legal. I believe that it is right to move to financing individuals rather than bricks and mortar—I think that a much more mixed market in rented accommodation is the only way to solve Britain's housing problems. We heard the old canard from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)who was in the Chamber briefly—about council house building.
  I remember when blocks were built in Poplar in the late 1970s. Before they were completed, they were being described as "hard to let" blocks. It cannot be any sort of triumph to build blocks that one knows will be hard to let. That prophesy came true and some of the blocks were pulled down. If one accepts that one should subsidise individuals, that inevitably puts great strain on the housing benefit budget. Some of the changes made in the late 1980s and early 1990s have also added to that budget.
  Councils, housing associations and private landlords are running what I believe is a scam. They work out the maximum rent that they can get for a flat in a particular area and that is what they charge. They know that almost all the people who will rent the property will not pay for it, as the money will come from the Government. Of course there are checks on rent, but we should treat that problem extremely seriously because I believe that it represents a fraud against the taxpayer.
  Large amounts are paid for relatively ordinary flats, some of which are substandard, in the private or the other sectors and we must ask ourselves whether that is a good use of public money. It is important to have a system of checking rent levels. The Government have introduced some legislation in an effort to control those amounts, particularly for those under 25. Do they get any support from the Labour party? Do they heck. Of course not. The Labour party opposes that legislation, because it is popular

  225
  to oppose it. Any suggestion of removing money from people is bound to be unpopular so, "We would not do that," sounds like a good line to take approaching an election.
  Mr. McAvoy: Can the hon. Gentleman describe the cost-effectiveness of removing benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds?
  Mr. Hughes: No. [Interruption.] If it had been part of this debate, I would have been briefed on it, but I was not, so I cannot. The hon. Gentleman made an uncharacteristically short speech. I should have thought that he would speak about that. What has gone wrong in that, as I understand it—at least in my local experience—is the guarantee of a training place. I accept that that has not always worked as smoothly as it might, but, characteristically, the Labour party and some community organisations have exaggerated the problems. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we shall have the same problem with the restrictions on under-25s. I do not accept that, because we shall merely cut the money paid out to landlords.
  I shall discuss two subjects, the first of which is identity cards. It is a pity that the Labour party has opposed identity cards—but then it has opposed everything. First, it opposed the efficiency improvements. We have had some confusing stuff from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who has said that the benefit system
  "would be pushed to breaking point … with fewer people, more mistakes and worse service"
  unless he was misquoted by The Independent as well as the Evening Standard. In fact, he did not say that he was misquoted but simply claimed not to have written the letter.
  Mr. Chris Smith: You can do better than this, Robert.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Smith: Even the hon. Gentleman must understand that there is a difference between writing a letter and receiving a letter. I received a letter; I did not write it.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The point I was seeking to make when he failed to give way earlier is that that is what the Evening Standard believed, and if that is wrong I am happy to accept that. That was the only question I wanted to ask him. Either he or the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) believes it, and it does not matter, in a sense, which one. [Interruption.] I thought the hon. Gentlemen were from one party. If the hon. Gentleman is telling us that there is one policy for the Labour shadow Treasury team and another for the other Labour Front-Bench teams, that is interesting.
  It is a pity that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), now the Labour Chief Whip, strongly criticised the investment in the new benefit cards. To create a single identity, it is important to use identity cards. It is important to be able to ask, "Is this a single person?" The hon. Member for Garscadden also criticised biometric checks and the use of new technology.
  226
  That is a pity because, to create a single identity, it is necessary to use all available technology. In a few years, the banks will use that technology and it will become commonplace to use one of a variety of biometric checks. If the Government are left behind in the debate and we do not use that technology for social security, people will demand to know why.
  Secondly, I shall discuss data matching. Some years ago, when I was parliamentary private secretary in the DSS, the tenor of the debate about data matching between parts of the DSS and other Departments was dictated by arguments that it was an abuse of people's individual freedom for the Government to compare those records. It is obvious from the evidence that is being presented to the Social Security Select Committee that those arguments no longer apply—that people understand that it is reasonable to check up on people. The tenor of the questioning from the hon. Member for Rochdale was the opposite. I am pleased to be able to welcome something that the hon. Lady says. There is a first time for everything.
  We want many more DSS agencies to become involved in this, such as the Contributions Agency. The one that I want to mention, however, is the Inland Revenue. To discover whether a name or national insurance number—or whatever part of someone's identity is taken in vain—is being used fraudulently, one needs to know whether they are on the Inland Revenue computer and what it says about them. I understand that the Inland Revenue is being the dog in the manger and saying that it is impossible to do that, not for technical reasons but for bureaucratic ones. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to be extremely tough with the Treasury and to ensure that they obtain access to those records so that data can be matched. Most frauds, personal or organised, would be stopped by that.
  Every taxpayer, benefit recipient, family, pensioner and child has a stake in this. It is an important issue, which it is right to discuss on the Floor of the House, and I hope that we do so again, because the policies followed by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend and the success that they are having leave the Labour party standing, without a policy, without strategy and without an explanation that they will be able to give in the next general election campaign. This is a vote winner, because people understand that we should stamp out fraud and that the Government seek to do it.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) is in his place. I recall that he once tried to live for a week on social security benefit in my constituency—and could not manage it.
  Mr. Piers Merchant indicated dissent.
  Mr. Clelland: If the hon. Gentleman said that he did manage, it must have been his former hon. Friend, Matthew Parris, who did not manage it. One of them did not. It is a pity that they are not giving us the benefit of their experiences.
  I shall speak about the role of local government and the problems that confront it and suggest some of the best ways to tackle social security fraud from the local authorities' angle. I have nine suggestions, which is one

  227
  more than my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), but I shall probably repeat some of his.
  Local authorities agree about the importance of tackling social security fraud. It will be tackled effectively only if there is a proper, effective partnership between local authorities and the Department of Social Security and if local fraud strategies are developed in a stable framework. The Government have proposed a huge increase in fraud savings targets for local authorities-65 per cent. in some cases. That means that DSS subsidy payments to local authorities will fall from £26.7 million in 1995–96 to £13.7 million in 1996–97—a £13 million reduction, equal to a 49 per cent. cut in subsidy payments for fraud detection.
  Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that would be the position if local authorities did not rise to the challenge of meeting the targets? If they meet the targets, surely what he says is incorrect.
  Mr. Clelland: I hope to discuss the problems as local authorities see them. I shall discuss the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
  Local authorities were notified of the changes very late in the day, despite the fact that Ministers were directly advised by local authority associations of the necessary time scale requirements. Local authorities are important. For example, in 1995–96, local authority fraud staff will save an estimated £220 million in public funds. Benefit officers suggest that more fraud is being detected by local authority fraud investigation staff because there are more staff with better back-up. To avoid losing out as a result of the Department of Social Security's new subsidy proposals, it would be necessary for them to take on more staff—the cost of which would have to be met when the subsidy payments were being reduced.
  The late notification of the Department's proposals for 1996–97 is inexcusable. Council budgets for the next year are finalised and it will be extremely difficult for cases to be made for extra staff. If a local authority were able to appoint extra staff, the approval, appointment and training processes would mean that it would be mid or late summer before the new staff could be effective. There is an urgent need for the Department to give local authorities stability in fraud savings targets and subsidies so that they can plan their fraud strategies and invest in their fraud investigation offices.
  At the beginning of last year, it appeared that that concern had been understood. Department of Social Security letters to individual authorities and a circular dated January 1995, encouraged authorities to plan and to make long-term investment decisions on the basis of a move towards their uncapped target within two years. Many authorities took the Department at its word and made important investment decisions.
  The increase in fraud targets for 1996–97 has not only shown that those statements were misleading, but, more fundamentally, it has removed local authorities' confidence in the stability of the new arrangements. Accordingly, many authorities will be reluctant to commit additional resources to fraud as offsetting income from subsidy can no longer be relied on. The case for stability
  228
  is also supported by the fact that local authorities have responded positively to the existing arrangements. Savings from the anti-fraud scheme have increased from £92 million in 1993–94 to an estimated £220 million in 1995–96. There is, therefore, no argument for increasing targets on the basis of poor local authority performance.
  The Department has presented the proposals as providing further incentives, but the impact for all except the top performing authorities is to reduce the amount of subsidy that local authorities could have anticipated if the present subsidy arrangements had continued. Most authorities therefore view the changes as a cynical attempt to reduce the amount of Exchequer subsidy and fear that it is a step back to the pre 1993–94 era, when local authorities incurred the costs of investigation and the Treasury benefited from the savings.
  Local authorities believe that the Department, when making the proposals for 1996–97, was not aware that even good performing authorities are likely to suffer significant reductions in subsidy under the present arrangements. Unless radically revised, the proposals for 1996–97 will have a demotivating impact on most authorities. In addition, the methodology for distributing targets is crude and needs to be reviewed to take account of the findings of the benefit review. The current difference between an exceptionally high performing local authority and a good performing local authority may be more illusory than real. For that reason alone, the Department should avoid radical changes to targets and new subsidy arrangements that reward only exceptionally high performers.
  There is the strongest possible objection to the transfer of £5 million from next year's provision for administration subsidy to the anti-fraud challenge fund. The initial publicity gave the impression that the initiative was to be supported by new money. I believe that it is short sighted to reduce the administration subsidy when local authorities' budgets are severely constrained. A stretched and under-resourced service is likely to give more scope for fraud than one that is adequately supported. The move demonstrates the half-hearted nature of the Department's commitment to fraud.
  The lack of commitment is emphasised by the fact that the amount of challenge funding has decreased since it was first announced. The Department of Social Security's letter of 7 December stated that the amount set aside for challenge funding was £10 million, but DSS officials recently advised that it will now be only £8 million, of which only £3 million will be new money. There are major misgivings about the cost-effectiveness of the proposed challenge fund as it could divert attention from more effective mainstream fraud work. There is a role for the encouragement of good and innovative practice, but it is not considered that a competitive-based bidding system is an appropriate approach—indeed, competition for funds may deter the sharing of information and ideas.
  Although the stated purpose of the initiative is to sponsor innovative schemes, innovation receives the lowest weighting in the Department's proposed scoring system, and the most weighting is given to payback. I believe that the more innovative the scheme, the more difficult it would be to predict payback. It is also clear that innovative schemes to prevent fraud are not eligible. Local authority associations have raised with the Department and in evidence to the House of Commons Social Security Committee the need for additional measures to assist prevention and detection—for example,

  229
  the use of national insurance numbers as a reference for all benefits, once we have cleared up how many national insurance numbers are in circulation; the power to recover overpayments to landlords direct from subsequent payments; and the requirement that unemployment offices inform local authorities when claimants cease entitlement to unemployment benefit.
  If Ministers seriously intend to encourage a more strategic and partnership approach towards tackling fraud, they should consider the adoption of the following measures. First, they should continue to provide an effective incentive to fraud work. The present targets, which results show are eliciting the necessary response from the overwhelming majority of authorities, should be retained. Secondly, if Ministers are committed to changing targets, a more graduated approach should be adopted. It is unreasonable that good performing authorities under the current scheme have to meet unrealistically increased targets merely to stand still in subsidy terms.
  Thirdly, so that local authorities can plan their fraud strategies and make sensible investment decisions, a framework for targets and subsidies should be agreed for the next three years. Fourthly, the methodology for distributing targets should be reviewed in the light of the benefit review findings. Fifthly, challenge funding should not be resourced at the expense of other funding and, therefore, the £5 million cut in administration subsidy should be restored. Sixthly, resources for challenge funding would be more effectively spent by injecting the resources into the mainstream anti-fraud incentive scheme, which would partially offset the cost of the more graduated approach to targets.
  Seventhly, the Government should introduce a scheme that provides financial incentives for fraud prevention and prosecution. Eighthly, they should give detailed consideration to the associations' suggestion of new measures to assist fraud prevention and detection. Finally, they should make a more realistic contribution to local authorities' mainstream administration costs so as to avoid the incentive scheme distorting administrative priorities. At the very least, they should consider switching all Government support for administration costs from the revenue support grant to specific grant, as recommended by the Audit Commission for Local Authorities.
  Earlier in the debate, the Opposition were challenged to offer solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury listed eight points. My hon. Friends have made other proposals and I have outlined some suggestions. We are entitled to a considered response from the Government and to expect that, if they are serious about tackling fraud in a meaningful way, they will respond positively to our proposals.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall not comment on the speech made by the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who was clearly well briefed. I shall make a few points in the short time that is available.
  The future of social security is one of the great unsolved policy riddles that both parties now face. It is an extremely serious subject and requires an informed national debate. We have had some fun slinging insults across the Chamber, but the issue is too important for that. We really need a national consensus on how to proceed,
  230
  as any reforms will take so long to take effect that no Government of one party can be sure that they will finish the job.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the huge cost of social security. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) reminded us that it costs £90 billion a year—a meaningless figure to most people, but it represents £15 for every working person every day. The issue is made more serious by an aging and more demanding population. Such clichés as "a demographic time bomb" do not adequately describe the problems that a Government of any party will have to face in the next century.
  When I speak to young people in colleges and universities, I tell them that, when they retire in 2030 or 2040, the nation will not be able to afford to give them an adequate state pension. We have to be honest with young people and tell them that now.
  Fraud plays a vital part in the debate, although it is only part of the issue. Addressing fraud cannot solve the problem, so what should we do? Should we cut benefits? The Government claim to oppose cutting benefits—they have to say that. I am not sure, however, that their glib and obvious answer is an adequate response. As benefits rise, the poverty and unemployment trap deepens. If we run out of money, benefits may have to be cut.
  Should we have more means testing? My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge seemed to advocate that, but more means testing deepens the poverty trap and does not provide an answer. Should we help more people out of benefit and into work? Clearly such schemes as the jobseeker's allowance are just a start and we need a full workfare system.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should point out to him that the main thrust of the debate and the amendment is related to fraud rather than the social security budget. I hope, therefore, that he is making passing reference to it and not making it the subject of his entire speech.
  Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman does not have a speech.
  Mr. Leigh: I am sorry that I do not have a speech to read out, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge did. Had I such a speech, I should have dealt entirely with fraud.
  According to the studies conducted by the Department of Social Security, there may be as much as £8 to £9 billion-worth of fraud in the system. That is a staggering amount—enough to pay for a reduction of 4p in income tax. There should be no limit to the moral indignation felt by British people and the determination of all parties represented in the House to deal with it. Apparently, we saved £717 million in 1994–95, but we must do better. I shall deal in a moment with the checklist of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tried to achieve. Although some progress has been made, we must do a great deal more.
  I believe that the only way to deal with fraud is to introduce a comprehensive system of identity cards based on a national computer-based system. The visit by the Social Security Committee to the Contributions Agency

  231
  last week has been mentioned. I participated in that visit. People were extremely polite. I hope that the Contributions Agency will forgive me if I am rather less polite.
  The Contributions Agency employs no fewer than 9,000 civil servants in Newcastle. We were shown one small department where information technology had been introduced. It should have been introduced years ago, throughout the Contributions Agency, but I understand the problems involved. The Department has to support the unemployed, and Newcastle is an area of high unemployment. The Contributions Agency employs 9,000 people and information technology would drive a coach and horses through their employment.
  If fraud is to be dealt with more adequately, and if there is to be a proper contributory system, highly sophisticated information technology must run throughout the system. We talk with great pride about the benefit card, but it is not a smart card. Fraud will not be overcome until everybody has a personal identity smart card that could, presumably, be used also as a credit card, cash card and passport. Every time a person claimed a benefit or used a bank, his card would be linked to a central computer. It might be claimed that there is a civil liberty argument against such a card, but I do not believe that the average law-abiding citizen would resent it. The technology is available now.
  Unless we have the vision to introduce such a card, fraud will never be tackled adequately. The only way to tackle the problem is to have complete cross-information between the private and public sectors, and at least within the public sector. It was extraordinary to hear witnesses from my right hon. Friend's Department make clear that there was not enough cross-reference between the Inland Revenue, the DSS and Customs and Excise. That visionary policy is one that the Government and the Opposition must promote.
  My right hon. Friend's announcements today reflect some progress, but not enough. He said that the Department will double to 600,000 the number of home visits to check new claims for entitlement. The Labour party has a fair point when it says that the cut in home visits in recent years has resulted in more fraud. My right hon. Friend wants to increase cross-checking of information about benefit claims. I reiterate my point about the use of more sophisticated information technology in the Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency.
  My right hon. Friend will introduce from the autumn the benefit system payment card, but I do not think that it goes far enough. He will also initiate a series of month-long local anti-fraud drives in major urban areas. That is an excellent idea, but can we rely on denunciation? Do we want a society based on denunciation of one citizen by another? I have my doubts, but presumably the exercise will not be based entirely on denunciation.
  My right hon. Friend wants to launch three initiatives involving local authorities: a unified computer system; a study of how best to prevent fraudulent housing benefit claims entering the system—in which IT would be a powerful weapon; and encouraging local authorities to establish teams to work alongside the Benefits Agency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the evidence of Mr. Bernard Crofton, the housing director of Hackney council. The level of fraud and intimidation against that highly diligent
  232
  local government officer was an appalling indictment of London's local government system. Anybody who is interested in the subject should read Mr. Crofton's evidence to the Select Committee.
  My right hon. Friend will also establish the benefit fraud investigation service. All that is good progress, but much more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in a written question, asked the Secretary of State
  "if he will list each authority in England which achieved (a) less than 50 per cent. and (b) between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of its target level of weekly benefit savings resulting from the detection of housing benefit fraud".—[Official Report, 20 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 12 75.]
  The reply revealed that some local authorities—including the Isles of Scilly, South Bedfordshire and Teesdale—achieved nil per cent. of the threshold. Clearly much more progress needs to be made. We are talking about huge figures.
  Fraudulent income support claims total £1.4 billion, and 9.7 per cent. of income support cases are fraudulent, while 18.5 per cent. of lone parents are perhaps making fraudulent claims. Perhaps 30 per cent. of the total is accounted for by people working and claiming simultaneously, and for other reasons.
  I believe that we are still hunting around the edges of the issue. We have not really gone to the heart of the matter. Although my right hon. Friend should be warmly congratulated on what he achieved and on the measures that he announced to tackle fraud, we must get a grip on the use of information technology.
  The point that my right hon. Friend made in his opening speech was important. There is very little fraud in pension claims, which are based on contributions. We will never provide a long-term future for our social security system unless we recreate the original vision of Beveridge: a social security system based on the contributory insurance principle. That is the way to create a responsible and caring society. It will take years to return to that system, and it will be far more difficult for this country than for younger societies such as Chile, Singapore, New Zealand or Australia, where elderly people account for a far smaller proportion of the population.
  We have to have the courage—on both sides of the Chamber—to accept that our social security system is slowly and inevitably running into the buffers. We have to do what Chile did. It was the first country to use the pay-as-you-go system. It was the first country to realise that it was going bankrupt. Indeed, it went bankrupt in the early 1980s. It has now moved to an insurance-based system, in which people are required to pay some of their income into private insurance companies or—if the Labour party prefers—to charitable trusts.
  Something has to be done. If we have the vision, I believe that we can tackle the problem.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: This has generally been a thoughtful debate with interesting speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber. He claimed that he

  233
  had read the entire debate of some three years ago. I wonder whether he read the words of the then Minister who replied, and who, commenting on my speech, said:
  "The Opposition spokesman has been equally determined to show that the Labour party is as rigorous about fraud and abuse as it is about ensuring that everyone gets his just deserts."—[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1296.]
  That clearly sums up our position. It did so then and it does today. I would like to place on record again, so that there is no confusion or selective quoting by the Secretary of State, that the Labour party, yet again, is as committed as the Government to rooting out fraud.
  We welcome this opportunity to discuss the Government's first systematic attempt after 17 years in office to discover the nature of fraud and to define the extent of the problem. Labour has always been opposed to social security fraud in all its forms. It is the duty of Government to strike at abuse wherever it is found. We agree whole-heartedly with the comments in the fifth report of the Social Security Select Committee, which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), which said that
  "anti-fraud activities are an integral part of ensuring that social security spending goes to those who need it most."
  That is crucial. Today, the Secretary of State broadly outlined some of the measures that the Government have taken and plan to take to combat fraud. I am pleased that the Government, after 17 years, have decided to do something to ensure that taxpayers' money goes to those who most need it.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Bradley: In a moment.
  I believe that it is staggering, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said about it having taken so long to start to investigate, for example, the ways in which computers and computer development can be used more effectively to combat fraud. The hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased that the Government, after 17 years, had started to tackle fraud. How many proposals did the Labour party make designed to tackle fraud over the same period?
  Mr. Bradley: Obviously, a Labour Government have not been in power for 17 years. The Labour party has been in power, however, in local government throughout the country, and initiative after initiative has been taken by local government. If the Government had taken more notice of some of those initiatives they may not have taken so long to introduce their proposals in the recent past.
  It is important for the Secretary of State to confirm at the outset the exact savings that will be made as a result of the anti-fraud measures over the next three years. I have repeatedly asked him to do so. I did so, for example, during the uprating debate. The Minister who responded to that debate wrote to answer the many questions that I asked, but, surprisingly, my question on savings was not answered. I have written to the Secretary of State and I have raised the matter during Social Security questions. I have still not had a reply.
  Perhaps the Government are finding it difficult to identify the way in which the fraud figures are being compiled. The figures include irregularities—not
  234
  necessarily proven fraud—and notional savings in cases where investigations have found irregularities but have not led to cash being recouped. Moreover, the figures are arrived at by multiplying recorded fraudulent claims against a factor of 32. That system is based on the belief that if the fraud had not been discovered it would have taken at least 32 weeks before it would have been. Thus it may be that the Government's problem is that many of the figures that they are compiling are notional rather than hard-cash savings. These are the extrapolations at which the Government are arriving in providing estimates to the House.
  When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if he could explain whether I have focused on the reasons for delay in replying to my earlier requests. I hope that he will be able tonight to give us precise figures for the year-on-year savings that he expects to make from anti-fraud measures. It would be helpful if we received that information tonight. Exactly what are the target figures that the Government are setting?
  I move on to some of the work that is already under way and some of the other measures that the Government are taking to focus on social security spending on behalf of those in greatest need. We want to consider anti-fraud activities in the widest context in an effort to ensure that entitlement to benefit is recognised.
  The Government's review of fraud in the social security system has had two main purposes. The first was to establish the degree of claimants' non-compliance with benefit rules. The second was to establish the reasons for fraud within the social security system. We do not argue with either of those purposes. To date, the Government have published the results of the two reviews and have used these to inform decisions on priorities for increased security within the social security system.
  The first review, which was published in July 1995, focused on income support and unemployment benefit fraud. The review suggested an annual fraud level of about £1.4 billion. As a result, the Government launched their five-year programme, with the introduction of a number of measures, including the benefit payment card and a review of home visits. I mention those matters only briefly because they have been well rehearsed during the debate.
  I press the Minister to give us further details about the way in which the benefit payment card system will work. The "devastating" reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) received that the security card system would be based on the private finance initiative and that it would be for the contractor to determine the terms of reference of the card, was extremely unsatisfactory. When he replies, will the Minister give us precise details of the nature of the card and how the system will work in practice?
  We all accept that pensioners have played little part in any fraudulent activities. Many pensioners enjoy the use of a payment book for the receipt of pensions. It is a useful tool for them in recording benefit received and benefits that they are owed. The book is a valuable source of information for them. Will the Government ensure that, with the introduction of any benefit card, pensioners will still have the option to continue to use their own books?
  Despite what the Secretary of State said in his speech, the Government have reduced the number of home visits to claimants made by Benefits Agency staff. Department of Social Security and Benefits Agency officials agree that

  235
  home visits are one of the most effective ways of detecting and deterring fraudulent benefit claims. In a parliamentary answer in January 1995, it was revealed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, that 6.5 million home visits were made in 1979, when the Tories came to power, but that, by 1994–95, the figure had dropped to merely 500,000. The Secretary of State has promised to increase the number of home visits as part of his new anti-fraud initiatives, but by only 1 million. That nowhere near approaches the level that the Government inherited when they took office in 1979.
  Home visits have a useful dual purpose. In the past, officials checked not only what fraudulent claims were being made, but that claimants were receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. Now, however, officers are instructed to check only on fraud. Have the Government any intention of reintroducing the essential and effective dual role that home visit officers had?
  At this stage, it is important to note again that the Government's changes in the social security system have led to more open fraudulent abuse. As has been stated again in the debate, that has resulted from the growing increase in the dependency on means-tested benefit. As we know, during their 17 years in office, the Government have presided over a doubling of means testing from 17 per cent. of benefits in 1978–79 to 35 per cent. in 1995–96.
  Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was unable to answer on two occasions, and now that Labour Members have had time to think about this, could the hon. Gentleman answer the question: do Labour Front-Bench spokesmen propose to reduce the extent of means testing should they ever find themselves in power?
  Mr. Bradley: When we find ourselves in power, through the welfare-to-work strategy that we will introduce, we sincerely intend to reduce the number of people who are dependent on means-tested benefits. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters away from a sedentary position, but the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, with the move towards means-tested benefit six months earlier, will exacerbate the problem with greater complexity. We hope that the welfare-to-work strategy will mean that people will not rely on such benefits.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bradley: No. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
  Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further delay in the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance? There are persistent rumours that the computer systems that are being introduced for that benefit are not on course and that there may be some difficulties in attempting to make a smooth transition to the Government's new benefit.
  Despite the people who may deliberately claim benefit fraudulently, it is important always to stress that the vast majority of benefit claimants are—and I use the words of the Secretary of State:
  "as honest as the day is long."—[Official Report, 18 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 9.]
  236
  Three years ago, when we first debated this subject, I referred to a report by the Low Pay Unit entitled "Policing the Workshy", which pointed out that perhaps one of the greatest impediments to seeking work is that people must fill in so many forms and complete so many interview references showing that they are seeking work. Individual abuses often occur because of ignorance or mistakes in filling in all those forms. Social security officers have a duty to give claimants the maximum help to ensure that they claim correctly. More work should be done to simplify claim forms, which are still too complex for many people. Staff training, and staff sensitivity in the handling of claimants, are also essential to ensure that those who fill in the forms do not encounter difficulties.
  That leads me to the subject of the Government's plan to reduce the running costs budget by 25 per cent. That would make the system less rather than more fraud-proof. As we have heard, one of the main ways of achieving savings that the Secretary of State is currently considering is self-assessment of eligibility. If that were introduced, the onus would be on claimants to prove their entitlement to benefit: they would be responsible for knowing which documents they should produce to prove their entitlement.

  The analogy of applying for a passport has been used. The Passport Agency does not help people to prove their entitlement to passports; it merely approves or rejects their applications. Applying for a state benefit, however, is a vastly more complicated process. A wealth of factors are relevant—for instance, whether claimants have savings, whether they are claiming other benefits and whether other people are living with them.
  As we have heard, fraudsters will not find self-assessment a problem, but pensioners, the disabled and many other vulnerable groups may find it much harder to prove their entitlement. It is they who will suffer if the Government's plan is implemented. If the Government were serious about fighting fraud, they would not be cutting running costs in that way. I hope that the Minister will assure us that they will not do so: such action would give the green light to fraudsters throughout the country.
  The other side of the coin, which is equally important, is take-up of and entitlement to benefit. When attempting to root out fraud, the Government should apply the same effort and commitment to ensuring that those who are eligible for benefit receive their entitlement. According to a report in The Guardian on 1 March this year, the Benefits Agency plans to reduce some of its help for those claiming benefit: for instance, it proposes reductions in telephone advice lines and "benefit buses". If that is true, it is extremely worrying. We should be building up such work rather than cutting it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such cuts are not envisaged as part of the attempt to reduce running costs by 25 per cent.
  Pensioners are an obvious group of people entitled to benefit. As I have said, they are one of the groups least likely to commit fraud, but they are also the least likely group to take up their entitlement to benefit. DSS estimates show that up to a third of pensioners entitled to income support are not receiving it. Between £840 million and £1.2 billion is unclaimed by pensioners in a single year, and about 1 million pensioners—perhaps more—are missing out altogether. I hope that the Government will tell us tonight that they will launch new publicity drives, and support the excellent work of welfare

  237
  rights officers in local authorities throughout the country who take up campaigns and help people, efficiently and effectively, to claim the money to which they are entitled.
  The Government's second review—the review of the housing benefit and council tax benefit system—suggests that about £730 million is lost through fraud, and a further £110 million through error. As we have been told, in April the Government will launch a four-point plan to combat housing benefit fraud; but, as the Secretary of State said, the £10 million originally allocated to local authorities as "challenge money" has already fallen to £8 million. Local authorities have subsequently discovered that £5 million of that total was previously allocated as part of the Government's subsidy to them for fraud work that was already under way, leaving a new total of merely £3 million for work that is considered to be essential to combat fraud. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case in his winding-up speech?
  As I said earlier, and as our amendment makes clear, the Government should have noticed the excellent work that Labour-controlled local authorities have already done in leading the fight against fraud through the work of their housing benefit departments. In the first three quarters of last year, local authority investigations into housing benefit saved the taxpayer £220 million, for a payment by the DSS of only £26.7 million.
  We have heard of the good practice in the Labour-controlled local authorities of Haringey and Camden, and of the way in which they have even received a charter mark from the Prime Minister. In the brief time that I have left to speak, may I select another council at random—for example, Manchester. I praise the excellent fraud work that it has undertaken. In the past 18 months, it has employed five staff specifically for that work.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly paying tribute to the measures that we introduced to give sticks and carrots to local authorities to make them do that work, after years in which many—particularly Labour-controlled—local authorities failed to do it. I am delighted that, in the past 18 months, his local authority has responded to our incentives.
  Mr. Bradley: What most pleases me is the praise that the Secretary of State has given to Manchester city council for the work that it has undertaken. It has employed five extra staff and, against a target of £2 million in the first year, it has achieved savings of £3 million. Unfortunately, as a result of that success, the Government have increased its target by 50 per cent., to £3 million, and increased the subsidy pay-back to the authority from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. Surely the Government should be more generous in ensuring that the local authority can keep more of the money that it has so successfully targeted with its fraud measures. I ask the Minister to reconsider the current subsidy arrangements.
  We have heard in this debate of the excellent initiatives undertaken by the Labour party, despite the Government's reluctance over the years to spearhead a campaign to combat fraud wherever it appeared. We clearly welcome the Government's belated initiatives.
  I commend the eight-point plan announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is worth briefly reminding the Secretary of State what the Labour party proposes. It proposes to
  238
  introduce a special fraud unit to cut across local authority boundaries, particularly in London—I was pleased that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) also welcomed that proposal; to give local authorities the power to identify the real owners of properties; to tighten up on the use of national insurance numbers; to examine the finders keepers conflict between the Benefits Agency and local authorities and how to achieve better co-operation; to introduce proper fraud audits in the Benefits Agency, in the same way in which local authorities are audited; to examine postal redirections to ensure that payments are being made to the people who should receive them; to examine the way in which employment officers and local authorities work together on these initiatives; and, particularly, to examine scrapping moves towards the general access way in which local authorities are operating. My hon. Friend proposed a series of eight important measures that build on the experience of Labour local government and good practice across the country, which the Government have recognised, albeit belatedly. We shall continue to root out fraud and will ensure that people who deserve benefits receive their entitlements.
  9.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): We have had a useful and generally constructive debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for Westbury (Mr. Faber), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for their contributions, but I must also pay tribute to the Opposition Members for what they brought to the debate.
  I regret that some Opposition Members felt obliged to cavil at the Government's achievements in fighting fraud. We acted on benefit fraud long before the Opposition even discovered the issue. When I heard the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) talking about 13 years of inaction and how he and his colleagues had spearheaded the campaign against fraud, I thought back to his remarks in July 1993 when he said that the extent of fraud in the system was overstated and that we should not get things out of proportion. He described the problem at that stage as a small one.
  Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister support the view of the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)? Referring to my speech on that occasion, he said:
  "The Opposition spokesman has been equally determined to show that the Labour party is as rigorous about fraud and abuse as it is about ensuring that everyone gets his just deserts."—[Official Report, 16 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1250.]
  Mr. Heald: I think that my hon. Friend was being rather kind because it was a Friday; he is certainly a fair man. As I shall make clear in a moment, the hon. Gentleman made a number of suggestions, all of which were wrong and have subsequently been disproved by events, so I shall not take any advice from him on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a number of issues that I shall deal with immediately. There is no mystery about the targets. The figure for the 1998–99 target is £2.5 billion. That is

  239
  made up of all the various forms of fraud activity relating to the Benefits Agency in that one year. It also includes the work of the Employment Service which, of course, will by then have been amalgamated with that of the Benefits Agency, and that of local authorities.
  The other figure of £2.5 billion that has been mentioned is the spend-to-save figure. The Government's proposals—the expenditure of £103 million this year on the security and control programme and of further sums over a future three-year period—will produce savings of £2.5 billion. If the hon. Gentleman requires further information, I shall be happy to write to him with more details.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also spoke about the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, suggesting that he was in some way critical of the Government's work on benefit fraud. That is far from being the case—the Comptroller and Auditor General commended the Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their energetic approach to tackling benefit fraud. Although he was saying, as he has for many years, that he wished to qualify the accounts because there was a high level of fraud, and although he recognised that the benefit review had established the true level of fraud, there is no question but that he was complimenting the Department on its work.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about means testing.
  Mr. Frank Field: If the Comptroller and Auditor General is so pleased, does the Minister think that he will sign the accounts next year?
  Mr. Heald: I think that I covered that point. Obviously, where there is a high level of benefit fraud, it is extremely difficult for him to do so. The research that the Department has undertaken to establish the level of fraud is the basis on which that decision will be made.
  It is all very well and good for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to criticise the increase in means testing and say that he feels that it increases the scope of fraud, but the corollary of that, if he means it, is that he is prepared to change the system to less means testing, and the disadvantages that that would bring. That point was put to him time and again and he was not prepared to make such a commitment. The Labour party has proposed a guaranteed minimum pension that, far from cutting means testing, would involve means testing everybody at state pension age. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that will help, I suggest that he is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury talked about what he described as self-assessment. It is true that there is an element of self-assessment in disability benefits where claimants describe their conditions on the forms that they fill in. Such self-assessment is well established. The hon. Gentleman is confusing self-assessment with the tightening up and simplifying of procedures that require benefit claimants to provide more information in documents, and so on, which is needed to establish and determine claims. I would not describe that as self-assessment, but if the hon. Gentleman does I would plead guilty. We ought to be looking at measures that put more of the onus on the individual in certain cases in order to simplify the system.
  240
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and a number of other hon. Members asked when we will have a uniform computer system, applying to all benefits, which will give ready access to personal details of and information about each claimant. That is being developed. It is part of the technology that underlies the benefit payment card and the private finance initiative to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Such a system will become available as we roll out the use of the benefit payment card, which the hon. Gentleman also criticised.
  That PFI is on target. I cannot give the House all the details of it today, because the procurement process is still in hand. However, minimum standards and levels of security have been laid down by the Government and we are looking for proposals from the suppliers that meet that criteria. The suppliers will not be determining how the system works; they will be providing us with proposals so that we can determine the best way forward.
  It is important to ensure that when the benefit payment card is introduced, elderly people find it accessible and easy to use. Sub-postmasters and those involved with the Post Office are determined to ensure that that happens. From speaking to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, I know that that is its view. We are also having discussions with groups that represent the elderly to ensure that the card is introduced in a form that is acceptable to the elderly, that they are given the necessary information and that the card is effective.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury described the blanket visiting system as something we should look back on with pride and restore immediately. It is a question not only of the number of visits but of the intelligence and the information through data matching that can be given to the fraud investigator, so that when they go out on a call they know that they are visiting somebody who is likely to be a benefit fraudster. We are trying to target the visits far more. I am not saying that everyone who receives a visit is a potential fraudster. We are merely trying to underline the visiting process with intelligent technology that helps the fraud investigator. That is far better than simply sending large numbers of people to visit on a cold-canvass basis.
  I applaud the work of local authorities, but I must say that they were goaded into doing it. The hon. Member for Withington described how well certain Labour councils have done. I do not disagree with him, but they have been goaded into it. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he said that the tough targets, incentives and penalties that we proposed in 1993 were unrealistically high and should be reconsidered. He has not said that the Government have done well and have put the right incentives in place to encourage local authorities to perform. He was wrong about that. What happened the year after he said that the targets were unrealistically high? Local authorities doubled the amount of money that they recovered.
  Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Withington was right to say that the targets were far too challenging for authorities such as the Isles of Scilly, Upper Teesdale and South Bedfordshire—none of which

  241
  is Labour controlled. But they were not too tough for high-performing Labour local authorities, such as Camden and Haringey.
  Mr. Heald: I am not sure if that was a question. I might add that the target of £150 million proposed for next year has been exceeded this year.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have become increasingly aware during the debate of a trap into which we have been in danger of falling, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has fallen head first into it. We do not want a system in which the more fraud we find, the more pleased we are, because that will underline how much fraud we are letting through the system in the first place.
  Mr. Heald: As usual, my hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to change the system from one in which we chase benefit fraudsters to one in which we prevent and deter benefit fraud. That is what the technological innovations introduced last year were all about.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to telephone hot lines—an idea that we have piloted successfully in the past few months—and suggested that they had been dreamed up by Reading borough council. I pay tribute to Reading borough council, but the hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the Benefits Agency at Barrow-in-Furness, which piloted the scheme long before Reading. He was right to state that Reading has worked with the Benefits Agency to launch the "fraudwatch" campaign, and he was also correct in saying that we would like to take forward the hot line initiative now we have seen how well it works. The Government should also be entitled to take some credit for the idea.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised the issue of challenge funding, and seemed to suggest that £8 million was insufficient. I ask him—how much would Labour put into a challenge funding system? Answer comes there none. His eight measures to solve the problem were a mixture of things that we are doing already and things that would make no difference. It reminded me of the good old Liberals at local government by-elections who, having researched what the ruling group on the council was about to do, would produce a leaflet containing all those ideas as if they had come from the Liberals. Lo and behold, those schemes would be implemented two weeks later, as planned.
  The first of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury's policies referred to the scrapping of moves towards self-assessment. I believe that he is confused. The Government are looking at tightening procedures and putting the onus of proof more on the benefit claimant to create a more effective system. The hon. Gentleman confuses that with the sort of self-assessment, which is simply a matter of what the person says on the form. I do not think that he understood what was proposed.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was that we should establish a special unit across London to deal with organised fraud. We welcome that idea and want to see it happen.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Government have been sitting on it for four years.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman says that we have been sitting on it for four years. In fact, we have been
  242
  discussing the subject with the London boroughs fraud investigators group and the London team against fraud since October. We are waiting for their written proposals and, when we receive them, we shall discuss them.
  The hon. Gentleman's third point was that we should give local authorities the right to obtain proof of ownership of property. They already investigate the status of landlords; they conduct searches and are entitled to suspend benefits while they do so.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested tightening up on national insurance numbers. We have already introduced a new system to tighten up the allocation of national insurance numbers. We tag numbers that are not being used and we are working on other measures to make the system more effective. There is nothing extra that can be done to make the system of national insurance numbers more effective. In a moment I shall come to some of the other points that were made on that subject by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe).
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury spoke of ending the "finders, keepers" system. If we did that, with what would we replace it? At present, the benefits are awarded to the investigation team that has recovered them. If we were to award the benefits without considering who had successfully investigated them, that would be a huge disincentive to the effective investigation of fraud.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Benefits Agency fraud figures should be checked even more. They are already checked four times, including a final check by the National Audit Office.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about using postal redirect data. We do that with organised fraud and are negotiating to extend it into other areas.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about employment offices telling local authorities when claims cease. As he said, that already happens in relation to income support and we shall introduce it for jobseeker's allowance which is income related. When the new computer system with single accounts is in place, we shall also be able to introduce that measure for other contributory benefits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset made a number of points in his full and detailed contribution. He suggested that home visits were a good idea, which is clearly right. He called for more telephone calls—those checks are being made and we shall certainly consider making more of them.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of incapacity benefit. It is too early to say precisely how many fraudulent cases have ended as a result of the new test. I shall ensure that when that information becomes clearer, my hon. Friend is informed of it.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the Post Office reward scheme. I pay tribute to the Post Office. The workers at the counters have taken the Post Office reward scheme to heart. In the first few months, they have already saved £4 million in benefit order books that have been returned.
  Mr. Jenkin: Of the 392,000 benefit cheats said to have been caught by the Benefits Agency, how many have been prosecuted in the courts?
  Mr. Heald: The decision to prosecute is taken on the basis of persistence and value in benefit fraud claims. The number of prosecutions is approximately 10,000 per

  243
  annum. That figure is not as high as my hon. Friend may wish, but the interesting point is that the sentences that are passed in respect of the convictions on those 10,000 cases are by no means substantial. We need to reconsider the issue of the number of prosecutions and the way in which they are handled. My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The Minister has gone through a huge list of things that the Government have been doing to overcome fraud, but fraud causes losses. What is wrong with the Government's policy?
  Mr. Heald: The Government's policy is to tackle the problem at its roots. We are researching where benefit fraud occurs and putting into place the measures that are needed, such as new technology and more visits. We are doing the things that are needed to tackle the problem. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to sit there as though the Labour party has had idea after idea on benefit fraud which we have rejected. What have the Opposition ever come up with? We have researched what they have said. They have never had an idea about how to tackle benefit fraud.
  I believe that the fraudster has no future, given the proposals that the Government are implementing. Only the Government can say that. I challenge the Opposition to tell us what their policies would be. We are devoting resources to the problem and have a clear strategy and proven achievement. What more would they do to solve the problem? It is not so long ago that they were treating it as a minor problem. They described estimates of fraud of £1 billion as
  "overstating the amount of fraud in the system".
  The Labour party said:
  "The problem after all is small."
  By careful research, we have proved that it is not small. We are taking a range of measures that will put the benefit fraudster out of business. The Opposition were wrong; we were right.
  When the benefit card was mooted, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who was then Labour's spokesman on social security, said:
  "It is not a sensible and considered attempt to deal with the problem of social security fraud".
  We estimate that it will save £150 million a year. Labour was wrong; we were right.
  When we introduced new incentives and targets for local authorities, Labour described them as "unrealistically high" and asked for them to be reconsidered. We did not do so. Local authorities doubled the amount of fraud they detected. Labour was wrong; we were right. After all,
  "the Labour party has been linked to 'free loaders' for too long."
  Those are not my words but those of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) as recently as 1992. That attitude has not changed as completely as some suggest.
  In the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) recently said:
  "When we announced as a Committee that we were doing an inquiry into benefit fraud, one of my colleagues sidled up and said, `Typical! Another right wing strategy from you."'
  244
  That attitude was wrong. We welcome the support of the Select Committee and we are right.
  The senior housing officer at Hackney, Bernard Crofton, who was suspended for uncovering benefit fraud, described to the Social Security Select Committee the attitudes that he encountered to it in Labour-controlled Hackney. It was suggested that any attack on benefit fraud was an attack on the welfare state. He described the "unwitting collusion" with fraud; that people simply did not want to know about it. Those attitudes were wrong. We are right to tackle benefit fraud head on.
  The Government want to deal with the problem and are introducing the measures needed to do so. Labour was wrong about the scale of the problem; wrong to oppose our targets and incentives for local authorities; wrong to argue against the benefit payment card; wrong to criticise the Social Security Select Committee for taking up the issue; wrong on attitudes in Hackney—wrong, time and again. We welcome Labour's apparent conversion tonight and I invite Labour Members to join us in the Lobby.
  Today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the new area fraud drives is the next tightening of the knot in the fight against benefit fraud. I apologise to hon. Members who took part in the debate whose points 1 have not had an opportunity to answer. I will answer them in writing. Today's announcements bring together all the various initiatives that deal with benefit fraud to bear on particular areas at particular times. We are convinced that that approach will get nearer to the heart of the fraud problem.
  We will have benefit hot lines; data matching; more visits to both existing and new claimants; bar code scanners; and drives against collusive employers, landlords, and self-employed workers who are known to be at risk, using the intelligence that we have gained from the new technologies that we have introduced. We want to pay the right amount of money to the right people at the right time, because every pound that is wasted in benefit fraud is a pound that is not available to the needy. The Government are tackling the issue and I say to all those who are committing, or considering committing, benefit fraud, "Watch out, because we are after you and we will catch the benefit fraudsters in Britain."
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 305.

  Division No. 68]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blunkett, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Byers, Stephen

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cann, Jamie

  Bell, Stuart

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Church, Judith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  245

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Denham, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  MacShane, Denis

  Eastham, Ken

  Madden, Max

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maxton, John

  Foulkes, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michael, Alun

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, John

  Milburn, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Parry, Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pope, Greg

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

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

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ingram, Adam

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jamieson, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  246

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Trickett, Jon

  Short, Clare

  Turner, Dennis

  Simpson, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

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

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Mike

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Churchill, Mr

  Alton, David

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

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

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dover, Den

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  247

  Gallie, Phil

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maddock, Diana

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rendel, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spring, Richard

  248

  Sproat, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Trend, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Tyler, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stern, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Allan

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wallace, James

  Sumberg, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdeoombe, Ann

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Tracey, Richard

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the priority it has given to tackling benefit fraud, increasing success in detecting and stopping fraud, in particular in achieving benefit savings likely to amount to £1 billion in 1995/96; welcomes the creation of the new Benefit Fraud Investigation Service; commends Her Majesty's Government's proposals to step up its measures against Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud; endorses the increasing emphasis on preventing and deterring fraud; and condemns Labour's lack of positive proposals for tackling fraud. the main question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): 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),

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
  That the draft Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Children's Services Planning) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

  CONTRACTING OUT
  That the draft Secretary of State's Trunk Road Functions (Contracting Out) (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway]
  Question agreed to.

  COURT OF AUDITORS (REPORTS)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of Official Journal No. C303 of 14th November 1995, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1994, together with the Institutions' Replies, and Official Journal No. C352 of 30th December 1995, the Court of Auditors Statements of Assurance concerning activities financed from the general budget for the financial year 1994 and of the Sixth and Seventh European Development Funds for 1994, together with the associated special reports and the Institutions' Replies; welcomes the Court of Auditors first Statements of Assurance; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to improve financial management and control within the European Community.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 17.

  Division No. 69]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Alton, David

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Congdon, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  250

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  .Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maddock, Diana

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sims, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  251

  Stern, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Viggers, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sumberg, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sykes, John

  Wallace, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thumham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tracey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Canavan Dennis

  Simpson, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Wilkinson, John

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Wise, Audrey

  Madden, Max

  Mahon, Alice

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

  A27 (Worthing)
  10.29 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: I beg to present a petition to this honourable House of Commons on behalf of my constituents and others. The petition is signed by more than 15,000 members of the public.
  The petition reads:
  This Petition of those opposed to the Government's proposals for the development of the A27 in Worthing and district Declares that: the Government's "preferred" route through Worthing is unacceptable and The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to abandon it in favour of a genuine by-pass north of Cissbury Ring.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Chetwynd Barracks, Chilwell
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  10.30 pm
  Sir Jim Lester: I sincerely hope that this will be the last time that I need to trouble any Minister in order to clear the air and obtain an important assurance on the future use of what used to be called central ordnance depot, Chilwell, in my constituency, and was renamed only last year Chetwynd barracks in earnest of the Ministry of Defence's commitment to the area. I am glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who shares, in terms of constituents, an interest in the future of the barracks.
  I hope also to put before my hon. Friend the Minister the views of the Army Technical Support Agency unit, which is currently located at Chilwell, in view of the consultation document proposing relocation at Chertsey.
  The name Chetwynd dates back to Viscount Chetwynd, who turned a green field site in my constituency into a key munitions factory during the 1914–18 war. At its peak during that period, it employed 10,000 people. Viscount Chetwynd showed great energy in organising the production of vast quantities of munitions when they were desperately needed. Records show that the factory produced 46,725 shells in 24 hours on 1 July 1918. Subsequently, tragedy struck, and there was a massive explosion in which 134 people were killed and 250 injured. But the work force carried on the next day.
  It might be of interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces especially that a telegram from his grandfather was sent to Chilwell, which read:
  "Please accept my sincere sympathy with you all in the misfortune that has overtaken your fine Factory and in the loss of valuable lives, those who have perished have died at their stations on the field of duty and those who have lost their dear ones should fortify themselves with this thought, the courage and spirit shown by all concerned both men and women command our admiration, and the decision to which you have all come to carry on without a break is worthy of the spirit which animates our soldiers in the field. I trust the injured are receiving every care."
  At that time, my hon. Friend's grandfather had succeeded Lloyd George as the Minister for Munitions.
  I played that bit of history because I wanted to explain how involved the local community is in Chilwell and its fortunes. Since the time of the 1914–18 war, the fortunes of Chilwell improved, but I am sad to say that, during the past 22 years that I have represented the constituency, its fortunes have declined. I do not want to dwell on the closure of COD Chilwell or 38 Reme workshops, or even the recent vehicles supplies division, because, at the end of the day it remains a valuable site with a loyal work force. There is an officers mess, a sergeants mess, and 200 refurbished houses. A security system is in place. It has many assets. As I have already suggested, it is very much part of the local scene. During the process involving the vehicle spares division, my hon. Friend the Minister showed great interest and concern and treated my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and me with great courtesy. At that time, we discussed the 300 jobs that had been lost and that are being relocated at Telford. After that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister brought about the movement of 200 civilian jobs from Long Marston, reuniting the Royal

  253
  Engineers military and civilian forces. I understood that the plan was for this site to be used from 1997. That brought new hope to the region that the MOD saw a future in Chetwynd barracks.
  Since then, as a result of the consultation over the relocation of the Army Technical Support Agency, some doubt has been cast on whether that will happen. As many as 200 or as few as 10 jobs are the figures that are being bandied about. The Minister has already confirmed by letter to me that 200 jobs will be relocated. I would welcome it if he could reaffirm that position.
  Ironically, the reason why, in one paragraph, Chilwell was dismissed in the consultation document as a site for co-location of the ATSA was that the Royal Engineers Resources park would come to Chilwell and not leave enough room. It is difficult to accept that because, if one visits the site—I would be delighted if my hon. Friend the Minister ever could find the time to come to Chilwellone would see that large buildings still stand empty and need redevelopment. The co-location document suggests that Chilwell is remote from its customer base, but I understand that the customer base that Chilwell handles is in the midlands and that meetings are often delayed for staff coming from Chertsey to conduct inspections.
  We point out many other features in the submission to my hon. Friend the Minister. May I mention just a few. Chilwell has excellent communications by road, rail and air, with subsequently fewer travel-to-work problems, Staff are not paid extra salaries for working in the outer London area or for having scarce disciplines. Recruitment and retention is easier. Chilwell is accredited to ISO 9002 and will be reassessed to ISO 9001 this month. In past years, that commitment to quality has been paramount and Chertsey does not have that accreditation.
  On main battle tanks, one of the reasons for Chertsey's selection is that all the roads around the Chilwell site were constructed to accommodate heavy "A" vehicles. Also, refuelling facilities are available and armoured vehicles are regularly in transit between various sites.
  From my reading of the document, the most important fact seems to involve not the ATSA, but the need to maintain the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on a site that is too big and is rented from Surrey county council and in which the ATSA section is a welcome lodger. The range of costs over 25 years is less relevant than the overall business case for the most efficient operation. The range of costs varies from £312 million at the lowest—the document's suggestion of the Chertsey cost—to £340 million, the highest. The cost for Old Dalby, another valuable site close to my constituency, is estimated at £324 million. Old Dalby is surely a runner if Chilwell cannot be re-examined.
  Will the Minister carefully reconsider the case made, bearing it in mind that Chertsey is an expensive place for people to move to? Often, the people at Chilwell have already made as many as two or three moves. Many of them are committed to the region. It is difficult for anyone from the east midlands, with the price of property there, to move to a region such as Chertsey, where the opposite is the case. People who sell a property in Chertsey can buy a more attractive property if they move to the east midlands.
  One should use the real interest in using sites owned by the MOD. There is a permanent interest in sites that it already owns. The track record of Chilwell and Old Dalby
  254
  is excellent. The borough council is anxious to work alongside the MOD to secure the best possible use of this valuable asset, and I should like, if possible, to bring an all-party group representing the council and the planners to meet the Minister, at his convenience.
  Already, parts of the site that have been available for the personal and domestic use of the community have shown how valuable it is. The old testing site on the far side of the Chilwell road now has a very attractive hotel and leisure centre and many shopping complexes, and it has always been very easy to sell houses built on the bits of the central ordnance depot site that have been released to the public. The site clearly has an alternative use, but, in view of all that I have said, it seems ironic that a site of 200 acres, containing all the valuable properties to which I have referred, should not be used in the way in which it has always been used—as a base for the MOD.
  Over the years in which I have argued the case for Chilwell, there seems to have been an inexorable move to the south—regardless, I sometimes suspect, of best judgment. That was certainly true of 38 Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops. Perhaps an independent audit by the National Audit Office might be worth while in regard to some of the figures involved in the overall business case.
  I would welcome reassurance from my hon. Friend about the value of Chetwynd barracks, so that we can pledge to work for its maximum use in the context of the service that it gives our fighting forces and civilian jobs in an area that has been involved in the MOD since 1915.
  10.41 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) on securing an Adjournment debate on the future of Chetwynd barracks in his constituency. It is obvious to all who know him well, as I do, how deeply and genuinely he cares about the county of Nottinghamshire, where he was born and educated, in which his roots lie and whose people whom he represents so ably. This is not the first occasion on which my hon. Friend has made representations on behalf of Chilwell, and I applaud his tenancious advocacy of his constituency interests.
  I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) is present. She, too, has been an extremely doughty campaigner for the interests of Chilwell and the wider area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe knows from my discussions with him that I am fully aware of recent proposals affecting Chilwell. I have every sympathy with the vigour with which he argues his case, and his real desire to ensure that his constituents are not disadvantaged by decisions of this nature. Indeed, he and I met last month—together with our hon. Friend the Member for Erewash—to discuss proposals affecting Chilwell. I hope that he will forgive me if I set out again, for the benefit of other hon. Members, the background against which tonight's debate must be set.
  Given the nature of the business that we conduct, my Department must constantly try to improve its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We are wholly committed to obtaining the best value for money from the defence budget, and to maximising the capability of the front line. My hon. Friend knows very well that the only way in

  255
  which we shall be able to protect, extend and preserve the front line is by maintaining downward pressure on our costs. He will recall that that is what the defence costs study was all about.
  Inevitably, there have been reductions in both service and civilian manpower in recent years, following both "Options for Change" and the defence costs study. Those reductions have been felt nationwide. Rationalisation has involved very painful decisions—decisions which, I acknowledge, bring immense disappointment to the areas affected.
  But the process has brought long-term benefit in terms of increased efficiency and better value for money. In turn, that leaves our armed forces leaner and more capable. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that no finer compliment could be paid to the structure, organisation and effectiveness of the British armed forces than that the restructuring of the French armed forces is being conducted very much along the lines on which we have run our own.
  I deal now with the points made by my hon. Friend. I am very mindful of Chilwell's traditional and historic association with the armed forces, which, as he rightly said, goes back some 80 years, to when the site housed the national shell-filling factory. I am grateful to him for telling me of the telegram that my grandfather sent to the factory after the appalling accident in 1918. I know that there is still a garden of remembrance there in memory of that terrible day.
  Since then, the site has been used as a stores depot and, for 50 years, as a vehicle workshop. Given that proud and distinguished history of service, I naturally truly regret the reduction in staffing at Chilwell which my hon. Friend has outlined. None of these decisions has been taken lightly.
  In December last year, I announced our proposals—subject to consultation—to collocate the five land divisions of the recently formed Army Technical Support Agency at a site, shared with the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency, in Chertsey in Surrey. ATSA, a mixed civilian/military manned agency which provides the Army with essential technical and engineering support, is currently located at sites in Chertsey, Malvern, Woolwich and Chilwell.
  The collocation proposal arose as a result of follow-on work commissioned after a study in 1993. It concentrated principally on the business and organisational aspects of what were then the Director General Equipment Support (Army)' s technical branches and authorities, now part of the Army Technical Support Agency. It concluded that there was a compelling business case for collocation, and that it would result in a much more efficient operation, which would better serve the front line.
  As a result, a very detailed appraisal has been carried out, which deals in greater depth with the business case and the building and works implications of collocating the divisions on to a single site. It concluded that an integrated ATSA located mainly on one site would enable the chief executive to make the best use of modern logistic support and management techniques and provide the optimum organisation to promote the most efficient delivery of technical support. An equally important consideration is, of course, the achievement of best value for money through rationalisation and standardisation. My hon. Friend knows that we can but pursue these options with great vigour.
  256
  ATSA must meet the needs of its customers in an efficient manner. The Army's equipments are becoming increasingly more technically complex and all key battle-winning weapons systems embody electronic as well as mechanical elements. Support for these essential items of equipment can best be provided by an integrated engineering team. The achievement of the agency's demanding efficiency targets, which have been agreed with the Treasury, assumes collocation of the land systems element of ATSA on a single site.
  We have examined some 17 options for the future location of ATSA, 11 of which have been subjected to extremely close and detailed scrutiny. Doing the minimum, although the least disruptive to staff, is a non-starter. It would fail to realise the established advantages of collocation, and is one of the most expensive options.
  The option of collocating ATSA at Chilwell was, as my hon. Friend knows, fully considered in the investment appraisal undertaken in support of the collocation study. After much careful thought, however, it was concluded that it was not a viable option. The costs associated with the requirement for a new build office block, the relocation of larger numbers of staff from other sites at Chertsey and Malvern and the remoteness from ATSA's customer base all counted against Chilwell being a suitable solution.
  I assure my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, that in the light of the representations made tonight, we shall re-examine thoroughly the figures for Chilwell.
  Collocation at Chertsey, as well as being the most cost-effective solution, is by far the most attractive from a business point of view. The agency's owner and major customers are at Andover, it is already geared to large armoured fighting vehicle support, and it has the best support facilities of any ATSA site. Neither, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe inferred, can we ignore the wider MOD interest in retaining the Chertsey site, for if ATSA were to leave Chertsey, the position of DERA there might be jeopardised.
  The Department's preference for Chertsey would mean the loss of a further 102 civilian jobs in the directorate of technical services at Chetwynd barracks. As my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash and for Broxtowe know, I fully understand the anxiety felt by staff during the decision-making process. We have tried at all times to keep them as well informed as possible and I am very sympathetic to their concerns.
  All ATSA's staff—whether at Chilwell or elsewhere—have provided first-class support to the armed forces, and we shall do all we can to find alternative MOD employment for those affected. There will inevitably be some redundancies, but we will ensure that they are handled as sensitively as possible.
  I should make it clear that no final decision has yet been taken. We are carefully considering the many points made to us—not least by my hon. Friends the Member for Broxtowe and for Erewash tonight—during the consultation process. I will, of course, be happy to receive my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, if she wishes to come, too—with a delegation from the borough council if they would care to see me. I should be grateful if he could arrange that as soon as possible.

  257
  I turn to our plans to collocate the engineer resources organisation, which is located at Long Marston in Warwickshire, with the military work force at Chetwynd barracks. The engineer resources organisation includes a planning headquarters and the central engineer park, which stores large engineering equipment and plant that the organisation supplies in support of the Army and the RAF, and sometimes to other Government Departments.
  The military work force at Chilwell occupies an area within Chetwynd barracks, and employs 154 military and 27 civilian staff who are responsible for providing military construction engineering support to the three armed services and other Government Departments, principally the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The decision to collocate the two units was taken because they have common areas of interest and some related responsibilities that will greatly benefit from closer co-operation and shared workplaces. Although much of the detailed work is highly specialised and unique to each organisation, they both usually deal with the same customer units or staff branches. In both operational and training deployments, they often contribute to the same construction projects and they have similar command and control arrangements.
  As a result of the collocation at Chetwynd barracks, my Department will make substantial savings through the disposal of the Long Marston site and from sharing infrastructure overheads at Chilwell such as security, catering, grounds maintenance, and so on.
  When the two units were scheduled to remain at their current locations, a study was started to examine the scope for in-house efficiencies and the feasibility of market testing the activities carried out by engineer resources. The military work force discharges a core military function, including potential front-line deployment, and for that reason was excluded from market testing. The move to Chilwell will postpone the market test of the engineer resources to allow it three years in its new location in which to work up an effective in-house bid.
  The move of engineer resources to Chilwell followed the promise I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, at the time of the announcement of the move of the vehicle spares division to Telford, to make every effort to find an alternative defence use for the Chilwell site.
  258
  In the debate, and in discussions with me, my hon. Friend has mentioned rumours, which inevitably circulate at such times, about a reduction in the number of new jobs that will be created at Chilwell following collocation. I have recently written to him to confirm that, although it is difficult to be precise about exact numbers at this stage, we are planning a probable increase of about 200 new civilian jobs for the area by the end of 1998. I know that he will welcome that further reassurance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe knows, we must make every effort to ensure that the use of our scarce defence resources is focused on the business of preserving, enhancing and fortifying the front line. He will also understand that this reflects the general reduction in the area of support infrastructure in line with the policies following on from "Options for Change" and, more recently, from "Front Line First".
  Chetwynd barracks has an assured future. In particular, the headquarters of 49 (Eastern) Brigade has a long-term future there, and, following the planned devolution and delegation of budgetary responsibility, we expect to see an increase of some 20 civilian jobs in the headquarters in the next 12 months. In addition, the collocation of engineer resources with the existing military work force—together with the associated headquarters of Chilwell station—will, I am happy to say, ensure that there continues to be a significant Army presence in Chilwell in the years ahead.
  I want my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe and for Erewash to know that I am aware of the anxiety felt by their constituents about the moves, and we will study carefully the representations that have been made to us, as we always do in these cases. No decision will be made without the most detailed appreciation of all the facts.
  Having dealt with such cases for nigh on two years following the defence cost studies, I know that no two colleagues could have done more than my hon. Friends to defend the interests of their constituents. Chilwell has given noble and distinguished service to the world of defence for many years, and it is assured of a bright future. It will be a changed future, but a bright one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 474, if he will now contact other member states of the European Union to request information on the emission regulations applicable to cement plants burning secondary liquid fuels. [18549]

  Mr. Clappison
  Member states have already adopted a directive—94/67/EC—on the incineration of hazardous waste which will also apply to any other plant that burns such waste. Cement plants burning wastes will thus have to comply with the relevant provisions of this directive in all member states.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Environment Agency has to carry out a detailed analysis of the precipitator dust from cement kilns which burn secondary liquid fuel, with particular reference to the potential of such dust to contaminate soil and groundwater.[18869]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency will require the operators to carry out appropriate analysis for all releases to air, water and land.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Environment Agency has to issue guidance to cement kiln operators on meeting the requirements of the hazardous waste incineration directive. [18868]

  Mr. Clappison
  Chief inspector's guidance notes reflect the requirements of all relevant directives and will remain applicable in the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Environment Agency has to consider the overall environmental impact of the burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns, including the deposition of kiln dust at landfill sites. [18870]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency will take into account the overall environmental impact of releases to air, water and land.

  Domestic Premises (Commercial Use)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of domestic properties that are used for commercial purposes. [18501]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not collect information on the number of domestic properties that are used for commercial premises.
  102

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if people who receive attendance allowance will be added to the list of those eligible for a 100 per cent. home energy efficiency scheme grant after 31 March. [18334]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Yes. We intend that householders over the age of 65 receiving attendance allowance should be able to claim full grants under the home energy efficiency scheme in the same way as householders receiving disability living allowance.

  Industrial Processes (Pollution)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Environment Agency's policy in relation to the continued authorisation of industrial processes operated by companies which have failed to implement solutions to pollution problems within the time scale agreed with the agency or with a predecessor authority. [18871]

  Mr. Clappison
  Without prejudice to its powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to vary an authorisation, the Environment Agency will require the operators to meet the conditions in their authorisations issued by it or its predecessor authorities.

  Water Research Council
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the conclusions of the 1992 report from the Water Research Council. [18565]

  Mr. Clappison
  The report "Economics of Lead Pipe Replacement (TMU 9030)" giving the results of research funded by my Department and undertaken by the WRC has been publicly available since the work was completed in 1992. A copy was also placed in the Library of the House.

  Derelict Buildings (Westminster Hospital)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the derelict buildings of the former Westminster hospital. [18853]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. This is a matter for Westminster city council as local planning authority.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that proposed variations to authorisations granted under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 shall in all cases be subject to the same consultation procedures as apply in respect of new authorisations. [18872]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no need to change the existing regulations—the Environmental Protection (Applications, Appeals and Registers) Regulations 1991—No. 507—which deal with consultation.

  Pollution Abatement Measures
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to require companies to
  103
  invest in pollution abatement measures in circumstances where savings accrue to such companies from the use of new fuels or processes which emit quantities of pollutants in excess of those emitted by the fuel or process which has been replaced. [18866]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not allow fuel or process changes that lead to a net adverse environmental effect. Any increased profitability due to fuel or process change is taken into account in assessing the operators' improvement programmes to meet new plant standards under the best available technology not entailing excessive cost criteria of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Lead

  Cadmium

  Mercury

  Copper

  Arsenic

  Chromium

  Vanadium

  Nickel

  Selenium

  Zinc

  1970

  6,557

  10.93

  0.00

  52.59

  0.00

  7.12

  0.00

  34.80

  0.96

  96.340

  1971

  7,385

  11.48

  0.00

  54.70

  0.00

  7.48

  0.00

  36.00

  1.01

  100.730

  1972

  7,992

  12.19

  0.00

  56.71

  0.00

  7.95

  0.00

  36.84

  1.06

  105.760

  1973

  8,510

  12.98

  0.00

  60.73

  0.00

  8.46

  0.00

  39.58

  1.13

  112.910

  1974

  8,053

  12.64

  0.00

  59.19

  0.00

  8.24

  0.00

  38.58

  1.10

  109.990

  1975

  7,535

  12.43

  0.00

  58.71

  0.00

  8.10

  0.00

  38.46

  1.09

  108.600

  1976

  7,689

  12.94

  0.00

  60.29

  0.00

  8.44

  0.00

  39.19

  1.12

  112.350

  1977

  7,488

  13.29

  0.00

  61.75

  0.00

  8.67

  0.00

  40.08

  1.15

  115.250

  1978

  7,400

  14.06

  0.00

  64.39

  0.00

  9.34

  0.00

  42.66

  1.24

  123.710

  1979

  7,449

  14.32

  0.00

  66.01

  0.00

  9.34

  0.00

  42.66

  1.24

  123.710

  1980

  7,625

  14.65

  0.00

  65.70

  0.00

  9.57

  0.00

  41.77

  1.25

  124.995

  1981

  6,832

  14.32

  0.00

  63.27

  0.00

  9.36

  0.00

  39.87

  1.21

  121.325

  1982

  6,953

  14.72

  0.00

  65.2

  0.00

  9.62

  0.00

  41.14

  1.25

  124.890

  1983

  7,076

  14.98

  0.00

  68.25

  0.00

  9.78

  0.00

  43.79

  1.29

  128.750

  1984

  7,322

  15.51

  0.00

  72.55

  0.00

  10.11

  0.00

  47.27

  1.35

  134.910

  1985

  6,698

  15.66

  0.00

  74.79

  0.00

  10.20

  0.00

  49.28

  1.38

  137.550

  1986

  3,059

  16.50

  0.00

  80.84

  0.00

  10.74

  0.00

  54.00

  1.47

  146.680

  1987

  3,165

  17.06

  0.00

  85.4

  0.00

  11.09

  0.00

  57.67

  1.53

  153.260

  1988

  3,294

  17.91

  0.00

  92.22

  0.00

  11.62

  0.00

  63.16

  1.63

  163.100

  1989

  2,816

  18.45

  0.00

  97.52

  0.00

  11.96

  0.00

  67.61

  1.70

  170.210

  1990

  2,399

  18.77

  0.00

  101.13

  0.00

  12.16

  0.00

  70.74

  1.75

  174.820

  1991

  2,162

  18.55

  0.00

  100.85

  0.00

  12.01

  0.00

  70.83

  1.74

  173.570

  1992

  1,960

  18.59

  0.00

  103.30

  0.00

  12.02

  0.00

  73.25

  1.76

  175.880

  1993

  1,770

  18.41

  0.00

  106.52

  0.00

  11.88

  0.00

  76.82

  1.78

  177.860

  Emissions of Heavy Metals from road transport fuel combustion for the period 1970–1993 expressed in tonnes per annum.

  Ocean Policies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 737, what consideration the workshop gave to the sustainability of the oceans, ocean science, linking science to management and global arrangements for ensuring effective implementation of ocean policies. [16814]

  Mr. Clappison
  The London international workshop on decision making on ocean issues, which was held on 30 November to 2 December 1995, considered the key pressures affecting the sustainability of the oceans. The conclusions dealt with possible changes to improve the effectiveness of the current international arrangements for obtaining scientific advice and formulating strategies and priorities for action. A copy of the workshop report has been placed in the Library.

  Water Pollution (Nitrates)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the fiche d'impact prepared in connection with Council
  104

  Internal Combustion Engines (Pollution)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in respect of each major toxic element the levels of pollution in the United Kingdom caused by all internal combustion driven transport for each of the years since 1970. [18874]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have taken major toxic element to refer to the heavy metals lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, chromium, arsenic, copper, zinc, selenium and vanadium. The table shows the emissions of each of the above heavy metals due to fuel combustion from all road vehicles since 1970 expressed in tonnes per annum. The latest year for which data are available is 1993.

  directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. [18636]

  Mr. Clappison
  A copy of the explanatory memorandum was placed in the House of Commons Library at the time of the publication of the proposals for a directive. This did not contain a fiche d'impact.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual spending by his Department on Local Agenda 21 work; how much is distributed to local authorities; what allowance is made in standard spending assessments for Local Agenda 21 to each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [19067]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1995–96, my Department is contributing up to £12,000 for local authorities to set up round table discussions with different groups interested in Local Agenda 21. It is also giving £20,554 to the local authority associations for the provision of guidance to local authorities on auditing sustainable development, and £25,000 for the development and promotion of the
  105
  eco-management and audit scheme for local government. Many of the projects funded by the Department's environmental action fund, which totals £4 million in 1995–96, also support Local Agenda 21. Standard spending assessments take account of the wide range of local authorities' spending, including Local Agenda 21 work, but do not include a specific element for such expenditure.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Local Government Commission's future programme of work; and if he will make a statement. [19550]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission has today announced a programme for the next three years of periodic electoral reviews of district and county councils. We want the commission to give priority to those reviews which it has an independent duty to carry out, but we will direct it to carry out a small number of other reviews—of Southport in Merseyside and of the parish arrangements in four local authority areas: Milton Keynes, Hampshire, Surrey and the new unitary authority of the East Riding of Yorkshire.

  Depending on our decisions on the recommendations for unitary authorities, which the commission made in its report of December 1995, we may also direct it to carry out electoral reviews of those areas in time for elections in May 1997.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consultations he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16600]

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 22 February 1996:]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature of the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Parliamentary Televising Operator
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made towards the selection of an independent parliamentary televising operator for the five-year period from 1 August. [19078]

  Mr. Newton
  The Broadcasting Committees of both Houses have accepted the recommendation of a tender board, following a public tender process, that CCT Productions Ltd., the current operator, should be awarded the parliamentary televising contract for a further five-year period from 1 August 1996. The contract is formally between CCT Productions Ltd. and Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—PARBUL—and is subject to the successful negotiation of detailed terms by the parties. A copy of the tender submitted by CCT Productions Ltd. will be placed in the Library shortly, after the removal of any commercially sensitive information. The two Select Committees have also agreed 106
  the terms of new copyright licences required by PARBUL under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to cover the same five-year period as the operating contract with CCT Productions Ltd. The decision of the House of Commons Broadcasting Committee is in the form of a recommendation to Madam Speaker who, under the terms of the Act, exercises the House's function as owner of the copyright in its televised proceedings.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when he plans to make an announcement about the award of the cladding contract for the new parliamentary building. [17810]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  In accordance with the House's policy that the receipt of a contract may not be treated as a commercial endorsement of the successful company and that the contract should not be used in any promotional material, it is not the practice to make an announcement when contracts are awarded.

  The placing of the fenestration contract for the new building is very much dependent on current negotiations, particularly on the willingness of the companies to accept the conditions of the contract. It is not possible therefore to forecast when this might be achieved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Murders
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist-related murders in Northern Ireland since 1969 have yet to result in prosecution. [17100]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Unfortunately, in the time available, it is not possible to answer this question. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as the information is available and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Childless Couples
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which health boards provide NHS treatment for(a) assisted; and (b) surrogate pregnancy to childless couples; and if he will make a statement. [17967]

  Mr. Moss
  Health service treatment for assisted pregnancy is available to the residents of all health and social boards in Northern Ireland. Surrogate pregnancy, on the other hand, is not a matter for which boards have—or have sought—any provision.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons he has not included in the Northern Ireland road safety plan the Local Authority Association's recommendation contained in its road safety code of practice, of a ratio of one road safety education officer per 50,000 of population; and how many road safety education officers there would be in Northern Ireland if this ratio were adopted. [18228]
  107
  Mr. Moss
  Northern Ireland's road safety education officer service is a part of an integrated effort involving education, engineering and enforcement. Resources devoted to this effort are being increased considerably year-on-year.

  Road safety instruction in schools in Northern Ireland is carried out by schools' own teaching staff, with the advice and guidance of road safety education officers, rather than directly by road safety education officers—as has been the practice throughout most of Great Britain. This substantially increases the effective output of road safety education in Northern Ireland. In view of the different arrangements for the delivery of road safety education, it was decided that this recommendation from the code of good practice was not appropriate.

  Were the ratio advocated in the code to be adopted, 31 road safety education officers would be required.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the reasons for the reduction in the complement of road safety education officers from 1 April. [18227]

  Mr. Moss
  Funding for the road safety education officers service has been critically examined in the light of competing demands for resources throughout the

  Population aged 16 years and over, born in the Republic of Ireland, in employment in Northern Ireland, by sex, by sector of the economy.

  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  Production

  Construction

  Services

  Total

  Place of employment

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Antrim

  15

  2

  15

  15

  3

  2

  82

  110

  115

  129

  Ards

  21

  1

  17

  17

  4

  2

  62

  120

  104

  140

  Armagh

  25

  1

  18

  16

  9

  3

  142

  193

  194

  213

  Ballymena

  9

  —

  18

  12

  6

  2

  62

  84

  95

  98

  Ballymoney

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  —

  17

  26

  23

  29

  Banbridge

  2

  3

  10

  2

  2

  2

  27

  36

  41

  43

  Belfast

  —

  1

  99

  42

  29

  7

  863

  1,180

  991

  1,230

  Carrickfergus

  —

  1

  9

  3

  1

  1

  19

  44

  29

  49

  Castlereagh

  2

  1

  25

  7

  2

  3

  73

  177

  102

  188

  Coleraine

  8

  2

  7

  14

  2

  1

  100

  120

  117

  137

  Cookstown

  3

  2

  7

  4

  2

  —

  26

  26

  38

  32

  Craigavon

  5

  1

  67

  43

  4

  2

  134

  198

  210

  244

  Derry

  17

  5

  141

  87

  37

  4

  367

  624

  562

  720

  Down

  5

  3

  12

  7

  3

  1

  90

  126

  110

  137

  Dungannon

  21

  3

  30

  14

  6

  1

  76

  121

  133

  139

  Fermanagh

  111

  13

  66

  54

  9

  1

  240

  357

  426

  425

  Larne

  —

  1

  14

  2

  —

  —

  22

  35

  36

  38

  Limavady

  5

  1

  7

  5

  1

  —

  33

  47

  46

  53

  Lisburn

  13

  1

  22

  10

  10

  5

  124

  161

  169

  177

  Magherafelt

  2

  2

  5

  9

  5

  —

  28

  34

  40

  45

  Moyle

  3

  2

  2

  4

  1

  —

  10

  24

  16

  30

  Newry and Mourne

  26

  7

  43

  29

  19

  2

  192

  349

  280

  387

  Newtownabbey

  1

  1

  27

  9

  4

  3

  84

  113

  116

  126

  North Down

  2

  —

  17

  7

  6

  2

  85

  158

  110

  167

  Omagh

  38

  7

  15

  12

  9

  —

  109

  191

  171

  210

  Strabane

  32

  5

  37

  49

  12

  —

  110

  105

  191

  159

  Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that senior posts in the Northern Ireland civil service are subject to open competition.[17896]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is the policy of the Northern Ireland civil service, when filling senior posts, to consider the appropriateness of open competition for all posts. In 1995, more than 50 per cent. of senior posts were filled through open competition.
  108
  Department of the Environment. As a result, the number of road safety education officers is to be reduced from 13 to 11 with effect from 1 April 1996.

  While resources allocated to the road safety education officer service have been reduced, the service will continue to make a real and significant contribution to our drive to reduce the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. The reductions should be seen against considerable increases in other areas of the Department's road safety effort such as engineering and enforcement.

  Employment (Irish Nationals)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of people born in the Irish Republic who presently live, in and work, in Northern Ireland, broken down by gender, how many of each sex are employed in each sector of the economy; and how many are employed in each council area. [18223]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population contains the most recent information on the breakdown of the resident population of Northern Ireland by country of birth, sector of the economy and place of employment. The information requested is as follows:

  Tree Preservation Orders (Fines)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the maximum fine for cutting down a tree which has a tree preservation order(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in England; and what plans he has to increase the fine in Northern Ireland. [18265]

  Mr. Moss
  In Northern Ireland, contravention of a tree preservation order can, on summary conviction, attract a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000. In England, the statutory maximum is
  109
  also level 5, or twice the sum which appears to the court to be the value of the tree, whichever is the greater. There are no plans to increase the maximum fine in Northern Ireland at present.

TREASURY

  Reinvestment Relief
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make the criteria for reinvestment relief more easily comprehensible. [17137]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue is preparing a help sheet on investment relief as part of the work being done to assist taxpayers with their self-assessment returns. The Revenue is also exploring ways in which further help can be given in this area.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17691]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Statistics collected by the Central Statistical Office—CSO—are designed to improve decision making, stimulate research and inform debate within government and the wider community. Where it is relevant to this purpose to collect statistics broken down by gender, the CSO will consider doing so. For example, last year, to coincide with the world women's conference in Beijing, the CSO published "Social Focus on Women", which provided statistics on women from a wide variety of sources.

  Statistics concerning staff employed in the Treasury are normally based on pay and personnel records, which include information on sex. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by sex.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Bank of England holds about the financing by British banks, using their customers' balances, of arms supplied to Iraq and Iran; which British banks were involved; what proportion of such financing went on the supply of Valmara 69 anti-personnel land mines; and if he will make a statement. [17973]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: To the best of its knowledge, the Bank of England holds no information about the financing by British banks of exports of lethal equipment, including anti-personnel land mines, to Iraq or Iran.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 156, if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the US and United Kingdom of 6 July 1989 on customs co-operation. [18532]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Yes. A copy has been placed in the Library.
  110

  Gambling (Taxation)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instigate a review of the level of taxation on different forms of gambling. [18477]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The levels of taxation on different forms of gambling are considered annually by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reaching his Budget judgment.

  Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the suitability of using the waste classification system proposed by the Department of the Environment to allocate particular waste streams to the different landfill tax bands. [19139]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Two hundred and twenty-four representations were received in response to Customs and Excise's recent consultation exercise on scope of the lower rate of landfill tax. These are being analysed and the findings will be submitted to Ministers shortly.

  Customs consulted on a proposal that all wastes falling within category 1, the inactive category, of the Department of the Environment's national waste classification scheme should be liable to the lower rate of landfill tax. Nevertheless, there are wastes currently listed in other categories of the scheme where the risk of pollution is minimal. We will consider such cases in the light of the replies to the consultation exercise. An announcement will be made in due course and the order containing the list of items to be included in the lower rate will be laid during the summer.

  Barlow Clowes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by his Department to improve the regulation of the financial industry since the publication of his Department's inquiry into the Barlow Clowes financial fraud case. [18322]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' report was published in July 1995, but the Government did not wait until then to address the regulatory issues raised by the Barlow Clowes case. Barlow Clowes operated under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. The deficiencies of that regulatory regime were recognised when it was replace by the Financial Services ActFSA-1986. The introduction of the FSA saw an improvement in investor protection: it raised requirements for authorisation and widened the categories of business for which firms required authorisation. Following the review in May 1993 by Andrew Large of the role and functions of the Securities and Investments Board, greater emphasis was given to investor protection by using all the available enforcement powers. More recent developments, such as the new training and competence regime, have also played their part. As a consequence of these changes, the additional protections suggested by the report have, where appropriate, already been made available.
  111

  Post Office (External Financing Limit)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the formula used by the Treasury to determine the Post Office external financing limit. [18847]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Post Office external financing limit is set, as part of the annual public expenditure survey, at a level which reflects an appropriate balance between the needs of the Post Office's business and its ability to contribute to public finances.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of staff employed in the home civil service are(a) women, (b) people of ethnic minority origin and (c) disabled people. [19445]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have published today the second in a series of annual data summaries on equal opportunities in the civil service. The Government are committed to equality of opportunity for all people. Figures show improvements in the representation of women and members of ethnic minorities and, for the first time, include information on registered and non-registered disabled staff. Copies of the data summary have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  "Getting a Good Deal in Europe"
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he has introduced to monitor the implementation of the guidance contained in the booklet "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". [18633]

  Mr. Freeman
  Departmental Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the guidance in the booklet "Getting a Good Deal in Europe" is applied in their Departments.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list all those(a) facilities management consortiums, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buyout consortiums, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market testing schemes in each Department in respect of which the Capita Group is currently involved in bidding. [19177]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are none in the Cabinet Office. Information about other Departments is not held centrally.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on discussions held between his Department and that of the Paymaster General regarding the impact of the prior options review of Paymaster on the administration and payment of civil service pensions. [19055]

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced on 4 December 1995 the start of a prior options review of the Paymaster agency, with a focus on options for moving the agency into the private sector.
  112
  The agency provides pensioner payroll and associated services for the civil service pension scheme. A market test of these services had been announced earlier by my Department. Discussions taking place between the Departments concerned are directed at securing early savings for my Department without prejudice to any future move of the agency into the private sector.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit Bosnia to inspect British troops; and if he will make a statement. [16849]

  Mr. Portillo
  I regularly visit British troops in the former Yugoslavia and was last there in December. I hope to make another visit in the spring.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the logistic plan to establish and support the implementation force with particular reference to the prices which IFOR is paying for essential services. [18616]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to assess separately the costs of the logistic support to IFOR. Logistics costs are, however, included in the total estimated cost which is currently in the region of £300 million.

  The prices which are being paid for essential services used by the UK forces contributing to IFOR are consistent with market prices. Wherever possible, we seek savings through competition, buying in bulk and exemption from taxes under the status of forces agreement.

  International Peacekeeping
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on Britain's contribution to international peacekeeping operations of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [16850]

  Mr. Portillo
  If any Government were to reduce spending to the European average of 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product, they would be forced to cut spending on defence by as much as £4.5 billion. This would severely undermine our capacity to undertake operations of any kind.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British jobs are sustained by the defence industry; and if he will make a statement. [16851]

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the level of employment in the defence industry in the United Kingdom. [16855]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The most recent figures available are for 1993–94, when an estimated 395,000 UK jobs depend on defence expenditure. About 80 per cent. of these— 315,000—were sustained by my Department's spending, on both equipment and non-equipment items; the other 20 per cent. —80,000—depended on defence exports.
  113

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has in respect of home ownership among younger service personnel following the publication of the Bett report. [16852]

  Mr. Soames
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced on 1 March,Official Report, columns 766–67, a replacement for the married quarters discount sales scheme, which will end following the proposed sale of the married quarters estate. The new long service advance of pay scheme provides an interest-free loan and will promote home ownership more widely in the services.

  Interoperable Equipment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if future orders for new or replacement equipment will be interoperable with NATO partners' equipment. [16856]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Interoperability with the equipment of our NATO partners is an important consideration in our assessment of the procurement options for meeting the equipment needs of our armed forces.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on possible damage to children's hearing caused by low-flying aircraft. [16857]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has not conducted specific research into the subject. We do, however, closely monitor and evaluate scientific research on noise and hearing, including that relating to possible hearing loss in children due to aircraft noise. We believe that the restrictions we place on heights, speeds and operating procedures of military aircraft should ensure that the level of noise experienced on the ground is not harmful, particularly given the brief exposure involved.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy over low training flights taking place over cities and towns. [18859]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 10 February 1995,Official Report, column 463.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons two RAF fighter aircraft were allowed to fly fast and low over central London at 10.57 am on 28 February and four more at 12.30 pm on the same day; and if he will make a statement. [18858]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft were authorised to perform low-level flypasts of St. Paul's cathedral as part of the ceremony and service to mark the unveiling by HM the Queen of a memorial commemorating British service men who died in the Gulf war.
  114

  Army Training Regiment
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the Army Training Regiment. [16858]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army Training Regiment, Lichfield is one of five such regiments providing initial training to Army recruits. The regiment at Lichfield trains recruits for the Army Medical Services, the Parachute Regiment and the Prince of Wales Division of Infantry.

  The initial training provided at the Army training regiments is designed to meet the Army's requirements in a progressive and professional way which recognises the abilities of recruits on entry. All recruits at the Army training regiment are trained to the high uniform standard laid down in the 10-weeks common military syllabus (recruits) prior to undertaking phase 2 (special to arm) training at the appropriate phase 2 training centre.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the time scale for orders for the type 23 frigate. [16859]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 21 February 1996,Official Report, column 165.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the award of the contract following the market-testing exercise carried out at RAF Valley. [16860]

  Mr. Soames
  Tenders for the maintenance work at RAF Valley are currently being evaluated. I expect to be in a position to announce the award of the contract in April.

  Dual-use Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to strengthen the controls over nuclear and related dual-use technology. [16861]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Nuclear and related dual-use technology is controlled under an EC Council regulation and in UK implementing regulations, under the Dual Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1995. The control list is amended when necessary to reflect changes agreed in the relevant non-proliferation regimes.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements he plans in recruiting procedures for new members of the armed services. [16862]

  Mr. Soames
  The most important new procedure introduced on 10 January is that of the use of jobcentres for armed forces recruiting. I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave on 9 January,Official Report, column 5.

  A number of other new improvements to recruiting procedures have been introduced or will be introduced in the next few months. These include a new armed forces eligibility questionnaire which allows candidates to see at

  115
  a glance if they are eligible for entry into the armed forces and the introduction later this year of a standard application form for use by all three services.

  In recognition of the reduced physical fitness of some young people, a physical development course is being trialled at the Army Training Regiment, Glencorse. The aim of this course is to take borderline physical fitness failures from the recruit selection centres and offer them a progressive three-week physical fitness programme to bring them up to the required entry standards.

  The armed forces are also in the process of developing new formal links with the career service to help produce a wide network of well-informed careers advisers to help promote careers in the armed forces.

  Arms Sales (Information)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he is taking to provide Parliament with greater access to information on arms sales; and if he will make a statement. [16863]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Procurement
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Ministry of Defence defence equipment is procured in the United Kingdom and in Europe. [16864]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The "Statement of Defence Estimates 1995", chapter 5, figure 13, provides a breakdown of the proportion of equipment expenditure in the UK, overseas and on collaborative projects over the last five years. This indicates that, including the UK share of collaborative work, 91 per cent. by value of our direct equipment expenditure is placed with UK industry, and 9 per cent. overseas. The Department does not compile the data to break this figure for overseas expenditure down by individual countries.

  Europe
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans next to meet his French counterpart to discuss the future defence of Europe. [16865]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets his French counterpart on a regular basis and they discuss a wide range of European security and other issues.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives from the United Nations concerning the UN Secretary-General's call for a ban on the export of anti-personnel land mines. [16866]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions on this issue with representatives of the United Nations.
  116

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the provision of a joint service command and staff college; and if he will make a statement. [19446]

  Mr. Soames
  Further to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 6 February,Official Report, column 169, we have now completed our appraisal of the options for staff training from September 1997 until the opening of the permanent site of the joint service command and staff college.

  RAF Bracknell, Queen Elizabeth Park barracks Guildford, and the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst were examined as possible temporary sites for the new college.

  We have chosen RAF Bracknell and propose, subject to formal consultation, to open the new joint service command and staff college there in September 1997. The consultation document is available in the Library of the House.

  The Government intend to dispose of the Bracknell site by the end of 1999, by which time the new college should be well established at its permanent site.

  Condor Missile Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the threat posed to UK interests by the Condor missile programme; which countries have participated in it; and whether missiles developed in respect of the programme are still in position. [17208]

  Mr. Soames
  While we remain extremely vigilant to the potential for ballistic missile technology proliferation, we do not consider Condor II to be a threat to UK interests. The Condor II ballistic missile programme developed by Argentina in partnership with a number of European technical consultants in the 1980s, was deactivated in May 1991 when Argentina acceded to the missile technology control regime. Although both Egypt and Iraq were customers for Condor missile technology and associated production facilities, we do not believe that Condor was ever flight tested or deployed anywhere in the world.

  RAF Chivenor (Iraqi Pilots)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi pilots were trained at RAF Chivenor during the 1980s. [17717]

  Mr. Soames
  From 1980 until 1986, a number of Iraqi pilots received training at Ministry of Defence establishments; none received weapons training or training in combat techniques. Full details of students trained at individual establishments are not available.

  Asbestos-related Conditions
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel or former personnel have been awarded war pensions for asbestos-related conditions resulting from their service(a) between 1967 and 1987 and (b) since 1987; and how many of those in (b) were also awarded compensation. [18168]
  117
  Mr. Soames
  No compensation payments have been made to service or ex-service personnel for asbestos-related conditions under my Department's common law liability. War pensions are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civilian employees or former employees have been awarded compensation for asbestos-related conditions resulting from their service(a) between 1967 and 1987 and (b) since 1987. [18167]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the increases in rents for service family quarters in each of the last five years; and what are the planned increases. [18253]

  Mr. Soames
  The average percentage increases in accommodation charges recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for service family quarters owned by the Ministry of Defence are given.

  1992–93: 3.9–9.2 per cent.

  1993–94: 1.5 per cent.

  1994–95: 5 per cent.

  1995–96: 5–8 per cent.

  1996–97: 10–25 per cent.

  Charges are recommended annually by the AFPRB, who have always followed the principle that charges levied on service personnel should compare fairly with the costs civilians have to incur for comparable housing. The AFPRB acknowledged this year that family quarter charges had slipped significantly behind comparable rents in the private sector and as such had recommended a significant increase in charges. It sees this as the beginning of a number of increases over the forthcoming years to close the gap, but these are not expected to be of the same magnitude as those recommended this year. The higher percentage increases have been applied to senior officers, while increases for junior personnel have generally been in the region of 10 per cent.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) of 26 February,Official Report, column 320, if he will place a copy of the information memorandum in the Library. [18944]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the information memorandum has been issued to prequalified bidders on a commercially confidential basis. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the meetings held between Ministers and officials in his Department and US congressman Steve Buyer on Gulf war-related illnesses. [18551]
  118
  Mr. Soames
  Constructive meetings were held with Congressman Buyer and a range of issues were discussed. In particular, Congressman Buyer was given a progress report on the findings to date of our Gulf medical assessment programme and was advised of our plans for a series of Gulf-related epidemiological studies. Congressman Buyer was also assured of our intention to maintain close liaison with the US authorities investigating Gulf war illnesses.

  RAF Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current provisions governing the publication of investigations into crashes of RAF aircraft. [18491]

  Mr. Soames
  A military aircraft accident summary, outlining the circumstances and cause of each RAF aircraft accident, together with any significant flight safety lessons learnt, is published when the board of inquiry has been completed and, when there has been a fatality, after next of kin have been made aware of the inquiry's findings. Copies of the MAAS are sent to the hon. Members in whose constituency the accident occurred as well as to those in whose constituency the aircraft involved was based. Copies are also placed in the Library of the House and published in the specialist press. This arrangement applies equally to Royal Navy aircraft accidents.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist for(a) the payment of compensation for the (b) awards in recognition of gallantry, shown by RAF personnel who have died while directing a crashing aircraft away from populated areas. [18492]

  Mr. Soames
  Compensation would be paid in accordance with common law principles to dependants of service personnel whose death resulted from negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence or someone acting on its behalf. If the fatal accident had been caused by the negligence of members of the aircrew, dependants of those who had been negligent would not receive compensation.

  Where RAF personnel die in service and are members of the armed forces pension scheme, benefits are payable either to their dependants or to the estate of the deceased. In addition, where the cause of death is accepted as attributable to service, additional benefits will be paid even if the person had opted out of the AFPS and had made their own personal pension arrangements. These additional benefits would include a tax-free war widow's pension, where appropriate, under the scheme operated by the Department of Social Security.

  The Air Force cross and Queen's commendation for bravery in the air are available to recognise acts of non-combatant gallantry by RAF personnel while flying. Higher levels of gallantry in the air may be recognised by the George cross or George medal. Each may be awarded posthumously. Recommendations for these awards are made by commanding officers when appropriate.
  119
  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the crash of a Harrier at Burnworthy, Somerset; and what measures he is taking(a) to avert crashes of RAF aircraft and (b) to improve training instructions to avert casualties to (i) RAF personnel and (ii) civilians on the ground. [18490]

  Mr. Soames
  Investigations into all the aircraft accidents that have occurred this year, including the accident involving a Royal Navy Harrier T4 in my hon. Friend's constituency on 23 February, are still continuing. Action will be taken to ensure any flight safety lessons are communicated widely within my Department as soon as they become apparent. All aircrew must reach specified professional standards before they are permitted to take part in any military flying activity. There is no question that either the RAF or the Royal Navy would ever jeopardise the safety of its aircrew or civilians on the ground by allowing inadequately trained personnel to fly an aircraft.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase(a) the size and capacity of RAF Northolt and (b) the number of flights into and out of that airport; and if he will make a statement. [18341]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the rejection of the proposal to create a civil enclave at RAF Northolt, the Government have consulted further with the business aviation industry to identify working arrangements at RAF Northolt which could improve the service offered to civil users and to business in the south-east more generally. Such arrangements could result in some limited increase in non-MOD use of RAF Northolt, but my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend Viscount Goschen will of course take into account the views of local communities and other interested parties before any final decisions are made.

  Armed Forces Pensions Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the probable cost of making payments under the armed forces pensions scheme to the widows of service men who retired before 6 April 1978, and subsequently remarried. [18333]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of the number of marriages which were contracted before 1978 by former service men after their retirement, and it is not possible, therefore, to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of awarding pensions to their widows from these marriages. In broad terms, however, my Department has assessed that the final cost of recognising all service prior to 1978 in the case of post-retirement marriages could amount to about £60 million in total for the armed forces.

  Empty RAF Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the empty RAF stations in the United Kingdom and the acreage covered by such stations. [18294]
  120
  Mr. Soames
  The following RAF stations are in the course of disposal:

  Acres

  RAF Greenham Common

  1,029

  RAF Upper Heywood

  1,250

  RAF Elvington

  400

  RAF Bentwaters

  1,042

  RAF West Raynham

  685

  RAF Swinderby

  628

  RAF Binbrook

  576

  RAF Medmenham

  35

  Former RAF Kenley

  15

  RAF Kemble

  500

  Former RAF Burtonwood

  136

  RAF Alconbury (enclave retained)

  1,050

  Additionally, there are a number of other stations currently under consideration for alternative defence use and which may ultimately be passed for disposal, and others where some land is surplus to requirements and is either in disposal or may be passed for disposal.

  Finningley Airport
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the bid by Virgin to operate Finningley airport was refused. [18824]

  Mr. Soames
  No formal bid has been received by my Department from Virgin Airways in regard to RAF Finningley.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft he plans to purchase as an interim measure before the Eurofighter enters service. [19099]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Korean War (British Prisoners)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 6 February,Official Report, columns 129–30, what communication he has had on the issue of the possibility of Korean war British prisoners-of-war being still held in Russian camps, with Mr. Malcolm Mackintosh CMG, formerly senior fellow in Soviet studies at the Institute of Strategic Studies; and if he will make a statement. [17032]

  Mr. Soames
  My officials have discussed the subject with Mr. Mackintosh. If any new information emerges, we will of course pursue it.

  Changing the Guard (Buckingham Palace)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many changing the guard ceremonies there have been outside Buckingham palace in each of the past three years; at what cost in 1996 prices; what was the average number of(a) men and (b) women on parade in each case; and if he will make a statement. [17170]
  121
  Mr. Soames
  There were 236 changing the guard ceremonies outside Buckingham palace in 1993, 245 in 1994 and 247 in 1995. Of the 142 service personnel involved in the ceremony, 60 are engaged in the provision of music. The bands sometimes include female personnel, but a record of the specific numbers on specific occasions is not maintained.

  The provision of personnel for the changing of the guard ceremonies does not incur additional manpower costs. Details of travel, food and accommodation costs are not held separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Troop Deployment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of troop deployment in each of the spheres of operation. [16843]

  Mr. Soames
  Operational deployment of UK forces is kept under constant review to ensure that the levels match the requirements at any time. At present, there are some 17,500 service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland, 12,700 deployed in support of implementation force operations in the former Yugoslavia and about 400 more on operations in support of United Nations Security Council resolutions in Iraq. In addition, over 400 personnel are committed to UN operations in Cyprus, Kuwait, Angola and Georgia.

  RAF Aircraft Losses
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the numbers, (b) the total cost and (c) the known causes of all training and operational RAF aircraft lost during (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995. [18846]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of RAF aircraft either substantially damaged or destroyed in air accidents in the years in question are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  (i) 1992

  9

  (ii) 1993

  9

  (iii) 1994

  8

  (iv) 1995

  8

  Each accident is most thoroughly investigated by separate RAF boards of inquiry. Summaries of BOI findings, including accident cause and flight safety recommendations, are routinely place in the Library of the House. No additional costs are incurred for the replacement of aircraft lost in accidents since replacements are drawn from an attrition reserve, which is procured as part of the total aircraft requirement to offset predicted losses. The cost of this reserve is therefore borne when the fleet is procured, not when an aircraft is transferred from the reserve.

  Iraq and Turkey (British Troops)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total British military presence in northern Iraq and in southern Turkey; and what forecasts he has made of the future presence. [19056]
  122
  Mr. Soames
  The British contribution to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over northern Iraq is six Tornado GR1 and one VC 10 aircraft supported by some 150 military personnel based in southern Turkey; there is also a small number of military personnel based at Zakho in northern Iraq. We have no current plans to alter this contribution.

  RAF Air Defence Capabilities
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to improve the RAF air defence capabilities into the next century. [19064]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In order to improve our air defence capability pending the introduction of Eurofighter, we have decided that, subject to the agreement of satisfactory contractual terms and conditions, a contract will be placed with British Aerospace to upgrade the RAF's Tornado F3 aircraft to make them capable of carrying advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and advanced short-range air-to-air missiles.

  Together with the radar improvements and joint tactical information distribution system with which the aircraft is already being equipped, this upgrade will greatly enhance the capability of the Tornado F3 and provide the Royal Air Force with an up-to-date beyond visual range missile capability. The overall programme is expected to cost £125 million.

  Procurement Executive Headquarters
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction costs of his Department's procurement executive at Abbey Wood. [16853]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The outturn costs for the construction of Abbey Wood are estimated to be £247.2 million at 1992 prices—£273.3 million at 1995 prices—against the approved budget of £248.5 million at 1992 prices—£273.4 million at 1995 prices. The project is therefore within budget.

  Overseas Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries members of whose armed forces were designated as civil or Government servants with his Department's knowledge or consent during periods in the United Kingdom since 1980. [16400]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I will write to the hon. Member.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base and which(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16027]
  123
  Mr. Boswell
  The information required is as follows:(a) The regional flood defence committees are required to admit the public to their meetings under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 by virtue of paragraph 28 of schedule 25 to the Water Act 1989. This information, which is currently being included in the Environment Act 1995 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996, was unfortunately omitted from the answer given to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood on 1 May 1995, Official Report, columns 78–79.
  (b) None of the other executive non-departmental public bodies, for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, has a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to board or committee meetings or to hold open meetings for the public.
  (c) However, the following arrangements are operated on a voluntary basis:
  Open meetings are held by the NRA to inform and consult local interests on particular flood defence interests.
  The Home-Grown Cereals Authority holds no formal open meetings but does hold meetings and events where the public are welcomed.
  The Meat and Livestock Commission holds open levy-payer meetings which may be attended by members of the public.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation b the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office,
  (d) statutory provisions for open government,
  (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16019]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information required is as follows:

  SUBJECT TO:

  (a) Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner

  Agricultural Wages Committees.

  (b) Scrutiny by the Audit Commission

  None.

  (c) Scrutiny by the National Audit Office

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners company

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  Food from Britain

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Horticulture Research International

  UK Register of Organic Foods

  National Audit Office access rights to the other bodies are as follows:

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority (in respect of publicly voted money)

  Meat and Livestock Commission (in respect of agency work)

  Horticultural Development Council (arrangements are under review)

  Apple and Pear Research Council (arrangements are under review).

  (d) Statutory Provisions for Open Government

  There are no statutory provisions for Open Government.

  (e) Performance Indicators

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  124

  Food from Britain

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Horticulture Research International

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  UK Register of Organic Foods

  Horticultural Development Council (to appear in next annual report)

  Milk Development Council (new body-Performance Indicators being finalised)

  Discussions are in progress with Apple and Pear Research Council.

  (f) Provisions under the Citizen Charter

  The following NDPBs have produced or are producing service statements

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Horticulture Research International

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  UK Register of Organic Food Standards

  Milk Development Council.

  Food from Britain although not participating in the chartermark scheme, meets the required standards.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16820]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The annual reports and accounts of the following executive non-departmental public bodies, for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, are published:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Food from Britain

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  Horticultural Development Council

  Horticulture Research Commission

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Legislation requires, in each case, that the annual report and accounts are published.

  Minutes and agendas of executive non-departmental public bodies' meetings are not published. There is no statutory requirement to do so.

  None of the executive non-departmental public bodies publishes a register of members' interests. There is no statutory requirement for such a register. However, details of those filling many posts are published or are available at the time of appointment. The Home-Grown Cereals Authority has drawn up a register of interests of authority members which is available for public inspection at the HGCA's offices.

  Horse and Pony Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the minimum values on the export of horses and ponies; and if he will make a statement. [16237]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I have no such plans.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17449]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry currently holds no contracts with EDS. Consequently, there are no dates, values or durations to report.

  Zoonoses Diseases
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases have been brought to court in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries for non-compliance with directive 92/117. [17180]

  Mrs. Browning
  Directive 92/117 requires member states to collect information on outbreaks of specified zoonoses in humans and animals and provide an annual report to the Commission on the trends and sources of the zoonotic infections recorded during the previous year. The directive also requires member states to establish measures for the testing of breeding flocks of domestic fowl numbering 250 or more birds for salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium. The requirements for testing breeding flocks are implemented in Great Britain by the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries Order 1993 and in Northern Ireland by the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries Scheme Order Northern Ireland 1994. Three prosecutions have so far been taken under the Great Britain order for non-compliance with its requirements. No prosecutions have been taken in Northern Ireland. The Department does not collect information on prosecutions taken in other member states.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations Her Majesty's Government(a) have made and (b) will be making regarding the review of EC directive 92/117. [17177]

  Mrs. Browning
  A Commission proposal for a review of directive 92/117 is under discussion by member states in Brussels but has not yet been agreed. The Government believe, however, that the control of Salmonella enteritidis and salmonella typhimurium in breeding flocks of domestic fowl is an essential element in any programme aimed at the control of these serotypes in production flocks. The Commission is familiar with the United Kingdom's views.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what penalties there are in other EU countries for failure to comply with directive 92/117. [17181]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has not seen the implementation measures submitted to the EC Commission by other member states and has no 126
  information on the penalties they are applying or wish to apply in respect of the requirements set out in directive 92/117.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions have been brought under order implementing directive 92/117 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [17179]

  Mrs. Browning
  Three successful prosecutions have been brought in Great Britain under the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries Order 1993. The Department does not collect information on prosecutions taken in other member states.

  North-east Drift Net Fishery
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority about the north-east drift net fishery. [17256]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer to my reply to the right hon. Member of Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 February 1996,Official Report, columns 270–71. I have since received a further letter from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority suggesting discussions between officials in the authority, the Ministry and the Scottish authorities on measures to safeguard future stock of spring fish, and these will be arranged.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much was charged to exporters for each consignment of livestock destined for export certified by his own veterinary and technical assistant staff between 13 and 19 February, inclusive; [17846]

  (2) what sums his Department has received for providing a health certification service for livestock destined for export between 13 and 19 February, inclusive. [17724]

  Mrs. Browning
  Invoices have not yet been raised for these services. No money has been received.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of his inquiry into inadequate certification by veterinary surgeons. [17788]

  Mrs. Browning
  Inquiries are continuing concerning the allegations made in the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme and I can give no indication as to when they may be completed.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were deemed unfit to travel between 13 February and 19 February, inclusive, by the Minister's veterinary staff when undertaking certification procedures of live animals destined for export. [17778]

  Mrs. Browning
  Between 13 to 19 February, of the 2,691 sheep and 3,843 calves presented for export, 39 sheep and 165 calves were deemed unfit to travel by veterinary staff while undertaking certification procedures.
  127
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary staff and technical assistant staff were deployed to undertake certification for animals destined for export between 13 and 16 February, inclusive. [17723]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 20 February 1996,Official Report, columns 136–37, and on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 381–82.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all local veterinary inspectors are employed by his Ministry when undertaking health certification work for animals due to be exported from the United Kingdom. [17711]

  Mrs. Browning
  LVIs are appointed by the Minister to act as agents on his behalf. They are not employees.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long certification took for each consignment of live animals destined for export between 13 and 19 February, inclusive, for(a) physical examinations and (b) related administrative procedures. [17725]

  Mrs. Browning
  The nature of the work is such that it is not possible to separate the physical examinations from the administrative procedures, for example, checking identities of animals. Set out in the table are the times taken at the various lairages on different days when one or more consignments were dealt with at each lairage.

  Date

  Number of consignments

  Start time

  Finish time

  13 February

  2 consignments of sheep

  0900

  1300

  1 consignment of calves

  3 consignments of sheep

  0900

  1430

  1 consignment of calves

  5 consignments of calves

  0900

  10130

  14 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  0830

  1700

  3 consignments of calves

  5 consignments of calves

  0730

  1330

  15 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  0830

  1015

  7 consignments of calves

  0800

  1430

  6 consignments of calves

  0730

  1630

  16 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  0730

  1230

  2 consignments of calves

  1 14 February.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the rate per hour charged by(a) his veterinary staff and (b) his technical assistance staff to certify consignments of animals destined for export between 13 and 19 February, inclusive. [17721]

  Mrs. Browning
  For veterinary officers, the rate per hour is £41.61 per hour and for animal health officers, it is £23.47 per hour exclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of animals for export were certified by the Minister's veterinary and technical staff between 13 and 16 February, inclusive. [17712]
  128
  Mrs. Browning
  Between 13 and 16 February inclusive, Ministry veterinary staff certified eight consignments of sheep and 30 consignments of calves.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the use of a separate fitness to travel certificate ceased for the purposes of certifying animals for export. [17726]

  Mrs. Browning
  The use of a separate fitness to travel certificate ceased from 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were in each consignment certified for export by his veterinary and technical staff between 13 and 19 February, inclusive. [17722]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of animals in each consignment certified for export by Ministry veterinary staff between 13 and 19 February, inclusive, was as follows:

  Date

  Number of consignments

  Animals per consignment

  13 February

  5 consignment of sheep

  204, 426, 400, 389, 386

  7 consignment of calves

  88, 88, 203, 53, 51, 229, 110

  14 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  405

  8 consignment of calves

  146, 62, 268, 160, 53, 179, 229, 68

  15 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  231

  13 consignments of calves

  126, 80, 168, 138, 241, 206, 40, 262, 196, 16, 29, 59, 90

  16 February

  1 consignment of sheep

  250

  2 consignments of calves

  65, 140

  No animals were certified for export by Ministry veterinary and technical staff on 17, 18 or 19 February.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current role of Jonathan Stirling in respect of animal health certification on behalf of exporters. [17866]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 22 February 1996,Official Report, columns 269–70.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18153]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: A number of officials in the Department have declared their outside interests in accordance with departmental requirements. As with all employment matters, individuals' details are a confidential matter between them and their employer.
  129
  The following staff currently hold directorships under the guide to non-executive directorships for civil servants:

  Mr. R. A. Hathaway: Manor Bakeries Ltd.

  Mr. R. G. Purnell: H. R. Wallingford

  Mr. A. R. Burne: The Albert Fisher Group plc

  Mr. B. J. Harding: Cadbury Ltd.

  The individuals concerned do not receive payment.

  Organic Aid Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been received by farmers in the form of organic aid since September 1994; and if he will make a statement on proposals for encouraging greater participation. [18305]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Since the start of the organic aid scheme in England in August 1994 until the end of December 1995, £190,733 has been paid. Separate schemes operate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are considering a number of options for encouraging greater uptake of the scheme.

  Cassava Chips
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Commonwealth countries as to the possible importation of cassava chips; and if he will make a statement. [18481]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend has not held discussions on imports of this product with any Commonwealth countries. Various preferential quotas exist which facilitate imports of cassava—manioc—into the EU from third countries in which members of the Commonwealth are free to participate.

  Tractors and Agricultural Trailers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safety guidelines govern the use of tractors and agricultural trailers; and what penalties exist for those who fail to adhere to these guidelines. [18430]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The regulations governing the use of agricultural vehicles and their trailers on the road are the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, unless they are specifically provided for under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979, as amended, as well as the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, as amended.

  The maximum penalty on conviction of an offence under these regulations of dangerous driving is currently a fine of £5,000 and disqualification. The Road Traffic Act 1991 allows the maximum penalty for causing death by driving, on conviction, could be five years' imprisonment.

  The use of agricultural vehicles and machines off road is covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974. Under these regulations, the penalty for an offence can, dependant upon its gravity, be a maximum of £20,000 if it is heard in a magistrates court or an unlimited fine if it is heard in a high court.
  130

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17497]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 18 July 1995, Official Report columns 1052–56, and will place in the Library a list updating this information accordingly.

  Quota Hopping
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in respect of the judgment by the European Court of Justice in case C48/93—Factortame III. [19554]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The judgment of the European Court of Justice in case 48/93 was delivered earlier today and runs to 22 pages. The court concluded that the principle that member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the state is applicable where the national legislature was responsible for the breach in question and where the breach is sufficiently serious. The court also concluded that it will be for the national courts to decide whether such a breach has occurred and what damages if any are payable.

  These conclusions and the court's judgment will be the subject of detailed scrutiny in the weeks ahead.

  The judgment is a stage in the action brought by Factortame Ltd. and others in the UK divisional court against Her Majesty's Government for damages in respect of the losses incurred during the period they were excluded from the UK fishing vessel register and unable to fish. In considering this action the UK divisional court asked for guidance from the European Court as to whether in principle member states are liable to pay damages for losses arising from measures which were held in breach of treaty obligations. It will be for the Factortame applicants to decide whether and how to proceed with their action for damages before the UK courts.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government plan to take at the intergovernmental conference to deal with quota hopping; and if he will make a statement [19555]

  Mr. Hogg
  There is an inconsistency underlying the quota regime of the common fisheries policy in that the quotas allocated to each member state do not always benefit the fishing communities of that member state. This is because the eligibility for quotas and their administration by member states has to take full account of general treaty provisions, for example, on right of
  131
  establishment and freedom of movement. This has undermined the benefit which the UK fishing industry has been able to secure from the fishing opportunities available to it under the common fisheries policy. We shall be pursuing this. In particular, we shall be exploring at the IGC whether there are treaty changes which could be made which would help to ensure that the fishing opportunities arising form national quotas provide real benefits to the fishing communities of the flag member state.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16601]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature of specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Military Exports
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the procedures which have been obtained in his Department since 1974 to ensure that Parliament was informed of exports of military goods and services and dual-use goods and services to(a) the middle east, (b) Iran and (c) Iraq; and if he will indicate in which years changes took place. [17344]

  Mr. Lang
  Details of the exports of goods to Iran and Iraq are published monthly in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  No information is given for the middle east as a bloc, although each of the individual countries' data are published.

  Information is given for goods only. Broad commodity details are given for all countries. Figures for military goods and dual-use goods are not given as identified blocks. However, the Ministry of Defence, in the annual publication "UK Defence Statistics", publishes identified military exports and imports, but only in relation to broad geographic areas. There are no figures for dual-use goods because the classification under which export statistics are collected does not refer to dual-use goods.

  Until 1988, the DTI published the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom". From 1989 to early 1995, they were published by the Central Statistical Office. Since April 1995, they have been published by HM Customs and Excise. Details of the exports of goods to Iran and Iraq are published monthly in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  On 26 February, the Government placed in the Library of the House a document setting out the current position in relation to informing Parliament on the export of arms, with an explanation of how this practice has evolved.
  132

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of total United Kingdom(a) exports, (b) imports and (c) total trade is represented by trade with EC countries according to the latest available figures. [17785]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on imports and exports is published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of the Trade, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17318]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech that I made on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Endowment Policies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the percentage of endowment policy holders who may have insufficient funds on maturity to meet their full mortgage repayment liabilities expressing this data by year of maturity. [17472]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been spent on the process of contracting out the work of the Official Receiver, broken down to show(a) the cost of the consultancy work, (b) the cost of the legal advice, (c) the notional costs of Insolvency Service staff working on the contracting out process and (d) the costs of Department of Trade and Industry services provided to the Insolvency Service. [17462]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The cost of the contracting-out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service, in the period beginning October 1994, when the Government announced their intention to pursue the preferred option identified by the then consultants, to the announcement on 28 February 1996 of the outcome, was as follows:

  Cost (£) exclusive of VAT where applicable

  Costs of external consultants

  668,201

  Costs of external legal advice

  54,122

  Estimated costs of Insolvency Service staff

  1,265,527

  Costs of DTI services provided to the Insolvency Service

  300,744

  Total

  2,288,594

  133

  Official Receiver
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) bankruptcy and (b) winding-up orders were made during the 12 months ended 31 January; and how many were administered by each Official Receiver's office during the 12 months ended 31 January. [17463]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The number of bankruptcy and winding-up orders made in the 12 months to 31 January 1996 and the number of cases in which the administration was completed in each Official Receiver's office are as set out in the table.

  Office

  Bankruptcy orders Administration

  Winding-up orders Administration

  Made

  completed

  Made

  completed

  Birmingham

  1,144

  1,316

  269

  387

  Brighton

  958

  1,610

  191

  453

  Bristol

  696

  819

  173

  201

  Gloucester

  497

  423

  48

  47

  Canterbury

  366

  412

  56

  84

  Rochester

  473

  720

  93

  165

  Cardiff

  407

  747

  111

  199

  Croydon

  1,243

  1,912

  373

  552

  Hull

  469

  598

  84

  103

  Leeds

  920

  733

  270

  200

  Liverpool

  353

  331

  79

  75

  Manchester

  1,006

  832

  271

  345

  Newcastle

  496

  1,142

  123

  169

  Stockton

  335

  269

  81

  52

  Northampton

  616

  522

  95

  104

  Cambridge

  364

  572

  66

  97

  Norwich

  589

  668

  107

  156

  Ipswich

  397

  346

  48

  78

  Nottingham

  718

  779

  86

  111

  Leicester

  398

  410

  47

  75

  Plymouth

  1,036

  971

  74

  67

  Exeter

  569

  780

  43

  87

  Reading

  805

  867

  229

  260

  St. Albans

  817

  827

  195

  184

  St. Annes

  684

  538

  114

  76

  Sheffield

  488

  554

  68

  69

  Southampton

  660

  504

  130

  207

  Bournemouth

  520

  568

  84

  105

  Southend

  804

  1,017

  154

  163

  Stoke

  440

  423

  54

  79

  Chester

  415

  454

  66

  81

  Swansea

  499

  542

  96

  139

  London A

  3

  25

  75

  115

  London B

  936

  154

  738

  102

  London C

  938

  123

  734

  99

  Manchester closing unit

  0

  6,292

  0

  876

  London support unit

  0

  2,499

  0

  2,241

  Total

  22,059

  32,299

  5,525

  8,603

  USA (Inward Investment)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the level of inward investment into the USA by United Kingdom firms in each of the last 20 years; [18202]

  (2) what have been the levels of inward investment into the United Kingdom by (a) German firms, (b) EU firms and (c) US firms in each of the last 20 years. [18159]
  134
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on foreign direct investment is published regularly by the Central Statistical Office in "Business Monitor MA4, Overseas Transactions", which is available in the Library of the House. The latest information, for 1994, was published by the Central Statistical Office on 18 December 1995 in "First Release", CSO(95)296.

  United States-United Kingdom Trade
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the mutual United Kingdom-United States balance of trade in each year since 1975. [18157]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistical" which is available in the Library of the House.

  United States-United Kingdom Relations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on United States-United Kingdom relations; and what proposals he has to develop closer relations. [18160]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States are excellent. Our exports to the United States continue to grow and we remain the largest foreign investor there, while the US sends the largest share of its overseas investment here. Relations will be enhanced by the action plan agreed last December by the European Union and the United States which provides for co-operation on issues of international importance including further trade liberalisation. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry will launch in May the second phase of the "North America Now" campaign, which will seek to achieve even more business in the United States for British companies.

  Germany (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the balance of trade with Germany in each year since 1975. [18158]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is published by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", which is available in the Library of the House.

  W H Smith
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer W H Smith to the Director General of Fair Trading in respect of discrimination against smaller circulation periodicals. [18344]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Director General of Fair Trading—DGFT—is responsible for investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices. If anyone has firm evidence that W H Smith may be breaching competition law, they should bring it to the attention of the DGFT.
  135

  Magnox Reactors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 511, if the fossil fuel levy after 1988 will cover British Nuclear Fuels plc's liability for the Magnox reactors; and if he will make a statement.[17833]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The fossil fuel levy will cover British Nuclear Fuels plc only until the end of the nuclear non-fossil fuel obligation— NFFO—in 1998.

  Battery Technology
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he has given to universities and other research institutions engaged in battery technology. [18772]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Financial support from my Department to universities and other research institutions is by means of science budget allocation to the six UK research councils and subsequently by research grants to individual researchers or research units. Funds are available for research in batteries technology through the responsive grant mode in the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council. Detailed information on project expenditure for specific technologies that rely on a diverse range of underlying science is not collated centrally. The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council—EPSRC—has identified in its February 1996 publication "Response to Foresight" that a number of its programmes contribute to underpinning research in fuel cells and photovoltaics. It is intended that a specific managed programme in energy storage will be developed by the EPSRC across the materials, chemistry, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and clean technology programme, with a view to launching it in 1997.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the technology foresight initiative focused on battery technology; and what policy changes resulted. [18771]

  Mr. Taylor
  Battery technology emerged as a technology worthy of emphasis for the energy sector in the technology foresight exercise. The energy panel considered that the challenge to manufacture electricity storage systems with, say, four times the energy density and comparable life cycle of the traditional lead/acid battery at competitive cost, remained formidable. It identified additional requirements for advanced high-energy batteries, including improved state-of-change sensors and electronics for thermal management.

  Following the recommendations of the technology foresight panel, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is proposing a directed research activity in energy storage, particularly batteries, which is expected to be launched in late 1996/early 1997. The main applications will be for uninterruptable power and for transport applications.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence to seek to induce a creditor to delay instituting 136
  an action for bankruptcy against a debtor solely for the reason that a successful action would disqualify the debtor from membership of the House. [18863]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. It is for creditors to decide if and when they should institute bankruptcy proceedings.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people have been declared bankrupt in the past three years for debts totalling(a) less than £5,000, (b) £10,000, (c) £20,000, (d) £50,000, (e) £100,000 and (f) £1,000,000 or over or such classification as is available. [18557]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The number of bankruptcy orders in England and Wales in the last three years was as follows:

  1993: 31,016

  1994: 25,634

  1995: 21,933.

  Information on the size of debts could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18149]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer I March 1996]: DTI staff may not in general hold directorships in public or private companies, firms or other organisations, although the holding of non-executive directorships in small, private, family-type companies is permitted if no conflict of interest results. Officials consult their line managers on such matters. Any fees paid are an individual matter and no central records are kept.

  A number of senior DTI staff hold unpaid developmental non-executive directorships. Details of these, together with those of other Departments, are published in the Cabinet Office's annual report.

  British Coal
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines he has issued to the company DTZ regarding the requirement that it approves the sale of British Coal property. [18814]

  Mr. Page
  British Coal is responsible for the disposal of its property. It is advised by DTZ. My Department has issued no guidelines to DTZ.

  Collieries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contact his Department has had with(a) HJ Banks and (b) the DTZ bank concerning (i) Houghton Main colliery and (ii) Woolley colliery. [18815]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has had no contact with HJ Banks or British Coal's property advisers DTZ about either colliery.
  137

  Faulty Workmanship
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to amend part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973 in respect of redress for faulty workmanship. [19137]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to do so.

  Inward Investment (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to improve the management of inward investment inquiries and the delivery of projects on Merseyside. [18842]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The Department of Trade and Industry supports the work of INWARD, the north-west's regional development organisation, in handling inward investment inquiries throughout the region, including Merseyside. In addition, the Government office for Merseyside is working with local partners, including INWARD, to develop and agree an inward investment strategy for Merseyside aimed at improving the region's inward investment performance.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's responsibility for the decommissioning costs including site clearance costs of the experimental nuclear reactor previously operated by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre at the former national engineering laboratory site in East Kilbride. [18066]
  138
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Responsibility for the decommissioning of the experimental nuclear reactor at the Scottish Enterprise technology park at East Kilbride lies with the operator concerned, which in this case is the Scottish universities research and reactor centre.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors led to the delay in the announcement relating to the privatisation of the Insolvency Service that occurred on 28 February. [18684]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The announcement on the outcome of the contracting-out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service was delayed to provide an opportunity for further ministerial discussion.

  Departmental Expenditure (Waveney)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure by his Department in Waveney in 1994–95; what it will be in 1995–96, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [17843]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: For 1994–95 none. For 1995–96, Norfolk and Waveney business link has a total budget of £1.4 million to provide a wide range of business support services through all its outlets, including the one in Lowestoft.
  139

TRANSPORT

  A46–A47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been(a) awarded and (b) paid to Leicestershire county council for (a) the eastern district distributor road and (b) the A46–A47 link road in each year since the start of the scheme. [17049]

  Mr. Norris
  No resources have been allocated for EDDR.

  The A46–A47 link road has been accepted for the transport supplementary grant since 1985–86. The following amounts have been accepted:

  £000

  Year

  Bid

  Accepted

  Spend

  1985–86

  135

  135

  21

  1986–87

  681

  681

  133

  1987–88

  1,459

  1,200

  20

  1988–89

  1,942

  1,942

  249

  1989–90

  1,988

  1,988

  1,910

  1990–91

  2,184

  2,184

  209

  1991–92

  2,601

  2,601

  38

  1992–93

  2,314

  2,314

  327

  1993–94

  2,026

  2,026

  90

  1994–95

  741

  741

  150

  1995–96

  1,348

  750

  1315

  1996–97

  3,740

  20

  —

  TSG is paid at a rate of 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure, with the remainder being allocated as credit approvals. Grant may be adjusted downwards because of underspending in earlier years, but this is calculated on the authority's programme as a whole. It is not possible to say how much of Leicestershire's grant adjustments relate to underspending on this scheme.

  1 Budget figure.

  2 Although no resources were sanctioned, the scheme was accepted for TSG and remains eligible for further support.

  Paloma (Seaman's Death)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the circumstances surrounding the death of a seaman on a Cypriot-registered coaster in the Humber on 22 February; and if he will make a statement. [17991]

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch is investigating the explosion which took place on the Paloma and the chief inspector of marine accidents will take appropriate action once the investigation has been completed.

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ship-system failures and serious incidents involving tankers have happened at Milford Haven since January 1993. [17891]

  Mr. Norris
  There have been 10 incidents reported to the marine accident investigation branch involving tankers in Milford Haven since 1993.

  Mr. Dais
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for each of the last three available years 140
  (a) the number of tanker movements into Milford Haven and (b) the total tonnage of oil and oil products unloaded, loaded and carried by sea. [17981]

  Mr. Norris
  The figure requested for Milford Haven are as follows:

  Tanker movements (Number)

  Oil traffic million tones

  Inwards

  Outwards

  1992

  2,964

  20.8

  14.3

  1993

  2,858

  21.1

  14.2

  1994

  2,738

  20.2

  13.7

  Source: Port Statistics.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the procedures governing the transportation of pet coke. [17925]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the procedures governing the transportation of PET Coke.

  The procedures governing the transportation of petroleum coke are contained in the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (the BC Code) adopted by the International Maritime Organisation.

  I enclose the relevant extract from this Code for your information.

  Appendix B: Petroleum coke1 calcined or uncalcined

  MFAG Approximate

  BC number

  IMO class

  table number

  stowage factor (m3/t)

  EmS number

  040

  MHB

  311

  1.25 to 1.67

  B7

  1"For comprehensive information on transport of any material listed refer to sections 1–10 of this Code.

  Properties

  Black, finely divided residue from petroleum refining in the form of power and small pieces.

  Observations

  The provisions of this appendix should not apply to materials having a temperature below 55"C when loaded.

  Segregation and stowage requirements

  "Separated from" foodstuffs.

  "Separated longitudinally by an intervening complete compartment or hold from" all goods of class 1, divisions 1.1 and 1.5.

  "Separated by a complete compartment or hold from" all other dangerous and hazardous materials (goods in packaged form and solid bulk materials).

  Special requirements

  1. Should not be loaded when the temperature exceeds 107"C.

  2. In cargo spaces over tanks containing fuel or material having a flashpoint under 93"C, a layer of 0.6m to 1.0m of the material at a temperature not greater than 44"C should first be loaded into the cargo space. Only then may the material, at 55"C or above, be loaded into that cargo space.

  3. The loading of the material should be as follows:

  (1) for shipments in cargo spaces over fuel tanks, the loading of the 0.6m to 1.0m layer at a temperature not greater than

  141
  44°C (as required in 2) should be completed prior to the loading of the material at 55°C or above in any cargo space of the ship;

  (2) upon completion of the loading described in 3.1, a layer of 0.6m to 1.0m of the material at 55°C or above should first be loaded in each cargo space (including those cargo spaces, if any, already containing a layer of the material at a temperature not greater than 44°C in which the material is to be loaded in accordance with this entry;

  (3) upon the completion of the loading of the 0.6m to 1.0m layer of the material at 55°C or above in each cargo space (as required in 3.2), the normal loading of the material at 55°C or above may proceed to completion; and

  (4) personnel should be warned by the master of the ship that calcined petroleum coke loaded and transported under this entry is hot and that injury due to burns is possible if precautions are not taken.

  Transport Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place copies in the Library of all the decision letters for transport policies and programme bids submitted by local authorities in 1995. [18164]

  Mr. Norris
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to ensure that HGVs and other vehicles with restricted rear views, have correctly fitted and aligned rear-view mirrors. [18094]

  Mr. Norris
  Mirrors fitted to vehicles on the road are already required to meet specific standards in respect of installation and field of vision. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the mirrors are adjusted correctly.

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the involvement of UK airports in the process of air service negotiations. [18443]

  Mr. Norris
  Where a UK airport has an interest in the outcome of air services negotiations, representatives from that airport are involved in the Department's internal briefing meetings where tactics and objectives are reviewed and a negotiating strategy agreed. At those briefing meetings, the Department also considers the case for the airport representatives attending the air services negotiations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what rights have been negotiated for(a) UK and (b) foreign airlines to initiate new international services for UK regional airports in the last six months; [18445]

  (2) which airline services have been unable to operate to UK regional airports as a result of failure to achieve a successful negotiation of traffic rights in the last six months. [18444]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom already has a very large number of bilateral agreements with foreign partners 142
  which allow the airlines of both sides access to regional airports in both countries. In most cases, it is solely a lack of demand that inhibits the provision of services under these agreements. In the past six months, new rights have been negotiated successively for:

  (i) Air Mauritius (Manchester);

  (ii) Gulf Air (Manchester and other UK regional airports);

  (iii) Air Seychelles (Manchester);

  (iv) Pakistan International Airways (any UK regional airport);

  (v) El Al (a third ex-gratia Manchester service).

  Under the agreements with Mauritius, Bahrain, the Seychelles and Pakistan, UK airlines can serve any UK regional airport. However, the agreement with Israel specifies London as the only UK point for both sides. El Al's Manchester rights have been granted ex-gratia.

  The only service which has been unable to operate to a UK regional airport because of a failure to achieve a successful negotiation of traffic rights in the last six months is a service to Jamaica applied for by Air Jamaica.

  EC Aviation Directives
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the EC directives issued over the last two years relating to aviation. [18441]

  Mr. Norris
  Council directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many transport supplementary grant projects in England this year are for schemes individually costing less than £5 million; and what proportion of the total spending on transport grants is represented by schemes of less than £5 million each. [18297]

  Mr. Norris
  Transport supplementary grant is paid in support of major road schemes costing more than £2 million, bridge assessment and strengthening, and structural maintenance of principal roads. Of the £688.9 million expenditure accepted for TSG in 1995–96, £267.4 million—38.8—was for expenditure on bridges and structural maintenance, and £421.5 million—61.2 per cent.—was for major road schemes. Out of this £421.5 million, £60.3 million—14.3 per cent.—was for the 66 major schemes costing less than £5 million.

  For 1996–97, the equivalent figures are: total accepted expenditure of £551.1 million, of which £190.9 million—34.6 per cent.—is for bridges and structural maintenance, and £360.2 million—65.4 per cent.—for major road schemes. Of this latter figure, £37.6 million—10.4 per cent.—is for the 36 major schemes costing less than £5 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many national mobility centres there are in Great Britain; and how many of those are in Coventry. [18545]
  143
  Mr. Norris
  There are 19 independent mobility centres in Great Britain. None of those is in Coventry, but the city does have a commercial centre which, I understand, offers a similar service. The Department publishes information on the service provided by all the centres in the UK in its "Guide to Services in the UK offering Advice, Information and Assessment to Disabled and Elderly Motorists". A new edition is being prepared and I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman when it is available.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many disabled people require specialised transportation. [18541]

  Mr. Norris
  There are about 6 million disabled adults in this country, of whom around 4 million have a disability which is likely to affect their mobility. Many are already using accessible mainstream public transport while others rely on specialist door-to-door services. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, regulations will be introduced requiring all future public transport to be fully accessible. This should mean that, increasingly, special services are seen as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, accessible public transport.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to make accessible to disabled people information about transport suitable to their specific mobility needs; [18544]

  (2) what representations he has received from organisations concerned with access to disability transport information. [18543]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport already provides a wide range of information to disabled people about accessible public transport services, special services and personal mobility. This information is generally available in print and alternative media including Braille, tape and large print.

  A new edition of the Department's comprehensive guide "Door to Door—A Guide to Transport for Disabled People" will be published shortly.

  All the Department's information is produced in consultation with disabled people, including our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the progress of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising towards securing by 1 April the transfer to franchise agreements of 51 per cent. or more of passenger services previously operated by the British Railways Board. [18488]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising programme is making good progress. Fourteen of the 25 train operating companies, representing 61 per cent. of passenger revenue in the financial year 1994–95 have either been franchised or are in the process of being sold.
  144

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which subsidiaries of the British Railways Board he estimates will be in public ownership at 1 January 1997. [18484]

  Mr. Watts
  The current subsidiaries of the board presently expected to be in public ownership on 1 January 1987 are British Rail Savings Co. Ltd., British Rail International Ltd. and Southdowns Village Ltd. A number of other subsidiaries may be formed between now and 1 January 1997, the majority of which are expected to be sold by that date.

  Some passenger train operating companies may remain in public ownership on 1 January 1997. The precise number will depend on the progress which the franchising director makes in selling railway franchises this year.

  The following are dormant subsidiaries of the board. They seem likely to remain subsidiaries at 1 January 1997:

  British Transport Hotels Ltd.

  Freightliners Ltd.

  British Rail Engineering Ltd.

  Advanced Passenger Trains Ltd.

  RFD (Channel Tunnel) Ltd.

  Europabus Ltd.

  Oil Rail Terminals Ltd.

  Railway Finance Ltd.

  Masterhaul Ltd.

  The Pullman Car Co. Ltd.

  Railway Sites Ltd.

  British Rail Investments Ltd.

  British Rail Hovercraft Ltd.

  British Rail Maintenance Ltd.

  Britravel Nominees Ltd.

  Mastertank Ltd.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests for assistance have been received by his office in respect of clear-up operations following the Sea Empress disaster. [18358]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about personnel involved in clear-up operations following the 'Sea Empress' disaster.

  On 29 February the total number of personnel involved in clear-up operations was 806.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if animal welfare organisations involved in the rescue operations arising from the Sea Empress disaster will be able to claim compensation from the ship's insurers. [18353]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Yes. Compensation for cost incurred and economic loss suffered as a result of the oil pollution damage for the Sea

  145
  Empress including the costs of reasonable measures taken to prevent or minimise the damage, will be available from the shipowner's insurer and from the international oil pollution compensation fund, which is funded by levies on the oil industry.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what accounts he has received from(a) the Milford Haven port authority or (b) other sources of the grounding of the Sea Empress; and if he will make a statement. [17980]

  Mr. Norris
  The investigation into the causes of the Sea Empress accident will involve the gathering of information from all relevant sources. The establishment of the inspector's inquiry has been advertised formally inviting all parties with material facts to come forward.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons no heavy duty salvage tug was available at Milford Haven on the day the Sea Empress went aground; and if he will make a statement. [17982]

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

  Letter from C.J. Haris to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about tugs.

  The Coastguard Agency has two emergency towing vessels stationed at Stornoway and Dover during the winter months. It has an arrangement by liaison with a tug operator to provide, on an availability basis but without guarantee, a tug in the South West Approaches (Penzance/Lands End). This vessel was not available during the Sea Empress incident.

  The availability of heavy duty tugs is otherwise a matter for the commercial market; their provision is arranged by professional brokers to meet the requests of the masters or owners of ships, or salvors.

  Lighthouse Keepers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lighthouse keepers there are in(a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland. [18774]

  Mr. Norris
  There are 105 lighthouse keepers in Great Britain and six in Northern Ireland.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the contract between Stagecoach Holdings plc and British Rail with regard to its operations on the east coast main line. [18573]

  Mr. Watts
  The contract between InterCity West Coast and Stagecoach Holdings plc, under which Stagecoach provided overnight seated train services from Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh to London and return, is commercially confidential.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the planned expenditure on road construction in the years(a) 1995 to 1996 and (b) 1996 to 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18741]

  Mr. Watts
  Expenditure on new construction in England, net of capital receipts and design, build, finance and operate current costs, is estimated at £1,169 million 146
  in 1995–96 and £973 million in 1996–97 in cash terms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made two announcements on 28 November 1995 to detail the background to this expenditure.

  InterCity
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the accounts of InterCity at the time of its break-up. [18572]

  Mr. Watts
  The accounts of InterCity for this period are incorporated in the British Railways Board's annual report and accounts for 1993–94, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Channel Tunnel (Inspections)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates of inspections undertaken by his Department on the channel tunnel for the last 12 months, indicating the deficiencies found at each inspection. [18676]

  Mr. Watts
  Safety inspections of the channel tunnel are carried out by inspectors of national authorities of UK and France and other experts authorised by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. These inspectors visit the tunnel several times a month and report to the safety authority on a range of matters; no major deficiency has been reported. Where problems have been identified, they have been raised with Eurotunnel which has taken corrective action.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the report into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise that have not yet been implemented; and when he expects these to be implemented. [18674]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the House of 16 October 1995,Official Report, columns 83–84.

  Accident Statistics
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by police force the number of accidents involving(a) heavy goods vehicles, (b) passenger service vehicles and (c) minibuses for each of the last five years. [18668]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following three tables. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Personal injury road accidents involving an HGV by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Police

  1,684

  1,302

  1,169

  1,195

  1,228

  Cumbria

  176

  154

  156

  159

  135

  Lancashire

  281

  213

  237

  281

  334

  Merseyside

  292

  283

  286

  281

  337

  Greater Manchester

  667

  606

  573

  619

  615

  Cheshire

  403

  364

  339

  418

  429

  Northumbria

  255

  232

  184

  212

  176

  Durham

  124

  120

  113

  118

  112

  North Yorkshire

  347

  351

  312

  292

  286

  147

  Personal injury road accidents involving an HGV by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  West Yorkshire

  454

  499

  441

  453

  378

  South Yorkshire

  292

  286

  269

  255

  273

  Humberside

  232

  214

  261

  230

  261

  Cleveland

  69

  87

  66

  63

  45

  West Midlands

  479

  407

  421

  414

  432

  Staffordshire

  355

  368

  363

  358

  498

  West Mercia

  366

  329

  290

  257

  376

  Warwickshire

  225

  176

  172

  191

  174

  Derbyshire

  303

  277

  280

  256

  212

  Nottinghamshire

  283

  289

  267

  259

  260

  Lincolnshire

  287

  219

  245

  246

  188

  Leicestershire

  315

  294

  269

  281

  251

  Northamptonshire

  291

  263

  228

  218

  210

  Cambridgeshire

  327

  281

  272

  264

  253

  Norfolk

  255

  260

  276

  227

  230

  Suffolk

  190

  159

  166

  160

  184

  Bedfordshire

  196

  157

  146

  165

  152

  Hertfordshire

  268

  233

  210

  287

  248

  Essex

  471

  427

  418

  456

  438

  Thames Valley

  517

  528

  508

  529

  494

  Hampshire

  440

  387

  362

  370

  360

  Surrey

  306

  233

  224

  224

  281

  Kent

  456

  375

  436

  429

  438

  Sussex

  321

  294

  283

  293

  302

  City of London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  344

  289

  259

  293

  290

  Avon and Somerset

  290

  265

  266

  254

  224

  Gloucestershire

  141

  130

  119

  130

  152

  Wiltshire

  211

  187

  193

  260

  241

  Dorset

  161

  147

  148

  144

  140

  North Wales

  196

  212

  182

  159

  181

  Gwent

  104

  113

  90

  91

  112

  South Wales

  228

  216

  225

  197

  202

  Dyfed-Powys

  207

  206

  197

  168

  159

  Northern

  83

  43

  62

  60

  55

  Grampian

  135

  145

  126

  114

  91

  Tayside

  133

  113

  105

  115

  119

  Fife

  50

  52

  52

  47

  36

  Lothian and Borders

  175

  154

  141

  140

  109

  Central

  47

  58

  56

  50

  42

  Strathclyde

  542

  519

  480

  397

  363

  Dumfries and Galloway

  89

  100

  73

  94

  72

  Total

  15,063

  13,616

  13,016

  13,173

  13,178

  1 Incorporated into the Metropolitan Police figure.

  Personal injury road accidents involving a PSV by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Police

  3,212

  3,140

  3,073

  2,885

  2,864

  Cumbria

  47

  39

  48

  55

  50

  Lancashire

  216

  228

  218

  205

  232

  Merseyside

  418

  421

  443

  491

  477

  Greater Manchester

  668

  564

  594

  583

  639

  Cheshire

  113

  109

  111

  97

  112

  Northumbria

  426

  390

  355

  353

  362

  Durham

  123

  116

  123

  127

  135

  North Yorkshire

  91

  93

  90

  84

  117

  West Yorkshire

  535

  550

  537

  490

  528

  South Yorkshire

  532

  423

  453

  519

  484

  Humberside

  177

  168

  199

  197

  215

  Cleveland

  163

  101

  107

  113

  124

  West Midlands

  437

  424

  399

  375

  432

  Staffordshire

  174

  136

  153

  163

  178

  West Mercia

  113

  84

  88

  101

  81

  Warwickshire

  41

  38

  34

  30

  39

  Derbyshire

  141

  118

  114

  87

  121

  148

  Personal injury road accidents involving a PSV by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Nottinghamshire

  273

  220

  193

  199

  237

  Lincolnshire

  47

  36

  37

  43

  39

  Leicestershire

  106

  91

  85

  96

  99

  Northamptonshire

  56

  50

  42

  36

  40

  Cambridgeshire

  84

  66

  73

  46

  46

  Norfolk

  71

  69

  84

  65

  67

  Suffolk

  62

  47

  65

  32

  56

  Bedfordshire

  56

  32

  50

  48

  65

  Hertfordshire

  75

  83

  72

  90

  80

  Essex

  166

  143

  130

  146

  145

  Thames Valley

  211

  227

  228

  223

  198

  Hampshire

  208

  213

  200

  198

  256

  Surrey

  73

  51

  52

  54

  68

  Kent

  123

  111

  172

  139

  118

  Sussex

  176

  177

  190

  232

  226

  City of London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  194

  158

  142

  171

  174

  Avon and Somerset

  143

  178

  144

  150

  164

  Gloucestershire

  47

  40

  51

  57

  50

  Wiltshire

  50

  55

  51

  57

  46

  Dorset

  74

  74

  63

  86

  96

  North Wales

  79

  82

  85

  66

  91

  Gwent

  58

  50

  68

  58

  48

  South Wales

  249

  231

  206

  232

  262

  Dyfed-Powys

  60

  50

  37

  38

  39

  Northern

  21

  24

  32

  20

  15

  Grampian

  119

  110

  117

  74

  78

  Tayside

  77

  69

  57

  52

  40

  Fife

  60

  49

  35

  33

  35

  Lothian and Borders

  508

  470

  474

  407

  489

  Central

  56

  48

  55

  39

  46

  Strathclyde

  768

  760

  617

  573

  565

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  15

  10

  16

  9

  Total

  11,993

  11,221

  11,056

  10,731

  11,177

  1 Incorporated into the Metropolitan Police figure.

  Personal injury road accidents involving a minibus>1 by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Police

  114

  136

  133

  128

  123

  Cumbria

  22

  28

  24

  32

  20

  Lancashire

  37

  39

  48

  32

  51

  Merseyside

  68

  77

  74

  86

  68

  Greater Manchester

  109

  93

  82

  95

  112

  Cheshire

  43

  37

  49

  29

  35

  Northumbria

  24

  20

  18

  20

  22

  Durham

  8

  17

  16

  9

  19

  North Yorkshire

  56

  34

  44

  37

  47

  West Yorkshire

  38

  30

  32

  36

  28

  South Yorkshire

  48

  40

  42

  34

  39

  Humberside

  28

  26

  25

  18

  23

  Cleveland

  19

  11

  4

  8

  9

  West Midlands

  51

  59

  55

  60

  74

  Staffordshire

  28

  23

  21

  36

  60

  West Mercia

  36

  18

  15

  22

  39

  Warwickshire

  8

  9

  14

  12

  18

  Derbyshire

  7

  6

  6

  11

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  20

  16

  31

  22

  Lincolnshire

  40

  20

  27

  25

  27

  Leicestershire

  58

  27

  40

  41

  38

  Northamptonshire

  22

  25

  16

  7

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  40

  33

  26

  25

  Norfolk

  51

  39

  26

  31

  36

  Suffolk

  11

  18

  15

  25

  23

  Bedfordshire

  13

  16

  17

  11

  18

  Hertfordshire

  22

  18

  16

  16

  23

  149

  Personal injury road accidents involving a minibus1 by year and police authority: Great Britain 1990–1994

  Accidents

  Police Authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Essex

  42

  51

  49

  52

  51

  Thames Valley

  52

  64

  65

  59

  66

  Hampshire

  77

  74

  75

  81

  67

  Surrey

  40

  26

  23

  25

  45

  Kent

  78

  79

  56

  91

  79

  Sussex

  63

  56

  63

  46

  57

  City of London2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  34

  47

  52

  65

  Avon and Somerset

  31

  48

  27

  27

  33

  Gloucestershire

  18

  23

  17

  18

  26

  Wiltshire

  8

  6

  20

  16

  14

  Dorset

  24

  27

  23

  29

  29

  North Wales

  41

  44

  34

  46

  34

  Gwent

  24

  25

  19

  29

  30

  South Wales

  51

  57

  65

  0

  3

  Dyfed-Powys

  27

  35

  32

  27

  28

  Northern

  27

  31

  26

  27

  14

  Grampian

  40

  18

  22

  21

  10

  Tayside

  17

  15

  14

  9

  12

  Fife

  20

  11

  11

  12

  12

  Lothian and Borders

  21

  36

  20

  18

  13

  Central

  9

  6

  14

  16

  10

  Strathclyde

  122

  88

  76

  74

  76

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  10

  5

  6

  7

  Total

  1,926

  1,790

  1,711

  1,699

  1,805

  1 Accidents including motor caravans are also included.

  2 Incorporated into the Metropolitan Police figure.

  Car Sharing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards car sharing; what guidelines he issues to(a) insurance companies and (b) the public on the scale of contributory fares which can be accepted as (i) non-profit-making by the Inland Revenue and (ii) non-commercial in respect of third party insurance cover; and what plans he has to give increased publicity and encouragement to such schemes. [18856]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government support the concept of car sharing and brought forward the Transport Act 1980 which legalised non-profit-making car sharing schemes. Following the 1980 Act, the Department of Transport issued advice which, amongst other points, covered the calculation of the sharing of costs with regard to the relevant requirements of the Inland Revenue and the insurance companies.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he requires the Marine Safety Agency to carry out with the fishing industry; and what proposals he has for improving the system of consultation. [18785]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the Marine Safety Agency's consultation with the fishing industry and proposal for its improvement.
  150
  The existing consultation framework comprises principally of meetings of the MSA's Fishing Industry Safety Group (FISG), of FISG Sub-Groups and of Steering Groups set up by FISG to oversee particular developments, together with informal and formal written consultation on legislative and other proposals. A meeting has been arranged with representatives of the fishermen's federations on Tuesday 26 March to discuss industry's concerns about current arrangements and to seek agreement on a framework for future consultation.

  London and Continental
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what individual value he has put on each of the assets and debt write-offs which are to benefit London and Continental. [19094]

  Mr. Watts
  The value of the assets and businesses to be transferred to London and Continental is that which has been determined by the open and keenly fought competition which London and Continental won. It is not for me to second-guess the market price.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he decided to use public funds to subsidise the channel tunnel rail link. [19097]

  Mr. Watts
  The then Secretary of State announced on 14 June 1990,Official Report, columns 482–500, that he was prepared to consider a capital grant for the channel tunnel rail link, but that the terms then on offer were not acceptable. On 24 January 1994, Official Report, columns 19–34, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced in an oral statement that the Government were willing in principle to provide substantial public sector support, in recognition not only of the significant domestic transport and regeneration benefits from the new line but of some of the very large benefits to international passengers.

  Emergency Towing Study Team Report
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first received a copy of the report of the emergency towing study team; and what action he has taken to implement its findings to date. [18892]

  Mr. Norris
  The chief executive of the Coastguard agency received a copy on the Secretary of State's behalf on 25 May 1995. The report recommended that priority for providing emergency towing vessels should be given to two areas, the Dover strait and north-west Scotland. The Coastguard agency chartered emergency towing vessels for these two areas for the six-months winter period.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 581, what consultations he has conducted on the report of the emergency towing study team. [18901]

  Mr. Norris
  The Coastguard agency, through the government shipping broker, invited tenders for two emergency towing vessels for the Dover straits and north-west Scotland. This involved discussions with the
  151
  Government broker, with tugowners and brokers and with the British Tugowners Association. The agency also had regard to the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", which itself drew on extensive discussions with those who presented evidence to his inquiry.

  Oil-handling Ports
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the latest available year the 10 main oil-handling ports in the British Isles, indicating the total tonnage(a) disembarked and (b) embarked in each case, and the appropriate proportion for each port. [17984]

  Mr. Norris
  The top 10 oil-handling ports in the United Kingdom for 1994 are as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  Port

  Total

  Inwards

  Outwards

  Proportion of UK total percentage

  Forth

  40,476

  2,400

  38,076

  15.0

  Sullom Voe

  38,577

  2

  38,575

  14.3

  Milford Haven

  33,881

  20,231

  13,650

  12.6

  London

  24,408

  18,739

  5,669

  9.0

  Tees and Hartlepool

  24,141

  2,291

  21,850

  9.0

  Southampton

  23,584

  15,061

  8,523

  8.7

  Grimsby and Immingham

  21,772

  14,184

  7,588

  8.1

  Liverpool

  15,256

  13,781

  1,475

  5.7

  Orkneys

  13,885

  30

  13,856

  5.1

  Rivers Hull and Humber

  5,427

  5,427

  0

  2.0

  Total for above

  241,407

  92,146

  149,262

  89.5

  Total for UK

  269,721

  113,892

  155,829

  —

  Source:

  Port Statistics 1994.

  Drivers (Pass Plus)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many newly qualified drivers have taken pass plus since February 1995; what percentage of such drivers this represents; and what has been the success rate on pass plus in percentage and number terms. [19201]

  Mr. Norris
  As at the end of February 1996, 12,383 certificates had been issued to drivers completing a pass plus course. This represents about 1.5 per cent. of newly qualified drivers. It is too early to determine what effect pass plus will have had on the accident record of those that have taken the course.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers have taken pass plus; what percentage have passed; and if he will make a statement. [19200]

  Mr. Norris
  As at the end of February 1996, 12,383 certificates had been issued to drivers completing a pass plus course. Pass plus which is designed for newly qualified drivers, is not a pass/fail course although the approved driving instructor giving the training has to be satisfied that the pupil has reached a satisfactory standard on all six modules.
  152

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will now institute an inquiry into how the decision that the millennium exhibition should be sited in Greenwich was announced by the policy chairman of the Corporation of London before her statement in Parliament. [19073]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [17169]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March. [17171]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.

  Sir Gerrard Neale
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when Sir Gerrard Neale last visited 10 Downing street; and if on that occasion he telephoned UCB from there. [19098]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have nothing further to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 29 February, Official Report, column 672.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister what facilities have been extended to Sir Gerrard Neale to have access to 12 Downing street in the last 12 months; and what access he has had to office and telephones there. [18864]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not the practice of my right hon. Friend to indicate what meetings he has with Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament. No office or telephone facilities have been made available to Sir Gerrard Neale at 12 Downing street.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines for defence-related exports to Iraq. [18538]
  153
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  The first time that my right hon. Friend learnt that a change in the guidelines had been considered in 1988 was in a minute from his private secretary dated 13 November 1992.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 169, if he will approach the companies and individuals to which he refers to ascertain whether they are prepared for their names to be disclosed. [18536]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to implement the recommendation made at page 1797 of the Scott report on the use of intelligence by Government Departments. [18530]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, column 589.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which officials from which Departments contributed to the preparation of the press briefing issued by the Cabinet Office on 15 February; what guidance they were given in regard to the matters within the Scott report on which to produce a digest and commentary; which recommendations by Sir Richard Scott according to the digest have already been accepted; and when these recommendations will be implemented. [18554]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice that they receive from the civil service on their discussions with them. The Government's proposals in response to the recommendations of the Scott report were set out in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Export Control Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out Her Majesty's Government's definition of lethal and non-lethal military equipment as used in the consideration of export control licences. [18552]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any defence equipment which was designed to kill would clearly fall within the category of lethal equipment. Other equipment has to be considered individually according to its nature and specifications.
  154

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interst; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials's interests. [16890]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Civil servants faced with a conflict of interest are required to declare their interst to senior line management so that a decision can be taken on how best to proceed. These rules are set out in section A10.1 of the Scottish Office staff handbook.

  Staff who disclose a relevant interest do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer.

  We do not plan to establish a central register of officials' interests.

  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inward investment projects have settled in Scotland as a result of guidance given by the Invest in Britain Bureau over the past three years; and if he will make a statement [17731]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Locate in Scotland works in close co-operation with the Invest in Britain Bureau and it is therefore very difficult to categorise specific projects as projects which came to Scotland as a result of involvement by IBB.

  In the three years to March 1995, Locate in Scotland helped to attract to Scotland a total of 257 inward investment projects involving planned investment of over £2 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 31,000 jobs.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation Scotland has on the Invest in Britain Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [17768]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Invest in Britain Bureau is a division of the Department of Trade and Industry and Locate in Scotland works in close co-operation with it. Both IBB and LIS are represented on the committee on overseas promotion, which is an interdepartmental committee which exists to co-ordinate the UK's inward investment activity and, in particular, to ensure that the activities of individual bodies are complementary and incremental to the overall UK effort.

  Chungwha Picture Tubes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of the package offered by his Department to Chungwha Picture Tubes; and if he will make a statement. [17736]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 29 November 1995 at column 580.
  155

  Fire Brigades
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incidents the fire brigades in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland attended in (i) 1980, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [18052]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table. Data for 1994 are provisional and for 1995 are not yet available.

  Incidents attended by local authority fire brigades in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland and in (i) 1980 and (ii) 1994

  Year

  (a) Strathclyde

  (b) Scotland

  19801

  32,896

  64,235

  19942

  66,172

  121,483

  1 Includes estimates for periods of industrial action when data were not recorded.

  2 Provisional data which comprise fire incidents attended between January and December 1994 and special service incidents attended between April 1994 and March 1995.

  Fire Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review his allocation of funds to the fire services consequent on the formation of the new local government unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [18053]

  Number and percentage of men and women aged between 16 and 18 attending schools on a full time basis in 1994–95 by locality of school

  Inverclyde

  Strathclyde

  Schools

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  EA/GA Secondary

  557

  567

  1,124

  13,843

  14,104

  27,947

  EA/GA Special

  9

  6

  15

  352

  257

  609

  Independent

  28

  50

  78

  969

  844

  1,813

  Total

  594

  623

  1,217

  15,164

  15,205

  30,369

  Population

  1,679

  1,561

  3,240

  41,712

  40,295

  82,007

  Percentage of the population

  35.4

  39.9

  37.6

  36.4

  37.7

  37.0

  The number of people in schools is based on the locality of the school, rather than the domicile of the pupils.

  Number and percentage of men and women aged between 16 and 18 attending full time at further education institutions in 1994–95, by permanent home location of student.

  Renfrew division

  Strathclyde

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Further educational institutions

  Higher education vocational

  184

  211

  395

  1,309

  1,502

  2,811

  Further education

  407

  432

  839

  3,145

  2,877

  6,022

  Total

  591

  643

  1,234

  4,454

  4,379

  8,833

  Population

  3,748

  3,437

  7,185

  41,712

  40,295

  82,007

  Percentage of the population

  15.8

  18.7

  17.2

  10.7

  10.9

  10.8

  Information for students in Inverclyde is included within the Renfrew Division. Separate data for Inverclyde are not available.

  Higher Education institutions—information is not readily available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private finance initiative schemes have now been agreed in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland. [18042]
  156
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of revenue funding to the fire service in Scotland is a matter for local authorities. As to capital allocations, in consequence of the reorganisation of local government there will be a separate programme for fire service capital allocations, starting at a level significantly about average spending in previous years.

  Retail Premises Burglaries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many retail premises burglaries in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde resulted in a conviction in each of the past five years. [18050]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information held by the Scottish Office covers only recorded crimes of housebreaking for all non-domestic property and convictions where housebreaking was the main offence. It is not possible, therefore, to provide the information requested.

  Young People (Full-Time Education)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men and women aged between 16 and 18 years in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde are in full-time education; and if he will give the figures (i) in real terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total number of 16 to 18-year-olds in (a) and (b). [18051]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information for 1994–95 is:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Contracts have been signed for 20 private finance initiative schemes for services within my responsibility, with a total estimated initial capital value of more than £75 million. Nine of these schemes are in Strathclyde. Their total estimated initial capital value is £29 million.
  157

  Psychiatric Beds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many psychiatric beds have closed in each year since 1980–81 in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland. [18049]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of beds closed is not centrally available. The pace of change in this sector is directed by patient needs. The organisation of long-stay care and care services in the community are determined by continuous joint assessment of local needs involving health boards and local authorities. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services, both in hospital and in the community, that meet the specific needs of patients and carers.

  The table shows the net average available staffed psychiatric beds available as at 31 March from 1981 to the latest available year.

  Year

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  1981

  16,953

  8,004

  1982

  16,765

  7,952

  1983

  16,569

  7,852

  1984

  16,444

  7,721

  1985

  16,463

  7,766

  1986

  16,197

  7,567

  1987

  15,820

  7,253

  1988

  15,508

  7,017

  1989

  14,973

  6,791

  1990

  14,407

  6,598

  1991

  13,927

  6,358

  1992

  13,251

  5,951

  1993

  12,561

  5,594

  1994

  11,727

  5,203

  1995

  11,034

  4,881

  Notes:

  1. Comprises specialities of mental illness, psychogeriatrics, child psychiatry and adolescent psychiatry.

  2. Includes beds in joint-user and contractual hospitals. Joint-user hospitals are local authority institutions in which accommodation is made available to health boards in terms of the sixth schedule of the National Assistance Act, 1948. Contractual hospitals are institutions where health boards have customer arrangements with voluntary bodies for the use of beds.

  3. Strathclyde information comprises Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire health board areas.

  Source:

  Information and Statistics Division, NHS in Scotland.

  Young People (Crime Statistics)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of convictions in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde involved 16 to 24-year-olds in each of the last five years; and what was the year-on-year percentage change in this figure. [18056]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. High Court cases are not separately identifiable by location within the Scottish Office criminal proceedings database.
  158

  Persons with a charge proved in Greenock sheriff court and Inverclyde district court, 1990–94

  Year

  Persons aged 16–24 with a charge proved

  Total persons with a charge proved1

  16–24 year olds with a charge proved as a percentage of all persons with a charge proved

  Year on year percentage change in number of persons aged 16–24 with a charge proved

  1990

  1,462

  3,562

  41.0

  —

  1991

  1,188

  3,041

  39.1

  -18.7

  1992

  1,380

  3,252

  42.4

  16.2

  1993

  1,319

  3,251

  40.6

  -4.4

  1994

  1,281

  3,109

  41.2

  -2.9

  1 Includes companies and persons whose age is not known (for example the 1994 total of persons with a charge proved includes 24 with age unknown and 8 companies).

  158

  Persons with a charge proved in all sheriff and district courts1 in Strathclyde Region, 1990–94

  Year

  Persons aged 16–24 with a charge proved

  Total persons with a charge proved2

  16–24 year olds with a charge proved as a percentage of all persons with a charge proved

  Year on year percentage change in number of persons aged 16–24 with a charge proved

  1990

  34,904

  78,136

  44.7

  —

  1991

  30,913

  73,839

  41.9

  -11.4

  1992

  32,450

  77,232

  42.0

  5.0

  1993

  29,439

  70,805

  41.6

  -9.3

  1994

  28,556

  70,837

  40.3

  -3.0

  1 Includes Stipendiary Magistrates Courts in Glasgow.

  2 Includes companies and persons whose age is not known (for example the 1994 total for persons with a charge proved includes 1,297 persons with age unknown and 302 companies).

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take against general practitioner fundholders who overspend on the allocation given to them. [18439]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In cases where a general practitioner fundholding practice spends in excess of its allotted sum it is for the relevant health board to review the reasons for the overspend and to take any action required.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which general practitioner fundholders in Scotland(a) overspent and (b) underspent their budgets in each year for which there are figures; what was the overspend or underspend in each case; and what were the total sums overspent and underspent in Scotland in each year. [18438]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Spending details of individual general practitioner fundholders in Scotland are not held centrally; however, information is collected on a health board basis. This is set out in the table.
  159

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health board

  Under-spend

  Over-spend

  Under-spend

  Over-spend

  Under-spend

  Over-spend

  Under-spend

  Over-spend

  Argyll and Clyde

  56

  —

  —

  —

  55

  —

  214

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  330

  —

  214

  43

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  291

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  —

  150

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  —

  101

  40

  Grampian

  103

  9.8

  95

  4.8

  551

  279

  1,207

  452

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  13

  —

  185

  —

  888

  —

  Highland

  —1

  —

  —

  —

  87

  —

  —

  130

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  458

  —

  1,360

  —

  Lothian

  29

  —

  39

  —

  354

  —

  868

  264

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  26

  12

  —

  278

  172

  363

  120

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  188

  35.8

  159

  4.8

  2,482

  451

  5,732

  1,049

  Scottish Pre-School Play Association
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure the Scottish Pre-School Play Association is grant aided to an extent no less than similar groups elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [17539]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In providing grants to voluntary organisations under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 we are bound to take account of the resources available for that programme and the range of demands on it. We have funded the Scottish Pre-School Play Association to the fullest extent possible within available resources. We have made available a grant of £140,000 for 1996–97. This represents an increase of over 85 per cent. in two years, making SPPA the most highly core-funded organisation of all the children's organisations which receive section 10 support.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which serving civil servants in his Department are directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18147]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office members of staff who hold non-executive directorships are listed. As a requirement, and in order to avoid personal financial interest, official do not receive fees for their directorships; where these are offered, they are surrendered to central Scottish Office funds.

  A. W. Denham: The Wise Group

  D. Y. A. McFadyen: United Distillers plc

  I. McCall: Scottish Design

  R. S. B. Gordon: Incorporation of Goldsmiths

  R. Brodie: Scottish Universities Law Institute1

  C. C. MacDonald: TSB Scotland plc2

  P. Wright: Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research

  W. A. MacGregor: Strathclyde Greenbelt Company

  G. Rooney: Local Investing Networking Co. Ltd.

  D. Hamilton: Castlemilk Partnership Team Ltd.

  B. R. Morgan: Castlemilk Partnership Team Ltd.

  D. Belfall: Castlemilk Partnership Team Ltd.

  160

  D. Belfall: Wester Hailes Partnership Co. Ltd.

  D. Hart: Wester Hailes Partnership Co. Ltd.

  D. Hart: Fergusile Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development Co. Ltd.

  D. Hart: Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum

  1 Fees paid within £1–£5,000

  2Fees paid within £5,000–£10,000

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18635]

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

  Forests (Common Grazings)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which forests in the highland region, Argyll and the western isles were planted on former crofting common grazings. [19153]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission does not keep a central record of this information, which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry Commission
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which department of the Forestry Commission in Scotland was responsible for land purchases between(a) 1966 and 1970, (b) 1971 and 1980 and (c) 1981 and 1990. [19152]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The forestry commissioners were responsible for decisions on land purchase during these periods.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the land currently owned by the Forestry Commission and (b) the estates owned by the Scottish Office, indicating which of these (i) are on the market for sale and (ii) can be affected by the right of feudal pre-emption. [19150]
  161
  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Lists of Forestry Commission woodlands in England, Scotland and Wales are in the Library.

  (b) A list of the Scottish Office crofting estates is given in annexe A of the recently issued consultation paper on crofting trusts, a copy of which is in the Library. There are a further 17 lowland Scottish Office estates comprising a total of 452 hectares.

  (i) A list of the Forestry Commission woodlands which are currently on the market for sale was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 18 January 1996, Official Report, columns 773–76. None of the Scottish Office estates is currently on the market for sale.

  (ii) Information on which of the Forestry Commission and Scottish Office land could be affected by the feudal right of pre-emption could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sales of Forestry Commission land from 1980 and 1989, and 1990 to 1996 by(a) area, (b) prices obtained, (c) location and (d) date of sale. [19181]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Lists of land sold by the Forestry Commission between the introduction of the commission's disposals programme in July 1981 and December 1994 are in the Library of the House. A list of the sales in 1995 is in preparation and will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the Forestry Commission's annual budget in Scotland, expressed in(a) monetary value and (b) percentages was expended on land purchases each year from 1966 to 1991 inclusive. [19151]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The commission's annual reports and accounts, which are available in the Library, record the areas of land suitable for planting which the commission bought each year in Britain and their average cost. There is no separate record of the cost of the acquisitions in Scotland.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many sales by the Forestry Commission the right of feudal pre-emption was applied in(a) 1980 to 1989 and (b) 1990 to 1996. [19182]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission does not keep a central record of this information, which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any items accepted in lieu of inheritance tax have been allocated in Scotland since he last made an announcement. [19484]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that I am allocating the painting "The Return from the Flight into Egypt" by the 16th century artist Paris Bordone to the national galleries of Scotland. The painting has been accepted in lieu of tax arising from the death of Colonel W J Stirling of Keir.
  162

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of recipients receiving family credit(a) in Wales, (b) in Mid Glamorgan and (c) in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. [17929]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the latest estimate of the number of recipients receiving Family Credit (a) in Wales, (b) in Mid Glamorgan and (c) in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept which are specific to Mid Glamorgan, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney but are available for Benefits Agency Offices. The figures have been produced by a computer scan and the latest available is for 10 November 1995. The figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Families in receipt of Family Credit

  Wales

  38,247

  Mid Glamorgan1

  6,722

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Benefit Offices

  1,491

  1 The figure for Mid Glamorgan has been compiled using figures for the Benefit Offices at Aberdare, Bargoed, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd, Porth and Tonypandy.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons individuals who have detachment orders have received arrears notices from the Child Support Agency when their employers have failed to pay the CSA. [17706]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. John Heppell, dated 4 March 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the issues of Child Support Agency arrears notices.

  You asked about the issue of arrears notices by the Agency where an absent parent's method of payment is by Deduction of Earnings Order (DEO). The reason such notices are currently issued is that employers, even when complying with a DEO, can vary the date of their payments; but arrears notices are issued automatically to the absent parent by the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) when payments are more than eight days late.

  The Agency has recognised that this process needs to be amended where a DEO is in force and the employer is complying with it. In April 1996, CSCS will be updated and enhanced. As part of this enhancement CSCS will no longer issue arrears notices to absent parents whose method of payment is DEO. Instead, a monthly

  163
  analysis will be introduced to identify those cases where the absent parent's employer has not operated the DEO correctly. The Agency will follow these up with the employer concerned.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Advertising and Public Relations
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total spending by his Department on advertising and public relations in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and if he will list the major advertising campaigns executed or planned indicating the expenditure on each. [18252]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94: £5,964,988

  1994–95: £3,596,508

  1995–961: £4,400,000

  1 Estimated figure to the end of the year.

  The above figures are for advertising only and include expenditure by the Department's executive agencies. The Department does not incur expenditure on public relations.

  The major1 adverting campaigns, executed and planned by this Department and its agencies are as follows:

  Campaign title

  Amount ex VAT £

  1993–94

  Family Credit

  2,629,664

  Child Support Agency Campaign

  47,835

  Disability Working Allowance

  680,850

  Disability Anti-Discrimination Campaign

  254,468

  Industrial Injuries to Coalminers

  258,723

  1994–95

  Child Support Agency Campaign

  180,353

  Disability Anti-Discrimination Campaign

  764,883

  Pensions

  153,191

  Working with Benefits

  1,715,744

  Disability Working Allowance

  212,765

  1995–96

  Working with Benefits

  1,962,090

  Pensions

  851,063

  Disability Working Allowance

  212,765

  Disability Act

  191,691

  Some aspects of the 1995–96 costs have yet to be finalised.1 The term "major" has been defined as campaigns costing more than £100,000.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what modifications have been made to his Department's computers to accommodate bringing the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996, into effect; and what other costs have been incurred in respect of their implementation. [19112]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The introduction of this legislation has not required modification to any of the Benefits Agency's computer systems.
  164
  Details of other costs involved are set out in the table:

  Information on additional costs arising from the introduction of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 for 1995–96

  Benefit

  Staffing cost1£

  Non-staffing cost2 £

  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance

  316,662

  619,300

  Disability Working Allowance

  none

  none

  Family Credit

  71,721

  689,459

  Income Support

  none

  none

  Invalid Care Allowance

  11,417

  36,500

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  77,516

  62,109

  Total

  477,316

  1,407,368

  1 Reflects the additional administration costs arising from the introduction of this legislation.

  2 Reflects the costs arising from the development and delivery of training to operational staff; the redesign and printing of revised claim forms; the development and distribution of revised procedural guidance.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants have been refused benefit under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 because(a) their cases have been determined since 5 February and (b) they did not claim asylum at the port; and how many of these cases involve children. [19116]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he has issued to local authorities in respect of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 with particular reference to children. [19117]

  Mr. Evans
  The Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 came into force on 5 February 1996. Guidance to accompany the amending regulations was issued by this Department to all local authorities in January 1996, in advance of the implementation date. The guidance does not specifically refer to children as the new arrangements do not affect social service departments' responsibilities under the Children Act 1989.

  Residential Care
  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family homes were sold in the last year for which figures are available to help pay for nursing home and other residential long-term care.[17772]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available centrally.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he proposes to introduce to reduce the level of benefit fraud. [19338]
  165
  Mr. Lilley
  As part of the five-year security strategy which I announced last July, and in the light of the results of benefit reviews of income support and housing benefit which suggest that around 10 per cent. of benefit claims are fraudulent, I propose;

  (a) to double to 600,000 the number of home visits to check new claims for entitlement and review existing ones.

  (b) to increase cross-checking of information about benefit claimant, both within DSS and with local authorities through a new computerised housing benefit central register, to detect fraud.

  (c) to introduce from this autumn the benefit payment card which will virtually eliminate fraud in the payment system.

  (d) to initiate a series of month-long local anti-fraud drives in major urban areas round the country, designed to give people who have just drifted into abusing the benefit system the chance to put their claim right and to catch those who choose not to do so. The drives will be preceded by two weeks of intensive local publicity, leading up to the launch of a "freephone" hotline to tell DSS staff in confidence about suspected fraud; local data-matching exercises; increased numbers of visits to claimants; use of bar-code scanners in post-office to detect stolen order books; and special drives on categories of employers and self-employed likely to be involved in benefit fraud.

  (e) to launch three initiatives involving local authorities. First, a study of a unified computer system to share information with the Benefits Agency, which would help prevent housing benefit fraud. Secondly, a study looking at how best to prevent fraudulent housing benefit claims from entering the system, through improved, standardised methods and checks. Thirdly, encouraging local authorities to set up teams to work alongside the Benefits Agency to tackle organised housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud, sharing the expertise of the Benefits Agency in this field.

  (f) to establish the benefit fraud investigation service on 1 April, through the merger of Employment Service and Benefits Agency security staff. About 1,100 Employment Service investigators will join the Benefits Agency.

  I expect these changes to contribute to a new target for savings from anti-fraud activities of £1.5 billion in 1996–97.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations the British high commission in Lagos made to other European embassies in Lagos regarding action to be taken by European Governments over the death sentence passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa; [18595]

  (2) what discussions the British high commission in Lagos had with other European embassies in Lagos regarding the death sentence passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa. [18594]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British high commission in Lagos has regular meetings with European partners in Lagos. We consult closely on a wide range of human rights issues and continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's plan to raise the violation of human rights in Nigeria at(a) the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and (b) other inter-governmental
  166
  conferences; and if he will support at the Commission on Human Rights the creation of a special rapporteur on violations of human rights in Nigeria. [18470]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are working with our EU and Commonwealth partners to secure a resolution on Nigeria at the UN Commission on Human Rights, including the appointment of a special rapporteur. In addition, we are members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which is considering a range of options to ensure that Nigeria takes steps to respect human rights.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of States for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British high commissioner in Nigeria has made to the Nigerian Government relating to the judicial process faced by the 19 Ogonis currently on trial for murder. [18472]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commissioner has repeatedly made it clear to senior Nigerian Ministers that the international community expects the 19 Ogonis facing trial to be brought before a properly constituted court that respects their basic legal rights.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken(a) by his Department and (b) in co-operation with other Commonwealth countries to promote the improvement of human rights in Nigeria. [18471]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are working with our EU and Commonwealth partners to secure a resolution on Nigeria at the UN Commission on Human Rights, including the appointment of a special rapporteur. In addition, we are members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which is considering a range of options to ensure that Nigeria takes steps to respect human rights.

  National Resources Institute
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what future progress there has been in deciding the future ownership of the National Resources Institute. [19551]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I announced on 14 December that final bids for the NRI were being invited from three groups. Two final bids were received. Following detailed consideration of these in relation to the Government's objectives for the transfer, I have decided to give preferred bidder status to a consortium of the university of Edinburgh, the university of Greenwich, Imperial college of science, technology and medicine and Wye college of the university of London. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, I intend that the NRI should transfer to the new owners as soon as practicable.

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of food and humanitarian aid by British or multilateral agencies has taken place in Iraq. [19059]

  Mr. Hanley
  Food and humanitarian aid is monitored by the Overseas Development Administration through visits to northern Iraq and through regular reporting by non-governmental organisations and multilateral agencies working in Iraq. The ODA also funds monitoring of multilateral water and sanitation projects in Baghdad-controlled Iraq.
  167
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of sanctions on the health of the population of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [19058]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Food and medicines are exempt from sanctions. However, Saddam Hussein's refusal either to comply with the requirements of relevant UN Security Council resolutions or to spend enough of the regime's resources on humanitarian supplies has caused much suffering in Iraq. He has also so far refused to implement UN Security Council resolution 986, which would allow the sale of Iraqi oil for humanitarian supplies, bringing much-needed relief to millions of Iraqis. Since 1991, we have provided £73 million of humanitarian aid to Iraq.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current value of Iraqi assets frozen in Britain; what the value was in 1991; and if he will make a statement. [19110]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The value of Iraqi assets on 1 January 1991 was US$1,363 million. The value at the end of September 1995, the latest figures available, was US$769 million. The figures for the value of Iraqi deposits in UK banks include private as well as Iraqi Government assets. Iraqi assets are frozen under the provisions of UN Security Council resolution 661, which was adopted on 6 August 1990.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have been established with representatives of parties in northern Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [19057]

  Mr. Davis
  We maintain regular contacts with all the main parties in northern Iraq. We welcome the continuing ceasefire between the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic party, and support efforts to achieve a lasting agreement that has the backing of the parties in northern Iraq.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16606]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature of the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Asia House
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government funding has been given to support the work of Asia House. [18567]

  Mr. David Davis
  None, but the Government fully support the work of Asia House and works closely with the organisers to promote the project. In particular, the Deputy Prime Minister will soon host a reception in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to mark the project's launch.
  168

  British Military Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries currently subject to embargoes on the export of British military equipment; when in each case the embargo was imposed; which equipment is covered; and if he will make a statement. [18742]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 27 November 1995,Official Report, column 426–27, which lists the embargoes we currently apply and the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 30 January 1996, Official Report, column 654–55, which gives details of the equipment covered by each of these embargoes. For ease of reference, the following is a list of embargoes and the date of their imposition:

  Country

  Date of imposition

  United Nations embargoes

  Iraq

  6 August 1990

  Libya

  31 March 19921

  Somalia

  23 January 1992

  Liberia

  19 November 1992

  UNITA2 (Angola)

  15 September 1993

  Rwanda3

  17 May 1994

  Former Yugoslavia4

  25 September 1991

  EU embargoes

  China

  26 June 1989

  Burma

  9 July 1991

  Zaire

  7 April 1993

  Sudan

  15 March 1994

  Nigeria5

  11 November 1995

  Former Yugoslavia4

  26 February 1996

  National embargoes

  Iran

  1 March 1993

  Argentina

  5 April 1982

  Voluntary embargoes agreed by the (then) Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

  Armenia

  28 February 1992

  Azerbaijan

  28 February 1992

  1 Came into force is April 1992.

  2 In the case of Angola, there is a mandatory embargo on UNITA. However, UN Security Council 976 of February 1995, calls on both parties to cease any acquisition of arms and war material during the presence in Angola of the UN Peacekeeping Force, UNAVEM III.

  3 In the case of Rwanda, Security Council resolution 1011 of 16 August 1995, decided that restrictions imposed by paragraph 13 of resolution 918 (1994) shall not apply with regard to the sale or supply of arms and related material to the Government of Rwanda.

  4 For the Former Yugoslavia: UN Security Council resolution 1021 of 22 November 1995 established a timetable for phased lift of the arms embargo. Specific details of this can be found in Official Report Lords Column WA71 of 24 January 1996. This has been followed by the adoption of a Common Position on the Former Yugoslavia by the EU on 26 February 1996 at the Foreign Affairs Council.

  5 In the case of Nigeria, the PM announced a UK arms embargo on 11 November. The EU-wide arms embargo against the Nigerian regime came into effect from 20 November 1995.

  169

  Winston Churchill Speech, Missouri
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton, Missouri; and if he will make a statement. [16854]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill's speech is being planned by Westminster college in Fulton, Missouri, in collaboration with the Churchill memorial and the international Churchill societies. Baroness Thatcher will speak at the college before a banquet in the room where Sir Winston gave his address. Her Majesty's Government will be represented by the British consul-general from Chicago. There are no plans for any separate commemorations by Her Majesty's Government.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to recall the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [18945]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The original petition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary from members of the Legislative Council in the Turks and Caicos Islands, requesting the governor's removal, was received in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Monday 4 March. It is being studied and a response will be issued in due course.

  Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of which other signatory states to the European convention on human rights maintain similar laws and practices to those where the United Kingdom has been found in breach. [18971]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No such assessment has been made following findings of breach. Finding of a violation relates to the particular circumstances of the individual case and binds the state concerned. In preparing their response in particular cases, the Government not infrequently draw on a comparative analysis of law and practice in other Council of Europe countries where they are similar to the matter under challenge.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom embassies or high commissions have assisted, funded or commissioned events or meetings of publications to put the case for Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to (i) expand and (ii) initiate innovative and pro-active programmes to make the case for the Union abroad. [18972]

  Mr. Rifkind
  British missions overseas undertake a wide variety of proactive work in disseminating and explaining British Government policy on Northern Ireland, which includes our commitment to Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom as long as a greater number of its population so wish. Examples of 170
  such work are: regular briefing of host Governments, media and other contacts; dissemination of detailed background information, including video and radio material; arranging visits to Northern Ireland by public or press figures to increase their understanding; and arranging overseas visits by British Ministers who take the opportunities to explain Government policy on Northern Ireland.

  Contributing to a clearer understanding overseas of Northern Ireland remains a high priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its embassies and high commissions.

  EU Council (meeting)
  Mr. Garnier
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [19444]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  4 March: Environment

  5 March: Environment

  9 March: Foreign Affairs Council (Informal)

  10 March: Foreign Affairs Council (Informal)

  11 March: Transport

  11 March: Ecofin

  18 March: Agriculture

  19 March: Agriculture

  19 March: Justice/Home Affairs

  20 March: Justice/Home Affairs

  21 March: Telecoms

  25 March: Research

  25 March: Foreign Affairs Council

  26 March: Foreign Affairs Council

  28 March: Industry Council

  29 March: Social Affairs Council

  29 March: European Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  4/5 MARCH: ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL

  "A" Points As advised by council secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Preparation of 4th session of Commission on Sustainable Development (Council conclusions)

  Draft Directive on Biocides (orientation debate on annexes)

  Draft Hazardous Waste Shipment Regulation (possible common position)

  Draft Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Directive (possible common position)

  Draft Directive on Emissions of Off-road Machinery (orientation debate)

  Open debate on Wetlands (Council conclusions)

  Draft revised regulation on Leghold Traps (lunchtime orientation debate)

  CO2 from Cars (exchange of views on Commission communication)

  Community strategy on the Ozone Layer (Council conclusions)

  Adoption of negotiating mandate for protocol to Barcelona Convention

  171

  Adoption of negotiating mandate for Paris Convention (PARCOM)

  Draft Decision revising the Community's 5th Action Programme on the environment and sustainable development (presentation by the Commission)

  Joint meeting with Ministers from Central and Eastern Europe.

  9/10 MARCH: FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL (INFORMAL)

  Agenda not yet available.

  11 MARCH: ECOFIN

  "A" Points

  As advised by council secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Convergence Programmes (possibly)

  Contractual Netting Directive (possibly)

  Council Regulation on Community action in the field of statistics

  Discharge of the Budget and Court of Auditors' report for 1994

  Court of Auditors' Special Report on the Reliability of the Expenditure for 1994

  Commission's report on the implementation of the Court of Auditors' recommendation and of the Council's remarks for the Budget for 1993.

  11 MARCH: TRANSPORT

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Aviation relations with US (debate)

  Negotiations with Switzerland (Commission progress report)

  Trans-European Networks (debate)

  Directive on harmonisation of vehicle tests (largely consolidation of existing measures—common position)

  Inland waterways liberalisation, state aid rules and scrapping scheme (common position)

  Aviation statistics regulation (for agreement by simple majority).

  18–19 MARCH: AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime (possibly)

  Reform of the wine regime (possibly)

  Price fixing

  Geographical indications (possibly)

  Amendment to Directive 64/432 on trade in animals (possibly)

  Plant health—solidarity and responsibility (possibly)

  Veal crates (possibly)

  Hormones (possibly)

  Inspection fees (possibly)

  Pesticides (possibly)

  Equivalence Agreements (possibly)

  Amendment to Directive 90/675 on controls on imports (possibly)

  Amendment to Directive 72/462 on equivalence (possibly)

  Intra Community inspection fees (possibly)

  Amendment to 90/524 on feeding stuffs (possibly)

  19–20 MARCH: JUSTICE/HOME AFFAIRS

  Agenda not yet available.

  21 MARCH: TELECOMS

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  172

  "B" Points

  Directive on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through applications of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP):

  Common position (possibly).

  /Decision

  Decision on action at Community level in the filed of satellite personal communications services in the EU:

  Orientation debate.

  Directive on a common framework for licensing of telecoms services:

  Progress report.

  Directive adapting Directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for a competitive environment in telecommunications:

  Progress report.

  Directive on common rules for the development of community postal services and the improvement of quality service:

  Progress report.

  Council Resolution on the future development of the market for directories and other information services in a liberalised environment (possibly).

  Commission Communication on universal service in telecoms (possibly):

  Commission presentation.

  25 MARCH: RESEARCH COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Decision adapting the fourth framework of programmes of activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration for the European Community and European Atomic Energy Community:

  Orientation debate.

  Communication on International Co-operation:

  Orientation debate

  Council Conclusions (possibly).

  Cooperation with Mediterranean countries (follow up to Barcelona Conference):

  Debate.

  Green Paper on Innovation:

  Debate.

  Joint meeting with Central and Eastern European countries:

  Debate.

  25–26 MARCH: FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL

  Agenda not yet available.

  28 MARCH: INDUSTRY COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  "B" Points

  SMEs:

  Conclusions on co-ordination of Community programmes in favour of SMEs;

  Presentation of Commission's proposal for new multi-annual programme for SMEs.

  Textiles;

  Presentation of Commission communication on competitiveness of textile and clothing industry;

  Conclusions on impact of international developments on EU textile and clothing sector.

  Pharmaceuticals:

  Resolution on competitiveness of EU pharmaceutical industry.

  173

  Defence Industry:

  Presentation of Commission communication on competitiveness of defence industry.

  Maritime Industry:

  Presentation of Commission communication on competitiveness of maritime industry.

  Research and Industry Task Force:

  Commission progress report and discussion.

  29 MARCH: SOCIAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat.

  "B" Points

  Parental Leave:

  Draft Directive endorsing social partners' agreement.

  Draft Directive on Postal Workers.

  Draft Council Recommendation on the Balanced Participation of Men and Women in Decision-Making.

  Commission Communication on the Future of Social Protection:

  Open Debate.

  Commission Report on the Demographic Situation.

  Commission Communication on the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia.

  Draft Decision on Essen Programme.

  Draft Decision on SAFE (health and safety) Programme.

  Draft Decision on Older People Programme.

  29 MARCH: EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  Formal Opening of IGC.

  Agenda not yet available.

  Niaz Ahmed
  Mr. Max Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when the application by Mr. Niaz Ahmed (Ref: IMM/C8853) to join his wife in the United Kingdom was referred to his Department for inquiries to be made in the United Kingdom; on what date the request was received by his Department; when he expects to make a recommendation; and if he will make a statement. [18469]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the hon. Member on 7 February that this application has not been referred to the Home Office. That remains the case.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Enterprise and Higher Education Initiative
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total expenditure in(a) actual and (b) current prices on the enterprise and higher education initiative in each year since 1988; how many higher education institutions have participated in the initiative; and what was the total funding per higher education institution. [17661]
  174
  Mr. Forth
  The total figure for expenditure on the enterprise in higher education initiative in Great Britain is £60 million. It is not possible at this time to give year on year figures for Great Britain but those for England and Wales are given.

  All prices £000

  Year

  Cash prices

  Current prices1

  1988–89

  600

  800

  1989–90

  2,300

  2,960

  1990–91

  5,500

  6,550

  1991–92

  8,700

  9,750

  1992–93

  11,500

  12,390

  1993–94

  9,300

  9,740

  1994–95

  7,730

  7,940

  1995–96

  24,650

  4,650

  Totals

  350,280

  54,780

  1 Calculated using the GPD Deflators.

  2 This is the budget for the year.

  3 This excludes the six Scottish universities which participated for whom responsibility and funds were transferred to the Scottish Office.

  54 higher education institutions in England and Wales were involved and the average funding per institution was £931,000 at cash prices or £1,014,000 at current prices.

  Special Educational Needs Tribunals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average length of time between the lodging of an appeal to a special education needs tribunal and the hearing of the appeal by the tribunal. [18068]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The average length of time between the lodging of an appeal to the special educational needs tribunal and the hearing of the appeal is five months.

  Further details are in the SEN tribunal president's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals which have been lodged with the special educational needs tribunal are currently pending. [18093]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I understand that some 800 appeals which have been lodged with the special educational needs tribunal are currently pending.

  I have asked the president of the tribunal to write to the hon. Member with up-to-date figures for appeals.

  Local Education Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were(a) the numbers of staff and (b) the administrative costs incurred by each education authority in England for the year 1994–95. [18855]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows for each local education authority(a) the latest available full-time equivalent number of teaching and non-teaching staff as at June 1995; and (b) provisional administrative expenditure for 1994–95.
  175

  LEAs administration costs

  Gross expenditure 1994–95

  LEA

  Teaching and non-teaching staff

  Administration costs (provisional) £000

  Corporation of London

  492

  n/a

  Camden

  n/a

  7,705

  Greenwich

  4,125

  n/a

  Hackney

  n/a

  8,062

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  n/a

  4,010

  Islington

  2,223

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,284

  2,735

  Lambeth

  3,503

  11,588

  Lewisham

  3,499

  n/a

  Southwark

  n/a

  8,401

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  2,045

  4,396

  City of Westminster

  1,974

  n/a

  Barking

  2,695

  3,281

  Barnet

  3,772

  3,150

  Bexley

  n/a

  3,731

  Brent

  n/a

  4,304

  Bromley

  2,021

  3,802

  Croydon

  3,889

  3,929

  Ealing

  3,061

  6,602

  Enfield

  3,355

  6,379

  Haringey

  n/a

  4,617

  Harrow

  2,489

  n/a

  Havering

  n/a

  3,096

  Hillingdon

  n/a

  5,014

  Hounslow

  3,045

  n/a

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,525

  2,144

  Merton

  1,818

  n/a

  Newham

  3,927

  5,202

  Redbridge

  3,186

  2,935

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,843

  2,405

  Sutton

  1,836

  4,744

  Waltham Forest

  3,178

  8,935

  Birmingham

  15,406

  18,724

  Coventry

  5,092

  6,967

  Dudley

  n/a

  3,808

  Sandwell

  4,283

  4,726

  Solihull

  3,043

  2,628

  Walsall

  4,504

  4,563

  Wolverhampton

  4,009

  n/a

  Knowsley

  2,607

  3,541

  Liverpool

  n/a

  n/a

  St. Helens

  2,806

  2,309

  Sefton

  n/a

  4,258

  Wirral

  5,171

  5,457

  Bolton

  n/a

  5,558

  Bury

  2,608

  2,779

  Manchester

  8,518

  8,420

  Oldham

  3,795

  4,595

  Rochdale

  3,298

  n/a

  Salford

  4,113

  7,086

  Stockport

  3,718

  3,659

  Tameside

  2,968

  3,615

  Trafford

  3,007

  1,733

  Wigan

  3,942

  3,957

  Barnsley

  3,422

  n/a

  Doncaster

  4,892

  n/a

  Rotherham

  3,504

  3,958

  Sheffield

  6,162

  7,665

  Bradford

  8,087

  7,736

  Calderdale

  n/a

  n/a

  Kirklees

  6,192

  8,631

  Leeds

  11,192

  10,728

  Wakefield

  4,814

  4,304

  Gateshead

  3,056

  3,954

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  n/a

  5,352

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  1,583

  South Tyneside

  2,398

  2,826

  Sunderland

  4,435

  n/a

  176

  LEAs administration costs

  Gross expenditure 1994–95

  LEA

  Teaching and non-teaching staff

  Administration costs (provisional) £000

  Isle of Scilly

  1—

  33

  Avon

  13,207

  14,014

  Bedfordshire

  8,015

  6,908

  Berkshire

  n/a

  7,270

  Buckinghamshire

  7,328

  14,029

  Cambridgeshire

  8,557

  8,383

  Cheshire

  13,083

  11,470

  Cleveland

  n/a

  4,750

  Cornwall

  6,006

  5,012

  Cumbria

  5,654

  4,554

  Derbyshire

  12,822

  5,518

  Devon

  n/a

  9,226

  Dorset

  6,119

  7,209

  Durham

  8,437

  7,458

  East Sussex

  n/a

  9,907

  Essex

  13,161

  8,301

  Gloucestershire

  4,903

  6,934

  Hampshire

  18,412

  n/a

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,620

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  12,022

  12,275

  Humberside

  15,607

  14,307

  Isle of Wight

  1,647

  3,636

  Kent

  n/a

  30,198

  Lancashire

  19,599

  22,798

  Leicestershire

  14,962

  12,779

  Lincolnshire

  5,534

  8,234

  Norfolk

  9,085

  5,916

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  8,609

  Northamtonshire

  n/a

  6,886

  Northumberland

  5,374

  6,505

  Nottinghamshire

  13,464

  n/a

  Oxfordshire

  7,477

  8,848

  Shropshire

  5,349

  n/a

  Somerset

  5,871

  5,651

  Staffordshire

  15,358

  3,310

  Suffolk

  9,213

  6,992

  Surrey

  n/a

  13,251

  Warwickshire

  6,585

  n/a

  West Sussex

  8,795

  10,950

  Wiltshire

  6,274

  8,276

  n/a = not yet available.

  1 Within Cornwall.

  Higher Education (Funding)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the level of funding allocated by the Government to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in respect of indirect costs relating to research projects for each of the financial years from 1990–91 to 1994–95. [18661]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government notify the Higher Education Funding Council for England of a total figure for funding for teaching and research. The funding council advises on the split between resources for teaching and research and allocates block grant to institutions. Funding for research from the funding council is intended to contribute to the indirect costs associated with specific projects funded by the research councils and to support basic research undertaken at institutions' direction. Universities are expected to charge full costs to industrial and other sponsors of research.
  177
  The funding council was established under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and assumed responsibility for paying grant to institutions on 1 April 1993. In the academic year 1993–94, it allocated a total of £618,150,500 for research. In 1994–95, that figure was £626,664,907. It is not possible to identify an element in respect of indirect costs.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils aged three and a half will lose their reception places under the Government's nursery voucher scheme. [18798]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No three-year-old should lose a school place as a result of the nursery voucher scheme because there will be no deduction from resources local education authorities are currently making available for such places.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is(a) the estimated number of four-year-olds eligible, (b) the number of full-time equivalent places already available for (i) each existing category of provider and (ii) in total, (c) the additional number of full-time equivalent places expected from existing and new providers by category and total and (d) the estimated deficit or surplus number of places, in each of the areas of local education authorities participating in the voucher scheme for early age education. [19109]

  Mr. Squire
  The best estimates of the number of four-year-olds in January 1995, with and without a place in the maintained sector in each of the phase 1 local education authorities are given. Estimates of participation are less reliable when broken down by both year group and LEA area. The Department does not hold information on the number of places in the private and voluntary sectors.

  LEA

  Estimated number of 4 year olds

  Estimated number of 4 year olds without a place in the maintained sector in January 1995

  Estimated number of 4 year olds in maintained provision at January 1995

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  700

  2,600

  Westminster

  1,900

  800

  1,100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  850

  800

  Norfolk

  9,300

  3,000

  6,300

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 280, if she will estimate the shortfall in places available relative to the number of children whose parents require places under the nursery voucher scheme. [18942]

  Mr. Squire
  Based on estimated population and participation figures, some 145,000 four-year-olds in England were not in nursery education places in the maintained sector in January 1995. Many of these have places in the voluntary or private sectors.
  178

  Project Work
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances a claimant participating in a part-time education or training course will not be required to attend the compulsory work experience element of project work; and, where such attendance is, required, what protection will be afforded to the claimant's rights in respect of course attendance. [18752]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 4 March 1996): Claimants who are participating in part-time education and training will not be exempted, for that reason, from the requirement to attend project work for a 21-hour week. Providers of work experience will be required, however, to tailor the pattern of hours in order to accommodate the claimant's studies.

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place a copy of the review report on the travel-to-interview scheme and the date on which the report was based in the Library.[19102]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about placing a copy of the review report on the Travel to Interview Scheme and the raw data upon which the report was based in the House of Commons Library.

  It is anticipated that a copy of the report will be placed in the House of Commons Library. Research reports are designed to be comprehensive in their content so it is not normal practice to place copies of the raw data in the Library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people unemployed for between four and 13 weeks, by region, have applied for, and how many have been granted, assistance from the travel-to-interview scheme since its inception. [19100]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many people unemployed for between four and thirteen weeks, by region, have applied for, and how many have been granted, assistance from the Travel to Interview Scheme since its inception.

  I am unable to provide the information you ask for, as my Jobcentres do not record how long people who apply for TIS have been unemployed. However, during a recent evaluation it was recorded that 26% of applications were from people unemployed for less than 13 weeks.

  I hope this is helpful.
  179

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days were taken to carry out European social fund audits on each TEC in Greater London. [18517]

  Mr. Paice
  Since September 1992, five visits have been carried out by auditors from the Department's ESF unit and from European institutions to TECs in Greater London looking specifically at European social fund activity. A total of 10 man days have been spent by Department staff on site visits, and a total of six days have been spent by European institution auditors.

  In addition to the site visits, time has been spent on preparatory and follow-up work. The amount of time spent on this activity is not recorded on an individual case basis.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many different types of audit each TEC in Great Britain has undergone. [18519]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils in England are private limited companies and, since they were established in 1990–91, they have been audited each year by their statutory auditors. They are also required to have an effective internal audit function.

  Government office financial appraisal and monitoring teams check contract compliance regularly and each TEC is also subject to Government office audits on health and safety and quality assurance arrangements with its suppliers.

  The Department's internal audit team also visits a small sample of TECs each year as part of a biennial examination of Government office expenditure. Their role is to provide the necessary assurance to the DFEE accounting officer that moneys voted by Parliament have been properly disbursed. They also undertake work on behalf of other Government Departments to minimise the number of different Government auditors visiting TECs.

  The National Audit Office visits a small sample of TECs each year as part of its examination of the Department's appropriation account. The NAO may also from time to time pay visits to TECs as part of its wider role in researching, for example, value-for-money issues.

  Where TECs are in receipt of funding from the European Commisison, they are under an obligation to grant access to representatives of the Commission of the European Court of Auditors to examine its records at any reasonable time. The Department also conducts specialised monitoring of TEC claims from the European social fund.

  Responsibility for auditing arrangements for TECs in Wales and local enterprise councils in Scotland rests respectively with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days were taken to carry out quality and health and safety audits on each TEC in Greater London. [18516]
  180
  Mr. Paice
  Government office for London staff spent 14 person days on quality and health and safety audits in each training and enterprise council in London.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days were taken to carry out financial control audits on each TEC in Greater London. [18518]

  Mr. Paice
  The number of person days spent on financial controls audits in London training and enterprise councils during the last 12 months was as follows:

  AZTEC: 216

  CENTEC: 208

  CILNTEC: 163

  LETEC: 229

  NLTEC: 169

  NWLTEC: 186

  SOLOTEC: 217

  WLTEC: 261

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost of carrying out European social fund audits on each of the Greater London TECs. [18520]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of carrying out quality and health and safety audits on each of the Greater London TECs. [18514]

  Mr. Paice
  The estimated cost for each training and enterprise council of carrying out quality and health and safety audits during the last 12 months was £2,100.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of carrying out financial control audits on each of the Greater London TECs. [18515]

  Mr. Paice
  The estimated cost of carrying out financial control audits in each of the London training and enterprise councils during the last 12 months was as follows:

  AZTEC: £27,000

  CENTEC: £25,000

  CILNTEC: £20,000

  LETEC: £24,000

  NLTEC: £17,000

  NWLTEC: £23,000

  SOLOTEC: £22,000

  WLTEC: £31,000

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress Essex, North London and North West London training and enterprise councils, and Northamptonshire chamber of commerce, training and enterprise are making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [19337]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce the award of a three-year licence to Essex, North London and North West London training and enterprise councils and Northamptonshire chamber of commerce, training and enterprise which have now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards we set.
  181

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will provide the GCSE average point score (A*=7) per 15-year-old pupil of each secondary comprehensive school in England by local education authority in each year from 1991 to 1995 as calculated by her Department, together with the number of such pupils per school in each year and the percentages of those pupils achieving at least five GCSEs at grades A to C, at least five GCSEs at Grades A to G, at least one GCSE at grades A to C and at least one GCSE at Grades A to G; [18887]

  (2) if she will provide figures for the average number of GCSE subjects entered per pupil, to three decimal places, in each year since 1991 for each individual 20th group of all 15-year-old pupils ranked according to their average point scores (A*=7), for the cumulative 20th groups, indicating the numbers of each group and of the whole cohort in each case, in respect of (a) all such pupils in England, (b) all such pupils in the local education authority maintained sector, excluding those of grant-maintained schools, (c) all such pupils in the grant-maintained sector, (d) all such pupils in the maintained sector excluding those from independent schools and (e) all such pupils from the independent sector. [18891]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the answer in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans the Office for Standards in Education has to introduce a method of assessing the comparative effectiveness of secondary comprehensive schools in terms of their pupils' GCSE achievements in relation to their capabilities, as measured by statistically estimated GCSE scores derived from social characteristics, in all its inspections from April 1996; to what extent these will apply the method and characteristics set out in Ofsted's report of July 1995 "Assessing Schools' GCSE Performance"; and if she will make a statement; [18888]

  (2) if she will list (a) Ofsted's comparative school effectiveness indicators alongside the name of each school and its local education authority for each of the secondary comprehensive schools included in the analysis of its report "Assessing Schools' GCSE Performance" of July 1995, (b) Ofsted's expected three-year average of the annual GCSE point score (A*=7) for each of these schools for 1992 to 1994, (c) each school's actual three-year average of its point scores in the same period and (d) such information for the period 1993 to 1995 as is available; [18889]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the Ofsted report of July 1995 entitled, "Assessing Schools' GCSE Performance", in respect of the findings of its research on the indicators of the comparative effectiveness of all English secondary comprehensive schools in terms of the standards of GCSE achievements in relation of Ofsted's statistically estimated assessments of pupils' capabilities. [18890]
  182
  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

HEALTH

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes for vetting staff in after-school clubs and play schemes after their deregulation. [18039]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are currently considering this.

  Childless Couples
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities provide NHS treatment for(a) assisted and (b) surrogate pregnancy for childless couples; and if he will make a statement; [17965]

  (2) what plans he has to designate (a) assisted and (b) surrogate pregnancies for childless couples on the NHS as clinically essential; and if he will make a statement. [17964]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on which health authorities provide national health service treatment for assisted and surrogate pregnancies is not available centrally.

  The Department of Health does not designate which services are clinically essential. This is a matter for clinicians. Decisions about the availability of infertility services are for clinicians and individual health authorities to determine, as they are in the best position to decide priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what rights community health councils have to make representations on the medical care decisions taken by general practitioners involved in total fundholding; [17958]

  (2) what obligations are placed on general practitioners involved in total fundholding to consult with representatives of patients to identify community needs for medical care. [17957]

  Mr. Malone
  Total purchasing pilot projects operate under devolved purchasing arrangements from health authorities. In the same way as health authorities, they are required to consult community health councils about significant service changes. Similarly, in accordance with the priorities and planning guidance for the NHS and the accountability framework for general practitioner fundholding, total purchasing projects are expected to involve patients in the planning and development of services. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Tameside Acute Care Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost of severance payments made by Tameside Acute Care trust to achieve its proposed reduction in the number of managers; [17933]
  183
  (2) if he will publish a complete schedule of the severance costs of health authorities and trusts incurred to meet the management reduction targets for 1996–97. [17944]

  Mr. Malone
  These are local matters and this information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Maggie Aikman
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to recover a proportion of the severance payment made to Mrs. Maggie Aikman by the Burnley Health Care trust following her appointment as finance director to Gwent health authority. [18036]

  Mr. Malone
  I am taking no such action.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimate of the population of England and Wales. [18330]

  Mr. Horam
  The mid-1994 estimate of the resident population for England and Wales is 51,620,500. This is the latest available.

  Vacant General Practitioner Posts
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received criticising the Medical Practices Committee's power to decide whether vacant general practitioner posts should be abolished or advertised. [18348]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in each of the last five years the Medical Practices Committee has decided to disperse the patient list of a vacant general practitioner post following a recommendation by a health authority that the post be advertised. [18457]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Medical Practices Committee
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the preparation of the day-to-day casework of the Medical Practices Committee is done manually. [18437]

  Mr. Malone
  The preparation of day-to-day casework of the Medical Practices Committee is a matter for the chairman and members of the Medical Practices Committee.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to whether it is appropriate that the Medical Practices Committee may disperse a patient list regardless of a family health services authority recommendation to the contrary. [18331]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on whether patient lists should be advertised or dispersed are made by the Medical Practices Committee in pursuit of its statutory function to maintain an even distribution of general medical 184
  practitioners throughout England and Wales. The committee should take the views of health authorities into account.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the overall computerisation of the Medical Practices Committee has taken place. [18473]

  Mr. Malone
  The committee's secretariat has access to the Department's computerised office information system. Further computerisation will be subject to the committee submitting a full business case.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to his Department of financing the Medical Practices Committee in each of the last five years. [18332]

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

  Year

  Budget £

  1991–92

  408,000

  1992–93

  358,000

  1993–94

  357,000

  1994–95

  394,000

  1995–96

  383,000

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health within what time scale a health authority must present its recommendations to the Medical Practices Committee when a general practitioner post falls vacant. [18349]

  Mr. Malone
  Regulation 11(5) of the General Medical Services Regulations 1992, as amended, requires family health services authorities to consult with the local medical committee before submitting any recommendation to the Medical Practices Committee on the need to fill vacant posts. No formal time scale is laid down.

  HIV (Anti-viral Medicines)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the Delta trial in the United Kingdom and (b) the protease inhibitor trials in the USA; and what steps he is taking to ensure that patients with HIV have ready access to combination therapies of dual or triple anti-viral medicines. [18489]

  Mr. Horam
  Preliminary results from the recent Delta trial on combination therapy were very encouraging for patients who have not taken AZT previously and publication of the full results is expected this summer. The American trials on protease inhibitors are showing promising results. The Government have made substantial sums of money available for HIV and AIDS services. 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.

  NHS Trust Chairpersons (Crown Cars)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has recently changed the guidelines relating to the issue of crown cars to chairpersons of NHS trusts. [18345]
  185
  Mr. Malone
  There have not been any recent changes to the guidelines on the issue of crown cars to chairmen of national health service trusts. The crown car scheme relates only to those staff employed by NHS bodies and there are no comparable provisions for chairmen and non-executive directors of NHS trusts.

  NHS Trusts (Administration Costs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order the amount spent on administration in each NHS trust in England. [18288]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Section 64 Grants
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many successful applications for section 64 grant aid funding for 1996–97 went to(a) non-London organisations and (b) new applicants. [18340]

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers are currently in the process of considering applications for grants under the section 64 general scheme in 1996–97. Individual organisations will be notified of the outcome as soon as consideration of their application is complete.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public and private beds there(a) were in 1985, (b) were in 1990 and (c) are currently in the Leeds general infirmary, St. James hospital and in the Leeds Healthcare region as a whole. [18343]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally is shown in the tables. Organisational changes that have taken place over the 10-year period mean that data are not directly comparable.

  Average daily number of NHS beds, wards open night and day

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  Leeds District Health Authority

  1985

  1,232

  1,379

  5,717

  1990–91

  1,223

  1,369

  4,478

  1994–95

  1,492

  1,117

  4,078

  Source: DH SH3 returns (1985); KHO3 returns (1990–91 and 1994–95).

  Amenity Beds (private beds)

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  Leeds District Health Authority

  1985

  11

  0

  16

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: DH SH3 returns (1985): KHO2 returns (1990–91).

  Information on numbers of amenity beds ceased to be collected centrally from 1 April 1991 when the power of authorisation for private beds was delegated to health authorities and trusts.
  186

  Patient Numbers
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are registered by the family health services authorities in England and Wales. [18367]

  Mr. Malone
  The available data are contained in the general medical services statistics for England and Wales (April 1995), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Legal Costs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the collection of legal costs he is awarded by the courts following an individual's litigation against him and his Department. [18478]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has no specific policy on enforcement of costs orders. Each case is decided on the basis of the costs incurred and the difficulty and cost of enforcement. Where a case is struck out at an early stage, the costs involved are minimum and although an order for costs may be sought, the costs of enforcement are rarely justified.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions the chief medical officer has discussed the control of MRSA with Houghs Healthcare. [18826]

  Mr. Horam
  The chief medical officer has had no discussions with Houghs Healthcare. He is aware of the leaflet about MRSA which Houghs Healthcare has sent to all Members of Parliament and considers it inaccurate.

  Dorset Community Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ascertain and publish the reasons for the resignation of Ms Vanessa White, the chief executive of Dorset community trust, and the amount of severance payments made to her. [18827]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the trust.

  Prodigy Project
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the medicines listed in the Prodigy project are(a) generic and (b) brand-named; and how this balance was reached. [18736]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 19 December 1995, columns 1154–55.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the establishment of a national formulary for prescribing, and if he intends the Prodigy project to be a pilot for a formulary. [18727]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans to establish a national prescribing formulary. General practitioners including those using the Prodigy system, are free to prescribe the drugs of their choice.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the aim of the Prodigy project. [18734]
  187
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 18 December 1995, columns 946.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list how the money allocated by his Department to the Prodigy project is being spent; and what sums are being contributed by the participating IT software companies. [18770]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on 18 December 1995, column 946. Information relating to expenditure by the participating information technology software companies is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the IT software companies participating in the Prodigy project. [18733]

  Mr. Malone
  AAH Meditel; EMIS; Genisyst; Medical Care Systems (in conjunction with Digitalis of the Netherlands) and VAMP.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the numbers and types of general practices participating in the Prodigy project, (b) their locations by region or district and (c) their fundholding status; and if he will make a statement on how the practices were chosen. [18769]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on 18 December 1995, column 945.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations, and from whom, he has so far received on the Prodigy project. [18735]

  Mr. Malone
  Representations have been made by a number of bodies including patient organisations, pharmaceutical companies and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. In addition, views have been expressed by professional medical bodies, including the General Medical Services Council and the Royal College of General Practitioners as part of the consultation process.

  Live Births
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births were registered in England and Wales during 1995. [18860]

  Mr. Horam
  The provisional count of the number of live births registered in England and Wales during 1995 is 646,511.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment at the end of each of the last five years. [18828]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England at 31 March 1991–95", copies of which are available in the Library.
  188

  Lindane
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on links between lindane usage and population cancer clusters. [18728]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health's independent expert advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reviewed the available epidemiological data on breast cancer in women and levels of lindane in serum and breast fat tissue at its meeting on the 16 March 1995. The committee concluded that there was no clear evidence of an association between serum and levels of lindane in fat and breast cancer at the present time, and recommended that the matter be kept under review. No research has been specifically commissioned by the Department.

  Neurological Services, Sussex
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last assessed plans for neurological services in Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [18660]

  Mr. Horam
  The provision of neurological services in Sussex is a matter for the health authorities concerned, which are currently considering options for the development of neurosciences and neurosurgery services. Their decision may require to be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions he has made in his calculation of the cost to local authorities of implementing the changes to capital asset levels for long-term care of(a) the cost of local authority residential care (i) in London and (ii) outside London, (b) the cost of private and voluntary residential care (i) in London and (ii) outside London, (c) the cost of nursing home care (i) in London and (ii) outside London, (d) the average client contribution to each type of residential care, (e) the number of current residents who will be affected by the proposed changes in capital asset levels, (f) the number of self-funders who will now become eligible for assistance in (i) nursing homes and (ii) residential homes and the consequent additional costs to local authorities and (g) the number of new entrants to residential care who will receive local authority support in 1996–97. [18963]

  Mr. Bowis
  A range of factors and assumptions was used in calculating this cost, including consideration of a survey conducted by the local authority associations.

  Emergency Care Services
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the future of emergency care services. [19552]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tomorrow.
  189

  Capital Limits (Residential Accommodation)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the final allocation in 1996–97 to social services authorities in England in respect of costs incurred as a result of the raising from 8 April of the capital limits for charges for residential accommodation. [19553]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Following consultation with the local authority associations about the implications of the changes to the capital limits, the Government have decided, subject to parliamentary approval of the 1996–97 main estimates, to make available £64.487 million for English social services authorities in 1996–97. The increase compared with the element for England underlying the figures published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report, 1996–97", will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure for 1996–97. Subject to parliamentary approval, this provision will be made available to local authorities through a special grant in 1996–97; thereafter these resources will be taken into account in the calculation of the revenue support grant in the normal way. Consequential provisions will be made for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Capital Disregard Rules (Residential and Nursing Homes)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he plans to announce the distribution formula for additional funding to local authorities as a consequence of the changes in capital disregard rules for assessment for residential and nursing homes; [18974]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total reductions of income to local authorities as a result of changes to capital disregard rules for assessment for residential and nursing homes; [18975]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) today.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those private finance initiative schemes in which the Capita Group is(a) expressing an interest and (b) bidding. [19178]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is for individual national health services trusts and health authorities to determine the private sector companies that they negotiate with when preparing a private finance initiative scheme.

  GP Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual average cost of prescriptions per patient prescribed by(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners for each year since the introduction of fundholding for which the figures are available for (i) England, (ii) each regional health authority and (iii) each family health service authority. [14967]
  190
  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 February 1996, c. 562]: I regret that there was an error in the information provided. The correct information available is shown in the table.

  Prescribing costs (£ NIC/PU)—England

  GP fundholders

  Non GP fundholders

  1991–92

  36.92

  38.84

  1992–93

  41.40

  43.64

  1993–94

  45.88

  48.20

  1994–95

  50.24

  52.28

  1995–96 (to Q2)

  52.16

  54.48

  1. NIC/PU=net ingredient cost per prescribing unit.

  2. NIC is essentially the cost of prescriptions before allowing for pharmacists' discounts and container costs.

  3. PUs are a weighting used to adjust for the higher cost of drugs for older people. Each person counts as 1 PU for under 65-year-olds, 3 PUs for 65-years-olds and older.

  4. The two groups (Fundholding GPs/Non-Fundholding GPs) are not exclusive—during the period some non fundholders will have become fundholding and vice versa.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were listed on the National Criminal Intelligence Service's database of suspected football hooligans at the end of each season since 1990–91; and how many are currently listed; [17851]

  (2) how many foreign nationals from each of the countries participating in the Euro '96 championship are listed on the National Criminal Intelligence Service's database of suspected football hooligans. [17852]

  Mr. Maclean
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service football unit's computer system does not retain information about the number of people listed on the database on a season-by-season basis. The names of 6,010 suspected or known football hooligans are on the system at present. The database does not hold information concerning foreign nationals.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that foreign nationals convicted of football-related offences in their home country are prevented from attending the Euro '96 championships. [17850]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police are working closely with the Immigration Service to ensure that foreign nationals convicted of football-related offences coming to the United Kingdom for Euro '96 are identified on arrival and, if appropriate, refused entry.

  The majority of those attending the championships will be nationals of the European Economic Area, EEA—which comprises the 15 member states of the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—who can be refused entry to the United Kingdom where information on their past conduct, which can include previous convictions, suggests that they pose a genuine and serious threat to public safety. Non-EEA nationals can be refused entry to the United Kingdom under the relevant provisions of the immigration rules.
  191
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Premier league and Football league clubs together with the number of people arrested and subsequently given an exclusion order under the Public Order Act 1986 for each season since 1990–91. [17849]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total number of exclusion orders made since part IV of the Public Order Act 1986 came into force on 1 August 1987, is 6,303; 308 orders are currently extant.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make available to hon. Members the review of the case for statutory regulation of the private security industry. [17950]

  Mr. Maclean
  Our review is a continuing exercise to examine the case for regulation of the private security industry. The Home Affairs Committee report has made a valuable contribution to our considerations and the Government's response will reflect our conclusions.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Charity Commission investigated payments to Efficiency in Local Government Ltd. from the Foundation for Business Responsibilities as part of its inquiries into the foundation. [18095]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Charity Commission has not carried out any such investigation.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department on what dates the Charity Commission's second inquiry into the payments by the Foundation for Business Responsibilities to Marketforce Communications(a) began and (b) ended; when the Charity Commission received the list of donors to the foundation; if he will make a statement on the Charity Commission's access to the research projects and leaflets which were produced by Marketforce Communications on behalf of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the activities of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities since 1992. [18201]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The Charity Commission's second inquiry began on 18 November 1993 and ended on 31 March 1995. It is regretted that the answer given to the hon. Member on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 697–98, mistakenly referred to this as a period of four and a half months. A list of donors to the foundation was received by the commission on 23 December 1991. The commission has a copy of one leaflet produced by Marketforce Communications Ltd., which was provided in connection with the first inquiry. It is understood that, since 1992, the foundation has been involved in the sponsorship of and participation in research and educational activities covering subjects such as health issues of employees, insider trading, business ethics and responsible global marketing.
  192

  Drugs (Searches)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people stopped and searched for possible drugs in the Metropolitan police area during 1995. [18263]

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics on stops and searches for 1995 are not yet available.

  Fire Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of setting up a national committee of inquiry into the structure, funding and organisation of the fire services. [18289]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such intention at present. The Fire Service has recently been subject to a major value-for-money study by the Audit Commission. The resulting report made important recommendations which are being pursued by the organisations concerned through the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and elsewhere.

  National Joint Unit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to integrate the national joint unit with(a) the National Criminal Intelligence Service and (b) the proposed national crime squad for England and Wales. [18335]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans to integrate the national joint unit with the National Criminal Intelligence Service or a national crime squad.

  Metropolitan Police (Ethnic Minority Officers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of ethnic minority police officers in the Metropolitan police area; and what ranks such officers hold in respect of(a) men and (b) women. [18295]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information below, obtained from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, is correct as at 29 February.

  Ethnic minority officers in the Metropolitan police

  Rank

  Male

  Female

  Superintendent

  1

  0

  Chief Inspector

  4

  0

  Inspector

  9

  1

  Sergeant

  45

  4

  Constable

  556

  177

  Totals

  615

  182

  Prisons (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of drug finds in each of the prisons in the Greater Manchester area in each of the last 12 months. [18257]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  193
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of drug finds in prisons in the Greater Manchester area in each of the last 12 months.

  The attached table shows the number of drug finds in Her Majesty's Prisons Hindley and Manchester for the period 1 February 1995 to 31 January 1996.

  Reported drugs finds 1 February 1995 to 31 January 1996 HMP Hindley and HMP Manchester

  Hindley

  Manchester

  Month totals

  February

  Barbiturate

  1

  —

  Cannabis

  9

  4

  Heroin

  —

  1

  15

  March

  Cannabis

  10

  5

  Heroin

  —

  1

  16

  April

  Cannabis

  7

  2

  Cocaine

  —

  1

  Heroin

  —

  1

  11

  May

  Cannabis

  3

  4

  Cannabis

  Plant

  —

  1

  Heroin

  1

  —

  9

  June

  Amphetamine

  —

  1

  Cannabis

  8

  3

  Heroin

  —

  1

  13

  July

  Cannabis

  6

  12

  Heroin

  —

  2

  Other

  —

  1

  21

  August

  Amphetamine

  —

  2

  Cannabis

  8

  8

  Cocaine

  1

  —

  LSD

  —

  1

  Other

  1

  1

  22

  September

  Cannabis

  9

  3

  Cocaine

  —

  2

  Heroin

  —

  2

  16

  October

  Amphetamine

  —

  1

  Cannabis

  8

  3

  Heroin

  —

  1

  13

  November

  Cannabis

  13

  4

  Other

  —

  2

  19

  December

  Barbiturate

  1

  —

  Cannabis

  13

  9

  23

  January

  Cannabis

  7

  5

  Cocaine

  —

  1

  Heroin

  —

  1

  Other

  2

  —

  16

  Total

  108

  86

  194

  194

  John Porter Charitable Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations into the John Porter Charitable Trust have been carried out by the Charity Commission since 1990; what prompted these investigations; and what were their conclusions. [18203]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: An inquiry by the Charity Commission into the John Porter Charitable Trust was conducted between August 1992 and March 1993 and prompted by the commission's own programme of monitoring charity accounts. It did not reveal any material issues which required further investigation.

  Fire Service College
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the proposals for dealing with the Fire Service College and its existing debt; and if he will make a statement on the future plans for maintaining the service training provision. [18731]

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

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Government's response to the report on the options necessary for the continuation of the Fire Service College. [19108]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 13 February,Official Report, column 512.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the restrictions on persons excusable from jury service as of right(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other EU countries. [18767]

  Mr. Maclean
  The entitlement to be excused from jury service as of right is restricted to Members of Parliament, the forces, and medical and other similar professions. It has long been accepted that these groups should have a right to be excused on the ground of their special and personal duties to the state, or because of their special and personal responsibilities for the immediate relief of pain or suffering. The royal commission on criminal justice considered the arrangements for selection of jurors but made no recommendation to change the restrictions. We have no present plans to assess the practice in other European Union countries.

  Pat Molloy (Dental Records)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 February,Official Report, column 841, if he will make an oral statement on the dental records of Pat Molloy. [18957]
  195
  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. The relevant information has been disclosed to the solicitors acting for the late Mr. Molloy's estate.

  Prisoners' Brains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have had their brains removed for medical research in the last year for which figures are available. [18909]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question on the number of prisoners who have had their brains removed for medical research in the last year for which figures are available.

  When an inmate dies in the custody of the Prison Service the disposal of the body becomes a matter for the coroner and the next of kin. Prison Service staff would not be involved in soliciting body parts either for organ donation or medical research whatever the wishes of the inmate might have been.

  Stalking
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to make stalking a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement. [16380]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 6 February, Official Report, column 111.

  Disabled Prisoners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the guidelines issued to prison governors on what provision should be made for prisoners who are physically disabled. [18321]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will place in the Library of the House the guidelines to prison governors on what provision should be made for prisoners who are physically disabled.

  Relevant guidance is contained in Prison Standing Orders 1A 46–47 and 7F 6–7 and 15, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. In addition, all prison governors received in March 1995 a copy of research report "The Deaf in Prison" by a former prison officer which was a helpful exposition of the problems and needs of deaf prisoners. Copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  196
  Arrangements for the management of prisoners with physical disabilities are currently under review in consultation with organisations representing those with hearing, sight and other physical disabilities. We expect to issue revised guidance during 1996–97.

  Peter Clowes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons no decision was made by his Department in relation to the application for parole by Peter Clowes by the time of the deadline on 20 February. [18323]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Mr Clowes's case, like many other parole applications, had to be given full and careful consideration on its merits. Every effort was made to complete the various stages of the process by 20 February, but the need for additional information and advice in the final stages meant that a decision could not be reached until two days later.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners aged 15 and 16 years were being held in young offenders institutions and remand centres in England and Wales on the most recent date for which information is available; and if he will list the establishments concerned and the numbers held in each(a) on remand and (b) following sentence; [18373]

  (2) how many young people aged 15 and 16 years were being held in establishments other than young offender institutions on the most recent date for which information is available; and if he will list the establishments concerned and the numbers held in each (a) on remand and (b) following sentence; [18374]

  (3) how many young people aged 15 and 16 years were being held in private prison establishments institutions on the most recent date for which information is available; and if he will list the establishments concerned and the numbers held in each (a) on remand and (b) following sentence. [18375]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General of the Prison Service, to reply to your recent Questions asking, how many persons aged 15 and 16 years were being held in young offenders' institutions and remand centres, private prisons and those held in establishments other than young offender institutions in England and Wales on the latest available date; in which establishments they were held; and if they were held on remand or under sentence.

  The latest information is for 31 January 1996 and is given in the attached table.
  197

  Population of 15 and 16-year-olds in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 January 19961

  15-year-olds

  16-year-olds

  Remand

  Sentence

  Total

  Remand

  Sentence

  Total

  Remand centres

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Exeter

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Feltham

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Glen Parva

  4

  —

  4

  19

  —

  19

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Hindley

  5

  —

  5

  21

  3

  24

  Low Newton

  7

  —

  7

  10

  —

  10

  Northallerton

  1

  —

  1

  15

  —

  15

  Norwich

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Swansea

  1

  —

  1

  6

  5

  11

  Total remand centres (male)

  19

  —

  19

  80

  8

  88

  Closed YOIs (male)

  Aylesbury

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  Brinsford

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Castington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Feltham

  —

  4

  4

  —

  13

  13

  Glen Parva

  —

  3

  3

  —

  12

  12

  Moorland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  8

  8

  Onley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Swinfen Hal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Total closed YOIs (male)

  —

  10

  10

  —

  52

  52

  Juvenile YOIs (male)

  Brinsford

  16

  7

  23

  17

  7

  24

  Deerbolt

  1

  14

  15

  —

  39

  39

  Feltham

  10

  22

  32

  35

  35

  70

  Huntercombe

  —

  2

  2

  —

  21

  21

  Lancaster Fms

  2

  —

  2

  3

  1

  4

  Onley

  —

  14

  14

  —

  34

  34

  Portland

  1

  10

  11

  —

  48

  48

  Stoke Heath

  —

  11

  11

  —

  38

  38

  Thorn Cross

  —

  6

  6

  —

  8

  8

  Wellington

  —

  18

  18

  —

  41

  41

  Wetherby

  —

  10

  10

  —

  28

  28

  Total juvenile YOIs (male)

  30

  114

  144

  55

  300

  355

  Other establishments

  Local prisons (male)

  Cardiff

  2

  —

  2

  3

  —

  3

  Doncaster2

  4

  1

  5

  14

  —

  14

  Exeter

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hull

  2

  —

  2

  3

  —

  3

  Total local prisons (male)

  8

  1

  9

  21

  —

  21

  Closed YOIs (female)

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  New Hall

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Styal

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Total closed YOIs (female)

  —

  4

  4

  —

  4

  4

  Open YOIs (female)

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sutton Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total open YOIs (female)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Other establishments

  Local prisons (female)

  Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total local prisons (female)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total all establishments

  57

  129

  186

  156

  367

  523

  1 Provisions figures.

  2 Private prisons.

  198 199

  Remand Prisoners (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were being held in prisons in England and Wales(a) on remand regarding alleged drugs offices and (b) following sentence for trafficking in drugs on the last date for which information is available. [18377]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many people were being held in prisons in England and Wales (a) on remand regarding alleged drugs offences and (b) following sentence for trafficking in drugs on the last date for which information is available.

  On 31 January 1996 there were 1,150 remand persons held in Prison Service 'establishments in England and Wales for drug offences.

  An analysis of the sentenced prison population by principal drugs offence on 30 June 1994 is given in the Table 1(d) of Prison Statistics England and Wales 1994 (Cm 3087) a copy of which is available from the library. On that date 800 persons were held for unlawful supply, 1,100 for possession with intent to supply unlawfully and 1,200 for unlawful import/export.

  Prisoner Repatriations
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received a response from the Republic of Ireland concerning the application by seven prisoners detained in the United Kingdom to be repatriated to prisons in the Republic; when he intends to reach a decision in each case; when he expects the prisoners to be repatriated; and if he will make a statement. [18899]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Council of Europe convention of the transfer of sentenced persons came into force for the Republic of Ireland on 1 November 1995. The first seven requests made by prisoners in England and Wales seeking repatriation to the Republic were referred to the Irish authorities on 21 December. A response on five of these requests was received on 14 February; an response in respect of the two remaining requests is awaited.

  All repatriation requests require careful consideration and repatriation is subject to both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned consenting to the arrangements for the continued enforcement of the sentence concerned. Decisions will be made on the individual merits of each request and notified to the prisoner concerned as soon as is possible.

  Children's Certificates (Public Houses)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public houses have been issued with children's certificates. [18634]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The latest available statistics are that, as at 30 June 1995, 1,669 children's certificates had been granted in respect of licensed premises in England and Wales. Statistics on the type of licensed premises concerned are not collected, but most are likely to be public houses.
  200

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of people held for(a) 48 hours or under and (b) over 48 hours under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation for each year since 1975. [19069]

  Mr. Howard
  The number is set out in the table.

  In Great Britain

  Under 48 hours

  Over 48 hours

  1974 (from 29 November)

  13

  46

  1975

  930

  137

  1976

  1,006

  60

  1977

  824

  29

  1978

  599

  23

  1979

  617

  240

  1980

  411

  126

  1981

  216

  58

  1982

  183

  37

  1983

  146

  45

  1984

  163

  40

  1985

  172

  94

  1986

  145

  57

  1987

  174

  51

  1988

  161

  25

  1989

  145

  36

  1990

  158

  35

  1991

  123

  30

  1992

  143

  17

  1993

  113

  39

  1994

  57

  4

  1995

  16

  18

  Figures for Northern Ireland prior to 1989 are not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures from 1989 to 1994, the last full-year figures are available, are as follows:

  In Northern Ireland

  Under 48 hours

  Over 48 hours

  1989

  1,119

  1,580

  1990

  1,140

  1,550

  1991

  1,186

  1,681

  1992

  1,384

  1,795

  1993

  1,252

  1,638

  1994

  1,168

  1,511

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) England and Wales and (c) Scotland for each year since 1974 who have been (i) questioned, (ii) charged, (iii) prosecuted and (iv) convicted under the prevention of terrorism legislation. [19068]

  Mr. Howard
  From 29 November 1974 until 22 March 1984, 141 people were charged with offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 following detention under those Acts. Fifteen cases were not proceeded with, 21 were acquitted and 105 were found guilty.
  201
  From 22 March 1984 until 31 December 1995, 94 people had been charged with offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1984 and 1989. Seventy-one were found guilty, four were acquitted and 19 cases were not proceeded with.

  There are no figures available for the total number of people questioned under Prevention of Terrorism legislation.

  Figures are not kept separately for England and Wales and for Scotland, and a year-by-year breakdown of charges could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the administration and future of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [19070]

  Mr. Howard
  Since the Act was last renewed, one letter has been forwarded by a Member of Parliament.

  In his report on the operation of the Act in 1995, the reviewer, Mr. J. J. Rowe QC, has recommended that the Act be renewed in its entirety. This view is support by the police.

  Lord Lloyd has invited public comments on his inquiry into the continued need for counter-terrorism legislation and is receiving a considerable response.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants are accompanied by a child or children. [19115]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1995, 43,965 principal applicants applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Of these, approximately 5,400–12 per cent.—were accompanied by dependants. The estimated total number of dependants was 11,000 of which approximately half were minor children.

  The figures quoted include dependants accompanying or subsequently joining the principal applicant prior to an initial decision on the application being made.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost to the public funds of maintaining an asylum seeker in(a) a detention centre (b) a prison. [19113]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  For financial purposes, no distinction is made between people who have applied for asylum and others detained under Immigration Act powers. The average cost of detaining a person in a centre in the immigration service detention estate is currently estimated at £540 per week. This figure includes the cost of administrative support from headquarters.

  The majority of asylum applicants detained in Prison Service accommodation will normally be housed separately in specially designated establishment, where the average cost per place in 1994–95 was £449 per week. This figure excludes headquarters costs.
  202
  The large majority of those who are detained who have claimed asylum at some stage have already had their applications rejected.

  Zinc-lined Coffins
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the specification of zinc-lined coffins for the disinterment and re-interment of those hanged and buried on HM prison premises became standard practice; and if he will review it. [19154]

  Mr. Sackville
  A requirement for zinc-lined coffins has been specified, on health grounds, in licences for the removal of human remains in certain circumstances for very many years. The requirement would be reassessed in any case where we could be satisfied that the precaution was not needed.

  Key Performance Indicators (Prisons)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the costs of support from the parent company are contained in the cost per in-use certified normal accommodation place in accordance with published key performance indicators for privately run gaols. [18939]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 5 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking to what extent the costs of support from the parent company are contained in the cost per in-use certified normal accommodation place in accordance with published key performance indicators for privately run gaols.

  The figures used to report cost per place at privately managed prisons are based on payments made to the contractor for operating the prison. Payments are made on the basis of a contract agreed as a result of the competitive process. It is a matter for the contractor to what extent any parent company costs are borne on the contract price.

  Fire Authorities' Budget
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the average budget for Metropolitan fire brigades and (b) the budget for the west midlands fire and civil defence authority in 1996–97. [19050]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1996–97 is not yet held centrally. For 1995–96 the position is as follows:

  £million

  London

  254.12

  Greater Manchester

  74.34

  Merseyside

  49.54

  South Yorkshire

  32.93

  Tyne and Wear

  36.18

  West Midlands

  71.85

  West Yorkshire

  55.08

  Average

  82.01

  203

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the pension deficit of(a) the west midlands fire service and (b) the west midlands civil defence authority for each of the last five years; and if he will give the estimated figures for 1996 and 2000. [19054]

  Mr. Sackville
  Net payments under the firefighters' pension scheme by west midlands fire and civil defence authority are given for the latest year for which central figures are available. The figures do not differentiate between fire and civil defence.1989–90: £4.3 million 1990–91: £4.5 million 1991–92: £4.8 million 1992–93: £5.9 million 1993–94: £6.2 million

  No estimates of actual expenditure have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend in respect of the west midlands brigade for future years.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the efficiency of the community fire safety initiatives implemented by the west midlands fire and civil defence authority; [19049]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) preventable fire deaths and (b) preventable child fire deaths in the west midlands fire and civil defence authority in each of the last five years. [19051]

  Mr. Sackville
  The west midlands fire service is to be commended for the priority which it has given to the work of its community relations department since 1991.

  While it is difficult to establish a causal link between fire safety publicity and reductions in casualties, the fact that fire deaths are at their lowest level nationally for 30 years points to the effectiveness of fire safety campaigns and fire prevention work carried out by fire brigades.

  Information on deaths is not available in the form requested. The available information is contained in table 60 of the Home Office publication "Fire Statistics—United Kingdom 1993", and previous years, which is available in the Library.

  Theft (Walworth Town Hall)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many officials of Southwark council, the relevant trade unions, and the contract cleaning companies have been interviewed by the Metropolitan police in respect of the theft of street sweeping documents from Walworth town hall; [19060]

  (2) if reference has been made to the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of theft of street sweeping documents from Walworth town hall; and if he will make a statement; [19062]

  (3) to which Metropolitan police station the theft of documents relating to Southwark street sweeping contracts from Walworth town hall was reported; and on what date. [19061]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that this theft was reported at Walworth police station in September 1995 and that,204
  following an interview with a sentenced offender, the commissioner regards the offence as cleared up. The Crown Prosecution Service has not been involved.

  Newbury Bypass (Arrests)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made at the site of the proposed Newbury bypass; and how many people have(a) been charged, (b) appeared in court and (c) been convicted. [19071]

  Mr. Maclean
  As at 1 March 1996, there had been 345 arrests at the site of the Newbury bypass and, by 29 February, 287 people had been charged. To date, four people have appeared in court, receiving conditional discharges, and 13 have been cautioned by the police.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of persons(a) who are currently subject to exclusion orders under the prevention of terrorism legislation and (b) from whom exclusion orders have been removed since 1983. [19047]

  Mr. Howard
  There are currently 33 exclusion orders made under the of terrorism Act; 29 relate to people who have been excluded from Great Britain and four to people from the United Kingdom.

  On 31 December 1982, there were 248 exclusion orders in force for which the Home Secretary was responsible. Information on the cumulative number of orders made, lapsed or revoked since that time is not readily available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  In Northern Ireland, 33 exclusion orders have been removed since 1983.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have(a) been detained, (b) been charged, (c) been convicted, (d) been acquitted and (e) become subject to exclusion or had exclusion orders withdrawn under powers provided by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 since August 1994; and if he will make a statement. [19048]

  Mr. Howard
  In Great Britain, 53 people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act PTA—since August 1994. Thirteen were subsequently charged with an offence. Of these, eight have been convicted and two acquitted; the remaining three are currently awaiting trial. A further six detainees were released under the PTA then redetained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They have all since been released on police bail. None of those charged was charged with an offence under the PTA. One of those detained was later made the subject of an exclusion order.

  In Northern Ireland, there were 682 detentions under the PTA from 1 September 1994 to 31 December 1995. One hundred and seventy-two were subsequently charged with an offence, but figures on convictions and acquittals are not readily available. None of the detainees was subsequently made the subject of an exclusion order.
  205

  Offender Tags (Sweden)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress of the Swedish Government's trials of the offender tag system; and if he will make a statement. [17255]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have kept in touch with the Swedish Government about the trials, and noted that a substantial number of offenders have been electronically monitored, although within a different sentencing framework. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State plans to visit Sweden shortly.

WALES

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job vacancies there are in the jobcentres at(a) Shotton and (b) Flint. [17377]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres in the Shotton and Flint jobcentre areas were 286 and 82 respectively at 5 January 1996, based on Central Statistical Office figures.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many foreign companies have applied to his Office or the Welsh Development Agency for grants during the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [17739]

  Mr. Hague
  Since March 1991, 224 foreign-owned companies have applied for regional selective assistance.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many students attended the university of Wales in the sessions(a) 1974–75, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement; [17560]

  (2) what was the total of Welsh students who attended the university of Wales in the sessions (a) 1974–75, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1995–95; and if he will make a statement. [17561]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested us as follows:

  1974–751

  1984–852

  1994–953

  Welsh domiciled students4

  5,642

  5,380

  15,053

  All students

  16,681

  20,486

  41,522

  1 At March.

  2 At December.

  3 At December. Provisional.

  4 Information on domicile is only available for full-time students in 1974–75 and 1984–85, but they represent over 90 per cent, of the enrolment.

  Banking, Insurance and Finance Sector
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his Department's latest estimates of(a) full-time and (b) part-time females in employment in banking, insurance and finance in (i) 1995, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1990
  206
  within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and what percentage change in each category level occurred in 1995 against (1) 1992 and (2) 1990. [17564]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on Friday 1 March,Official Report, columns 785–86.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students received funding from Mid Glamorgan county council for courses outside the county in(a) 1974–75, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [17527]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of members of the Wales tourist board, the area of home residence of each member, the date of first appointment to the board, and the date on which the current appointment expires in each instance. [17887]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Area

  First appointment made

  Current appointment expires

  Mr. A. R. Lewis

  Mid Glamorgan

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1998

  Mrs. G. T. Bevan

  South Glamorgan

  13 October 1992

  12 October 1998

  Mr. C. R. Jackson OBE

  Clwyd

  19 December 1990

  18 December 1996

  Mr. T. O. S. Lloyd

  Dyfed

  2 June 1995

  1 June 1998

  Mr. J. G. McAllister

  Clwyd

  5 May 1995

  4 May 1998

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to meet officials of the Welsh national opera company to discuss the implication for the future of their work in Wales of the rejection by the Millennium Commission of his proposal for a national opera house for Wales. [17879]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to meet officials of Welsh national opera. The WNO is funded by the arts councils and any discussions should be held with them.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors there are currently employed by the national health service as general practitioners in Wales; how many vacancies there are at present waiting to be filled; and if he will make a statement. [17880]
  207
  Mr. Hague
  At 1 April 1995, the latest date for which data is available, there were 1,833 general medical practitioners in Wales of whom 1,710 were unrestricted principals. Information on the number of vacancies is not collected centrally.

  Homeworkers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest available estimate of the number of homeworkers in Wales; how many of these are regarded as self-employed; and how many as employers. [17881]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on homeworkers is available from the labour force survey. Estimates for spring 1995 indicate that there were 30,000 people in Wales who worked from their own homes. Some 19,000 of these were self-employed. No reliable estimate for Wales is available of the number of homeworkers who were employers.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Invest in Britain ways in which the recent decline of inward investment in Wales can be reversed. [17883]

  Mr. Hague
  The absolute number of inward investment projects recorded for Wales with the Invest in Britain Bureau has, at between 60 and 70 per annum, remained relatively constant for a number of years. Our percentage share of the Great Britain total was lower in 1994–95 than in previous years, but the competition has become more intense and, at 11 per cent, it was more than double Wales' percentage share of the Great Britain population. The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities and other bodies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales and Cardiff Bay development corporation, are working together to achieve further successes. The recent announcements by Halla of Korea; STS of Japan; and Newport WaferFab of Hong Kong show that these efforts are bearing fruit.

  New Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many projects for the establishment of new manufacturing industry have been financially assisted by his Department during(a) 1994–95 and (b) the present financial year; and how many of these were located in (i) Gwynedd and (ii) Dyfed. [17888]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of new manufacturing projects coming forward where my Department was able to make an offer of financial assistance under the regional selective assistance scheme was as follows:

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Wales

  56

  45

  Gwynedd

  2

  2

  Dyfed

  5

  1

  11995–96 to end February.

  208

  Transport Grant
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons there is a lower limit of £5 million on transport grant projects in Wales; and what estimate he has made of the number of schemes to strengthen road bridges in Wales to meet the new European Union requirements that fall into a category of less than £5 million. [18296]

  Mr. Hague
  The £5 million transport grant threshold has been agreed with the local authority associations in Wales. They are of the view that smaller schemes are properly for the discretion of local authorities and should be funded from unhypothecated resources. Local authorities are responsible for identifying the bridges which need strengthening on non-trunk roads.

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the University of Wales Healthcare NHS trust concerning the transfer of elderly patients from the Cardiff royal infirmary to the University hospital of Wales on the night of 28 to 29 February; and what reasons were given for the transfer. [19149]

  Mr. Hague
  Although I have not spoken to the chairman of the trust about this matter, I understand that all patients transferred agreed to the move given that beds were needed at the Cardiff royal infirmary for patients requiring emergency treatment. The trust has apologised to the patients involved and will make every effort to avoid a repetition.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the resignation of John Jasper from the chairmanship of Capita Managed Services and its effects on the bidding by the management buy-out group for the EstateCare Group of the authority; [19148]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the suspension of the bidding process for the EstateCare branch of the authority and the suitability of the Capita Group as a partner of the management buy-out team in that bidding process. [19147]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The privatisation of the EstateCare Group is proceeding as planned. The two remaining bids by the management buy-out/Capita plc and Pell Frischman Group are currently being evaluated and this process will take account of their financial standing.

  European Structural Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh local authorities in the European Union objective 2 and 5 regions concerning the setting up of an independent secretariat for the monitoring and assessment of European structural fund applications. [19179]
  209
  Mr. Hague
  The proposal for a free-standing executive to manage European structural fund work was included in documentation tabled by the authorities and discussed at my meeting with representatives of the counties and districts in November 1995. Following my announcement to the House on 29 February 1996,Official Report, columns 1024–40, I shall be issuing a consultation document as a basis for further discussions on this subject with the local authorities and the wider partnership.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those private finance initiative schemes in respect of which the Capita Group has(a) expressed an interest and (b) submitted a bid in (i) the health sector and (ii) other sectors. [19176]

  Mr. Hague
  Information of this nature is treated as commercially confidential.
  210

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the European Commissioner responsible for the European social fund concerning the administration of the social fund in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19180]

  Mr. Hague
  I announced on 29 February,Official Report, columns 1024–40, that responsibility for management of the European social fund in Wales would transfer from the Department for Education and Employment to the Welsh Office in January 1997. My Department will be considering with the European Commission and with the partnership detailed arrangements for this work after that date, including the possibility of delegation to the free-standing executive body it is proposed should be established to manage structural fund programmes. I discussed the matter with Commission officials during my visit to Brussels yesterday.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
Ian, Lord Bishop of Carlisle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Worcester and the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Fire Service College
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to make a decision on the future of the Fire Service College.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it has been decided that, for the time being, the Fire Service College should continue as a Next Steps agency operating as a trading fund. A number of measures have been taken or are still being considered which are intended to strengthen the college's financial position and to secure its place as the central provider of both command and specialist training for the UK fire service.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I believe that she will appreciate, as do the general public, the fine professionalism of the fire service not only in fighting fires but as regards accidents on the motorways and humanitarian aspects. That professionalism results from the training in which they participate and the facilities at the Fire Service College. Does the Minister agree that it is terribly important that such training continues? The safety of people whom they protect through training is important to us all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. It is a fine service and does a brilliant job, for which it must be trained. I promise the noble Baroness that I will leave no stone unturned in my department to ensure that we secure the future of the Fire Service College. It is important that whatever the outcome of the debate today the fire service should be properly trained and it is our determination that it should continue to be so.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, when I was at the Home Office I was rather proud of the creation of the Fire Service College. I have been watching the troubles about its finances with great concern. Since 1992, the Fire Service College has been both an executive agency and a trading fund, to use the modern jargon. However, the Civil Service College at
148
Sunningdale, although an executive agency, is not a trading fund. The Police College at Bramshill—a comparable service—is neither an executive agency nor a trading fund. Can the Minister say why the Fire Service College was picked out for different treatment from the others and made subject to a financial regime as a trading fund, in which—to put it charitably—some element of miscalculation must have been involved?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his observation on the distinctions between the three colleges. There are 110 agencies, only 12 of them with trading fund status. The problems of the Fire Service College do not derive from anything other than the circumstances at the college. The problems have nothing to do with the college's present situation. Prior to agency status it was a cost on the Home Office's Vote. Wherever the cost is, it has created a considerable deficit. The problem is that it occupies a large site which is substantially under used. At the moment we are trying to find complementary activities which can take place on the site and which will make the overheads of running the site and all that happens on it economically viable. The problem is not about the distinction between agency status and whether it is on the Home Office Vote or even the local government Vote.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, we recognise that the debt burden imposed on the Fire Service College is partially responsible for its present parlous financial state. However, is it not a worry that the reduction in the county fire brigade budgets and local government budgets affect the training of young firemen? After all, they are the seed corn for the Fire Service College in the future. Would it not be a tragedy if the magnificent facilities which can cope with almost any fire eventuality were to be lost? That would be not only from the point of view of training our own young firemen but also of its use by industry and foreign fire brigades.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the facility of training will not be lost to the fire service because we have an obligation under the law to provide fire service training. Each of the fire brigade local authorities, whether free-standing metropolitan fire authorities or fire authorities within county brigades within the county council, nevertheless, still has an obligation under the law to provide adequate training. We use the inspectorate system to ensure that that is the case.
If any local authority or fire authority believes that it cannot provide adequate funding for training it must put the case to the Department of the Environment, which will consider it. One authority did that last year and had a relaxation of the cap so that it was able to meet its obligations under the law.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling across the political spectrum regarding the fire service that over the past five years the reduction in real terms in the funding of our fire brigades has reached an all-time dangerous low? Should that not be a matter of concern for the Government, and will they look into it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree that funding has reached an all-time dangerous low. As I just

149
said, there is an obligation under the law: fire brigades must meet their obligations to provide fire cover in their areas. If there are authorities that believe they cannot do that there is a proper process for them to present their case. That is not to say that there are not financial tensions. However, I understand that the noble Lord's own party is not offering local authorities very much more money to provide services. We are aiming to make sure that we have the most efficient use of resources that are available to local authorities.

Signal Crayfish: Control
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are providing guidance on the infestation of inland waters by American signal crayfish since they were first imported in the 1970s.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government will shortly be making regulations effectively to prohibit the keeping of signal crayfish in those areas where they are not currently found in the wild. In other parts of the country, where signal crayfish are already well established, the scale of the problem can best be reduced by reminding everyone that they are easy to catch and delicious to eat.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It indicates that the Government are taking action. Does he agree that this crayfish is the aquatic equivalent of the grey squirrel? Can he confirm that it has already eliminated native crayfish in some areas and is devouring freshwater creatures of many kinds? Unlike the squirrel, however, it is, as my noble friend indicated, very good to eat. Will the Government encourage as wide a consumption of it as possible, including drawing it to the attention of the Refreshment Sub-committee of this House, in the interests of preserving some ecological balance?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that the scale of the effect of this creature on the environment is a little over-stated. It is an active predator, but it lives quite happily in its native habitats with a wide range of fish and other species. We do not expect it to have any devastating effect on our native wildlife. It carries a fungal disease which kills our native crayfish, and that is the reason for our wanting to keep it in its present bounds. So far as the Refreshment Department of this House is concerned, I should be very happy to see squirrel on the menu. It is, I can tell the House, quite delicious.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the greatest danger at the moment not the infestation of crayfish in inland waters but the infestation of Spanish fishermen in our coastal waters?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is a little wide of this Question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the American signal crayfish—or Pacifastacus leniusculus, as we usually call it in Wiltshire—has been described as an alien omnivore which is voracious, aggressive and fertile or, to put it another way, over-fed, over-sexed and over here? Is he further aware that the narrow-clawed (Turkish) crayfish is believed to have got into our waters by escaping from restaurants in London? I am intrigued to know how that happened. Did they just perhaps pop down the Strand and dive into the Thames? The problem has been known for 15 years; and the Ministry has accepted that it should have acted much faster. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord in his erudition. I rarely can. However, I can tell him that the contract for fishing crayfish in the Serpentine is currently vacant. The Turkish crayfish is there. If he wishes to go for the red swamp crayfish, he will find it in the men's bathing pond in Hampstead. But it is quite fond of fresh meat. So it is not sensible to stay still for too long.

Rail Freight: Privatisation
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided to sell all three rail freight companies to one bidder and what is the price at which they have agreed to sell.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the market's strong preference was for a combined sale of the three companies. The terms of the sale, including the price, are commercially confidential.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Was not one of the Government's main reasons for breaking up the rail network into a number of fragmented private companies that it was a way to achieve competition? Has that therefore not proved to be a complete myth? Is it not also a myth that this Government believe in open government, when they will not even tell the House the price at which they have sold one of our important national assets?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, that is not the case. There are, of course, very strong elements of competition that we are trying to bring into the railway market. However, in this case we laid down no pre-conditions; we let the market tell us what it felt were the best circumstances and the best way to ensure the long-term future of the industry. There was a very clear preference for this type of sale.
In many of our other rail privatisation units we are introducing competition. And competition exists between newly-formed companies which can come in and move heavy freight on the railways as well as the existing trainload freight companies.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that Section 113 of the Railways Act regarding the disposal of the BR companies states quite clearly that there must be competition; management bids must be promoted; and that the best value for the assets must be achieved? In the end, all three services went to the Wisconsin Central Transportation. The Minister says that the figure is confidential. The figure I have received, from a fairly reliable source, is £225 million. Is that true; and was there a management buy-out offer of £240 million? Is it also true that the assets of the three railway companies together were something like £6 billion? Is there not a case for the Audit Office to have a close look at this whole business?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny the figure that the noble Lord put forward. The price has not been disclosed in order to protect BR's negotiating position in future sales—for example, the BR infrastructure service companies. We shall give figures for individual sales in due course. All figures are made available to the National Audit Office.
As to whether or not this was the highest bid, North and South Railways, the arm of Wisconsin that took the purchase forward, submitted the highest relevant bid that was in compliance with the rules of competition. I can confirm that we have acted within the terms of the Act.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, quite apart from competition, will my noble friend agree that one of the objectives of privatisation is the creation of greater efficiency in the system?
Viscount Goschen: Absolutely, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right. We believe that privatisation across the various types of company being brought into the private sector will bring exactly those benefits.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Can the Minister assure the House that in the negotiations and sale there have been no secret subsidies, no writing-off of debt, as we have seen in so many other cases? Does he accept that it is only honourable to disclose the figures in detail to the parliamentary Membership?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we were scrupulously fair to all the parties concerned. Bids were made on the basis of the objectives for sale. That was the same for all the companies involved. There was no favouritism whatever.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in which case, is it not time that the noble Viscount was also fair to Parliament?
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Hear, hear.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will he give Parliament the full particulars to which it is entitled? It is a national asset that is being disposed of. It does not belong to the Government, and neither does it belong to any of their minions.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord. This was a national asset that has been taken
152
forward into the private sector. However, we are in the middle of a bidding process for a number of BR businesses. We feel strongly that to disclose that information at this stage would prejudice BR's bidding position in future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Be open about it!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord must want, as we do, the best proceeds for the taxpayer from the disposal of businesses in future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, by the time we get the figure, it will be too late. The difference between the offer made by Wisconsin and the value of the assets might be quite staggering. It may be that there was not a great deal of difference in the figure for the management buy-out offer—£15 million. They would be entitled to be very disappointed. Will the Minister also tell the House whether, as was rumoured, 6,000 job redundancies are involved? It will be a national disaster if that is also the case.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I repeat the assurance that I gave the House that the bid which was accepted was the highest compliant bid. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. In terms of jobs, rail freight must improve its efficiency and reduce its costs, if it is to win traffic back onto the railways. The new company will look very carefully at its cost base. We all want the railways to become more efficient and more freight to be attracted onto the railways. To do that, rail freight must first improve its efficiency and, secondly, reduce its cost base.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is immense scope for confusion in the question of valuation? If a site is valued on the basis of its disposal for alternative development, one figure may be placed on its value; if it is valued on the basis of its value as a continuing business, it will be given an entirely different figure. Is not that difference sufficient to explain the kind of discrepancy that noble Lords opposite mentioned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, theoretical valuation is not a cut and dried matter. There are always different opinions about the value of a particular business. But in the final result, it depends on what the market will pay for it. The market expressed a great deal of interest in rail privatisation and this has been a successful sale.

Legal Aid: Criteria
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the change in the criteria for claiming legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, on 28th February, I asked the Legal Aid Board to establish a special investigations unit as soon as possible to handle legal aid means assessments where

153
the applicant's financial circumstances are exceptionally complex. On 1st June this year two new regulations will come into force. The first will allow the assets of friends and relatives of the applicant to be included in the financial assessment. The second will introduce into legal aid assessments a limit of £100,000 on the equity allowable in the applicant's home, the amount of mortgage that can be offset against the equity and the amount of repayable mortgage allowable against income.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his detailed reply to my Question. I also thank him for the reports that he sent me, although as a lay person I have not yet been able fully to digest them. Have the criteria altered or do we still have the criteria used in cases such as Maxwell, Barlow Clowes and Roger Levitt? If deemed to have submitted the correct detail, could future cases be funded at the level of those recent ones? If so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must be made aware that there is a groundswell of feeling among ordinary people about those involved in crime which has driven tens of thousands of pensioners into penury being financed at such a level in order to get themselves off the hook. Does the noble and learned Lord consider that it is time to have a full review by a Royal Commission or some such body, which will come up with proposals to ensure that members of the family do not continue to live off the ill-gotten gains of those who perpetrated the crime?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of establishing the special investigations unit and of the first of the regulations to which I referred is to apply the general system in a new way so far as particular people with complicated financial situations may require. The feeling in some quarters—for obvious reasons, I do not make reference to any particular case—is that some people have been able to obtain legal aid because technically they qualify themselves at the same time as they seem to enjoy a lifestyle somewhat better than many of us enjoy. The question is how to attack that. The first of the regulations is intended to do that by enabling the legal aid authorities to take account of the assets of friends or relatives who may be in fact helping to support that lifestyle. This is a way of addressing the problem that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend's Answer mean that it is the policy of the Government not to allow the grant of legal aid to people of ample wealth but to restrict it to those who need legal aid if they are to be legally represented?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is the policy and that is the way in which the regulations are framed. The regulations apply to everyone. Faced with an expensive criminal trial, it may be that a person who might enjoy some financial resources will not have sufficient to deal with the case, and the legal aid arrangements take that into account. The important point is that the regulations are the same for everyone but there are situations whereby, because of apparent
154
support from friends and relatives, people seem to enjoy a better lifestyle than their position would suggest under the exact terms of the regulations. That is why I propose to change the regulations, as I said. I believe that that will address this problem in a fairly fundamental way and will be in pursuance of the objective that my noble friend has just enunciated.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the regulations need drastic amendment so far as concerns the Legal Aid Board? Can he confirm that under no circumstances should an illegal immigrant obtain legal aid which is funded by the taxpayer? Does he further agree that it is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money given to illegal immigrants?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the circumstances in which legal aid is available are set out in regulations which, on the whole, are fair and reasonable in application. But one must take account of the possibility that I mentioned earlier of people being supported outside the scope of the present regulations. Perhaps I should mention in fairness to the Legal Aid Board that, where it is a matter of legal aid in criminal proceedings, generally speaking the legal aid authority is the court rather the Legal Aid Board. But the court applies the regulations under which legal aid is available.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a certain amount of public disquiet about very substantial sums disbursed in legal aid for criminal trials. Over what period of time following the conclusion of a trial is the remit of the investigations unit intended to extend? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that circumstances may differ quite substantially at the time legal aid is granted before a criminal trial and after the conclusion of some trials?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principal objective of the unit is to investigate the situation at the time the question arises of whether or not legal aid should be granted and the conditions under which it should be granted. Those can be reviewed, as the noble Lord will know, in the light of changes of circumstances, when they come to the notice of the legal aid authorities. But the primary purpose of the unit is to deal with people whose finances appear complicated at the stage at which legal aid is being considered.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must be aware of the recent case of a person who was shot by the police during an armed hold-up being granted legal aid. If my information is correct, certain other information was then discovered and the legal aid was withdrawn. I put quite a pointed question. It would appear that the amount of legal aid depends on the amount of information submitted by lawyers on behalf of the claimant. If a lawyer acting on behalf of an accused person deliberately or knowingly withholds information or perjures himself by giving wrong information to the board or court, can he be brought before the court for perjury?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if a lawyer is party to any kind of fraud on the legal aid authorities,

155
consequences will follow. But in relation to the specific case to which the noble Lord refers, it is worth pointing out that the legal aid granted was only at stages; it was not full legal aid to pursue the whole matter.
The Legal Aid Board is dependent on the information submitted to it. It is not a court of trial. It must proceed on the basis of the information supplied to it, and that information may develop as the case develops. It is therefore right that it should review the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, that is what happened in the case to which he referred; further information came to the knowledge of the Legal Aid Board after the initial information had been given which led it to initiate the proceedings to discharge the certificate in question.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"UNBUNDLING" OF SPORTS BROADCASTING RIGHTS
(".—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 182 of the 1990 Act, the Commission or the Radio Authority shall do all that they can to ensure that broadcast sporting events are available as widely as possible in the United Kingdom and in particular shall ensure that, in respect of any person who is a licensee either of the Commission or the Radio Authority—

(a) where such person is the holder of exclusive live rights for the broadcasting of such an event, if he proposes to exercise those rights in the course of providing a subscription or pay-per-view service, he shall offer, upon reasonable terms, to a universal broadcaster (whether or not the same person as the provider of the subscription or pay-per-view service), the right to broadcast television highlights of that event on the same day as the live broadcast of the event taking place; and

(b) where such a person is the holder of exclusive live rights for the broadcasting of such an event, if he proposes to exercise those rights wholly or partly by means of a universal broadcasting service, he shall offer, upon reasonable terms, the right to broadcast television highlights of that event on the same day as the live broadcast of the event taking place to a person offering a subscription or pay-per-view service (whether or not the same person as the universal broadcaster);

(c) where such person is the holder of exclusive rights to broadcast television coverage of any sporting event, if he is also the holder of the right to broadcast live coverage of the sporting event on radio ("radio rights") and is not able to exercise those radio rights, he shall offer the radio rights, on reasonable terms, to a universal sound broadcasting service;

(d) where such person is the holder of exclusive radio rights which he will not be exercising to a substantial extent he shall offer such radio rights on reasonable terms to a universal sound broadcasting service,

and for the purposes of this subsection "television highlights" means a recorded extract of the coverage of a whole sporting event, such selection to be made by the universal broadcaster for the purposes of paragraph (a) and by the subscription or pay-per-view broadcaster for the purposes of paragraph (b).
(2) For the purposes of this subsection—

(a) a programme is included in any service on pay-per-view or subscription terms if subscribers shall or may be obliged to pay a specified fee or
156
charge specifically in consideration for the right to view a particular transmission or a particular television channel; and

(b) a broadcasting service is universally received if it is received by or delivered to over 90% in aggregate of all households in the area appropriate to the sporting event, and

(i) the terms "universal broadcaster" and "universal broadcasting service" shall be construed accordingly, and

(ii) "universal broadcaster" shall be deemed to include Channel 5.

(3) Every licence granted by the Commission and the Radio Authority pursuant to this Act and the 1990 Act shall include such conditions as are necessary for securing compliance by their licensees with directions given by the Commission or the Authority in the discharge of their duties under this section, and such directions shall he enforceable at the suit of the Commission or the Authority as the case may be.
(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (1)(c) and (d) the Commission or the Radio Authority shall have regard to the interests of the local area or national region as far as the sporting event is concerned.
(5) If the holder of exclusive rights is a licensee neither of the Commission nor the Radio Authority, and is not S4C or the BBC, and he fails to make those rights available on reasonable terms for the purposes of subsection (1) the Commission or the Radio Authority shall refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading who shall determine the terms on which those rights or any of them are to be licensed.
(6) The Governors of the BBC shall be under a duty to ensure that the BBC complies with subsection (2) as if the BBC had been expressly referred to in that subsection.
(7) The Welsh Authority shall be under a duty to ensure that S4C complies with subsection (1) as if S4C had been expressly referred to in that subsection.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (1) above any agreement for exclusive rights for the broadcasting of any sporting event shall be registered with the Director General of Fair Trading.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is concerned with a subject with the unfortunate title of "unbundling"; or, to we laymen, the right to show highlights of sporting events on television on any channel when those events have been negotiated live by another channel. It follows naturally from our discussions in Committee and the vote taken by this Chamber on that occasion to protect the eight listed events so that they are always available on terrestrial television.
The Government announced yesterday that they have accepted the will of the House on that matter. I immediately welcome that decision and thank the Minister for it. So far so good. Such a decision will be appreciated throughout the country by the millions of people who do not have access to Sky or cable. However, we have not yet had sight of the amendment and need to look at that before giving the statement a total and unqualified welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said in his statement that one of his objectives was to make the list "more transparent", whatever that means; to establish a criteria,
"as a reference point for the future";
and to give further consideration to this "interesting suggestion". I have no quarrel with any of that. However, the Minister will appreciate that we must wait to see what that means in practice, especially in relation to any period of time for review of the matter.
I turn to the amendment, which deals with the question of highlights of all sporting events outside the listed events; that is, the majority of sporting events which appear on television. It is a question of major importance for the sporting public and for television viewers. Your Lordships will have some idea of the events in question when I refer to the Ryder Cup in golf, the Open Golf Championship, the Cheltenham Gold Cup Festival, Royal Ascot, the Five Nations Rugby Tournament, the European Golf Tour and the Rugby League Cup, among others. That will tell the House how important is the matter that we are discussing.
Unless action is taken to protect the rights of the public, those events could disappear from the television screens in millions of homes. I illustrate the point by reference to the Open Golf Championship, for which I understand Mr. Murdoch offered £24 million. It has not yet been signed up. If he secures that event, and if there is no provision such as is sought by the amendment so that the highlights can appear on the BBC, independent television or Channel 5, then three-quarters of this nation will see nothing of the event on their television screens. If we apply that argument to the other events I mentioned, the House will gain an insight into the seriousness of the situation that will arise.
I cannot believe that the Government want that to happen. Undoubtedly there would be an uprising in the land if all that sporting excellence is suddenly removed from the television screens in the homes of so many people, which is what happened in regard to the Ryder Cup. The House will recall that when we last debated the matter I quoted the exclusion clause which excluded the BBC. Sky has since told me that the BBC got it wrong and was in fact referring to other golfing tournaments. I do not accept that, but as I have only just been given that information I shall need to look at it with care.
In my judgment it will do a great disservice to sport as well as to the national interests of the viewing public if we allow the dangers I outlined—which are very real—to exist. The Murdoch millions could remove a great chunk of British sport from the television screens of the great majority of British viewers.
The amendment seeks to say that where a pay television broadcaster has exclusive live rights it must make the highlights available to a terrestrial broadcaster; where a terrestrial broadcaster owns the exclusive live rights it must make highlights available to a pay TV broadcaster; and, where a broadcaster holds the radio rights but is unable to exercise that right because, for example, it does not have a radio station, then it must ensure that the live rights are sold to another broadcaster and are not hoarded.
The amendment attempts to be even-handed and provide the rights to both terrestrial and subscription television. It places a specific duty upon the Independent Television Commission to ensure that, if live rights have been sold into one market, then the highlights should be sold into another. If a pay channel has exclusive live rights—as, for example, in the forthcoming boxing match between Tyson and Bruno—then highlights
158
should be offered on reasonable terms to universal broadcasters, and vice versa. The Radio Authority is given a similar responsibility in respect of rights holders which are commercial radio stations.
The term "television highlights" is given a legal definition with the selection of extracts to be made by the purchaser. The legislation is intended to cover the BBC, with clear obligations on the governors to ensure, first, that it complies, and on the Welsh Authority in relation to S4C; and, secondly, that the matter is effectively dealt with. That obligation is also upon Channel 5, where it is included in the universal market to reflect the obligations it has taken on to maximise its audience by spending money to retune video recorders.
A new duty is created to register all those deals and to give the Office of Fair Trading the power to unbundle where the offending party is not a licensee of the ITC or the Radio Authority. The price for these events—a reasonable price—would be decided between the purchaser and the vendor. That is happening today—this very day—with cricket World Cup highlights being shown to BBC viewers under an agreement between the BBC and Sky. Noble Lords will remember that we informed them of that in the previous debate. I believe that it came about largely because of the tabling of the amendment we are now discussing. The offer was made again to the BBC and taken up at a price of £1 million. Whether I am right about that is a matter of small consequence. What is important is that the highlights have been made available. Every night we can watch World Cup cricket. We can hope that the England team get it right and do a bit better. I am happy to say that I think the £1 million well spent. I hope that it will be better well spent when we reach the quarter finals of the competition in a few days' time.
On the "Today" programme on 6th February Mr. David Elstein, head of programmes for Sky, told James Naughtie, that our proposals would be,
"wonderful news for Sky. We would now get highlights of all the listed events".
Exactly, my Lords. He got it right. I am very pleased that it is good news for Sky. I hope that Sky and Mr. Elstein will maintain that posture about the rest of the highlights we seek to protect. I hope that they are not opposed to the amendment. From discussions I have had I fear that I may be hoping in vain.
The Minister will tell us, according to the statement he issued yesterday, which again we appreciate—he was being very helpful as he always is—the result of the Government's ludicrous consultation exercise. We were told that the Government would consult all and sundry—everyone in the land—over a period of two years. I am sorry, I should have said two weeks. Two years would have been more appropriate. I am sorry for that slip. He will claim that that is what they have done. He will say, I believe, that his consultation exercise shows no substantial demand for protecting the highlights and that all the concern is about the listed events. That is not the case. I am sorry to say to the Minister that I take issue with him about his interpretation of his consultation exercise, although we really do not know much about it.
For example, the Independent CHA Sensor Poll, carried out on 20th February, which is only a week or two ago, found that two-thirds of cable and satellite viewers were unlikely to take up pay TV and that 80 per cent. of all viewers think the Government should legislate to protect the highlights. I hope the Minister will tell us today the organisations which were consulted and which could speak for the 30 million people without cable or Sky television. That is an important matter. I, for one, would like to meet the organisations the Government believe speak for the nation in order to find out exactly what they said and why the Government have not accepted their advice. They have rejected their advice.
One of the organisations consulted was the Voice of Listener and Viewer organisation. I have had the opportunity this morning to speak to Professor Vincent Porter of Westminster University who tells me that he was consulted. He spoke to officials in the department for one-and-a-half hours. What he told me is quite fascinating. He said that he drew the Government's attention to the fact that the Copyright Act guarantees,
"freedom to report news and current events".
That removes from our discussion any doubt as to whether the terrestrial channels can show on news programmes events which Murdoch has bought. That seems to have been cleared up, and I should like the Minister to confirm that.
Professor Porter drew my attention to a case in the European Court. I know that this is not a good day to quote in aid the European Court; nevertheless it decides what European law is. Therefore, we have to take account of it. The professor told me that it had recently made case law in a case which the BBC lost. The court determined that any holder of a contract for live television would be in breach of competition policy if it did not provide for the separation of highlights. That is a recent decision of the European Court. Not to do so would be contrary to the competition directive of the European Commission. The European Commission is apparently following up the matter.
The key is that the policy has to be exercised for the maximum benefit of the viewer. The European Court decided that not to allow highlights would not be for the maximum benefit of the viewer. If that case law is right there is no need for my amendment. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. I assume that the Government know about the decision of the European Court. No one has informed us about it until now. I assume that since the professor spoke to the officials in the department the Government have had the opportunity to examine what the professor told them. I hope that the Minister feels able to give an authoritative comment and ruling today. If this viewers' organisation is wrong, we must persist with our amendment. If it is right, we shall probably need to think again. We await the Minister's response.
There is one final point. If we cannot protect the highlights of so many events of such importance to millions of people, and if, as appears to be the case, the Government do not wish to assist us to do that, then almost inevitably we shall have to do the job ourselves
160
at Third Reading. We shall have to seek to add to the list of events. The Five Nations Rugby and some of the other events I read out need to be protected. That is my judgment and, I believe, the judgment of many of your Lordships and certainly masses of the public. If the Government will not protect them, and if they are not protected, I hope the Minister will take note that inevitably we shall have to return to the matter at Third Reading and attempt to extend the number of listed events in order to achieve our objective.
As I said, I hope very much that, having moved this amendment in what I hope is a reasonable spirit of conciliation with the Government, we can get some movement. I am aware that the Sports Council is trying now to draw up a voluntary code of conduct in these matters. I am not usually very enamoured by voluntary codes because often people find ways to break them. It will be a significant advance if a voluntary code is drawn up and all the television companies and sports bodies agree to accept it. We shall have to wait and see how that goes. I do not expect the Minister to be able to tell us much more about it now.
I hope that I have done enough to convince your Lordships that this is another matter of major importance, but perhaps we might have to do more work on it. However, it is right to raise it now and possibly to seek a vote either today or at Third Reading. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his success at Committee stage in getting the present Clause 1 written into the Bill. I also join with him in thanking my noble friend the Minister in having agreed that this is a worthwhile clause and that he is to produce another amendment at Third Reading which will help it along.
At first sight, and from what the noble Lord said, this amendment too is very attractive despite that most unattractive word "unbundling". The amendment has been eloquently moved. But I have come to the conclusion that it is not an amendment which your Lordships should accept. It is immensely complicated. Your Lordships have only to look at the amendment on the Marshalled List to see how difficult it is to understand. Even after the noble Lord's explanation, I do not believe that I really understand what it is all about. I am sure it will cause great difficulty in its implementation, both to broadcasters and to the governing bodies of sport.
More importantly, it interferes radically with the rights of the sports bodies to negotiate freely with the broadcasters. They own these rights and they are used to negotiating with the broadcasters, covering all the various alternative arrangements that are available, from live broadcasting, recorded broadcasting and radio broadcasting. It is one thing to interfere with the so-called "jewels in the crown". That covers an already existing list, presently applied to terrestrial broadcasting only, and great national sporting occasions, which should indeed be available to the widest possible public. It contributes to that expression which we were discussing recently in another debate, "social cohesion".

161
But to go further and interfere by statute in all sporting rights is a much more serious step. Is it really necessary? Rights holders with sufficient mass appeal are already unbundling their rights. Cricket, football and Rugby Union authorities have all chosen a mixture of satellite and terrestrial coverage. The noble Lord mentioned the World Cup. I saw the England v. Pakistan World Cup highlights and I agree with him that it was not always pleasurable viewing; but there it was on Channel 2. Sports authorities are perfectly well able to decide between the large financial incitements offered by BSkyB and the far greater audiences offered by BBC and ITV. That has proved the case where the Olympic Games and lawn tennis have both opted in favour of large audiences.
These are complicated negotiations that have to take place each time and in my opinion they are much better left to be decided without statutory interference. Moreover, there are a number of minority sports where compulsory unbundling would be quite inappropriate and probably to their disadvantage. Is it intended, then, to issue another list of sports liable to unbundling?
Recently the noble Lord, Lord Howell, criticised the Central Council for Physical Recreation. I say nothing about his criticism, but I believe that even he would recognise that the views expressed by the CCPR do represent those of most, if not all, the governing bodies of sport. They have benefited greatly from the increase in sports broadcasting and they would greatly resent any statutory interference with their rights.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may inform him that the views that he ascribes apply to one part of the council; namely, the major spectator sports division. It makes them no less important, but that is the case. The chairman and the executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation represent 300 bodies and they have never been consulted about these matters since the letter was sent out in the past few days, which I believe the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says. I am not in any way denying how he criticises the leadership of the CCPR. What I am saying is that all major national sports bodies are not anxious to have statutory interference with their negotiations on their own rights.
I believe that the present system of freely negotiated coverage is the best for all parties. But I do welcome also, like the noble Lord, the idea of a sports council and a voluntary code of conduct. I believe that would fill the bill admirably and would be much preferable to the present idea of statutory interference. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aberdare is much quicker on his feet than I am. I hope that it might be of assistance to your Lordships, before we turn to the specific amendments, if I outline the Government's
162
position on the important issue of broadcast sports rights. Noble Lords may recall that I explained to your Lordships at Committee stage that I would come back with the Government's position by Report stage and I feel that I must do that at the outset.
I am sure that we shall have another useful debate. No one can be in any doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue. Parliament has the last word on it and it is for Parliament to decide. Your Lordships' House is playing a full part in that process. The Government will take careful note of all the points of view expressed this afternoon.
Since your Lordships last debate in Committee on 6th February, the Government's consultation exercise has proceeded and is now effectively complete. We have had meetings with broadcasters, regulatory authorities, consumer groups and sports bodies. I shall willingly send a list of them to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We have received a number of written representations to supplement extensive correspondence from Members of Parliament, sporting and other interests and, above all, from the public. We have reviewed the recommendations of an earlier report on this subject by the National Heritage Select Committee in another place. Of course, we have had very much in mind your Lordships' earlier contribution in discussion of the Broadcasting Bill.
Overall, the consultation process has proved useful. It was welcomed by all the participants. It has given everyone concerned the opportunity to put their case when they knew the matter was under consideration. It has allowed the Government to reach a clearer and better informed understanding of the complex issues involved.
There are no easy answers here. Current arrangements for the broadcasting of sports events have brought significant benefits for sport in the form of investment in new facilities and training programmes at all levels. There is more sport on television than ever before. But the Government recognise public concern that the next stage in the development of subscription television could affect the ability of terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters to provide coverage of key sporting events—that is to say, those which have a resonance not only to sports fans—and we believe that legislative change to secure this is justified. In deciding the terms of such change, we need to find a measured balance between all the interests involved.
It is clear from the representations that we have received that the public's primary concern relates to listed events and to how coverage of them should be protected for free to air terrestrial television. In that context, I am referring to the vast majority of letters from members of the public direct to Ministers or via their Members of Parliament. They are concerned at the loss of live coverage of sporting events and are not seeking extensive highlight coverage.
That moves me towards the issue covered by the noble Lord's amendment on which your Lordships voted in Committee, and which now stands as Clause of the Bill. It extends the existing controls in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to prevent the live transmission

163
of listed events on an exclusive basis by pay-per-view or subscription services. The Government had already put forward that idea in their own discussion paper. We accept that an extension of existing protection along the lines which your Lordships voted so emphatically into the Bill is justified and that a clause modelled on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, should accordingly form part of the Bill, but we should like to build on the thinking underlying the amendment and in addition to put right some specific deficiencies to which I drew attention in Committee.
For that reason, the Government propose to introduce at Third Reading an amendment to guarantee the availability of live coverage of listed events to terrestrial television and to provide for a number of associated measures to secure the best deal for sports bodies, broadcasters and the public. I am sorry that it has not proved possible to table an amendment for Report stage, but I hope that it may help the House if I outline now the main elements of the Government's proposed approach.
Our intention is that a subscription or pay-per-view service would not be permitted to broadcast live coverage of a listed event unless rights were made available to a terrestrial service on fair and reasonable terms. Equally, on the basis of reciprocity, a terrestrial service would not be permitted to broadcast live coverage of a listed event unless rights were similarly made available to a subscription or pay-per-view service. Within classes of service, exclusive sales to individual broadcasters would he possible.
Such an approach would safeguard listed events for terrestrial television, but at the same time be more liberal than the controls in the 1990 Act which imposed a rigid ban on the live coverage of listed events on pay-per-view services. It would help to sustain competition on price in the interests of sports bodies. There would be scope for subscription broadcasters to offer alternative or fuller coverage of a listed event which was shown on a terrestrial channel. This would be to the benefit of the viewers who might wish to avail themselves of it. Enforcement would be through the ITC by analogy with the 1990 Act provision; and we should expect the BBC to commit itself to a regime along similar lines. There should be a review mechanism to reflect the need for flexibility in the fast-moving broadcasting sector.
Such an approach goes fully with the grain of the amendment passed by your Lordships' House. It is also in line with an earlier recommendation of the Select Committee of the other place. We believe it strikes a fair balance between the reasonable interests of all those concerned; and I hope that our planned amendment to this effect will commend itself to your Lordships when we present it to you.
I have said that public interest has focused very largely on listed events. Alongside calls for added protection for coverage of listed events there have been various suggestions that the list itself should be modified. The Government keep the list of listed events under continuing review. Any proposals to add to or subtract from it need to be considered carefully in consultation with the various interests specified in the
164
1990 Act. One point that has been made in consultation is that the process of deciding on the contents of the list should be made more transparent, and in particular that criteria should be established to act as a reference point for future discussions. The Government think that this is an interesting suggestion and we shall consider it further.
This might be an appropriate moment for me to sit down because, with your Lordships' leave, I should very much welcome the opportunity to hear the comments of other noble Lords on the amendment before commenting on it myself on behalf of the Government.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the Minister for what he has just said which is for the convenience of the House. It will be helpful to discuss the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, against the background of the announcement that the Government have just made.
We should also congratulate the Minister on having conducted one of the fastest processes of consultation in the history of this somewhat slow-moving and dilatory Government. If there were an Olympic gold medal for speed of consultation, I think that the Minister should now be enjoying it. We shall want to study carefully the detail of what the Minister has said about the amendment which he is to move on Third Reading to deal with the listed events provisions which your Lordships passed at an earlier stage.
I shall say no more about that at this stage beyond underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about one aspect of the consultation. If I remember rightly, the consultation paper relied largely on statistics provided by BSkyB. The Minister seemed to rely on the rather speedy consultation process and on letters that he has received on the matter. He should not rely too much on the fact that ordinary, concerned citizens who give their views should, as he put it, have an interest only in protecting listed events and do not have an interest in the wider area of the broadcasting of sporting activities. I do not think that the ordinary concerned citizen can follow the detail of these matters too closely. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted a figure from one newspaper opinion poll suggesting that 80 per cent. of people felt that Parliament should legislate to protect sporting events more generally rather than simply the listed events. That figure should be given due weight.
Having said that, I turn to the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has great knowledge and experience of these matters. He put his case extremely modestly and fairly. It is important to realise the distinction between listed events and protected events and what we are discussing in this amendment which goes a great deal wider. The listed events, the so-called "Crown Jewels" as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, called them, are more than sporting events. They are national occasions. They are part of the social Cohesion about which the noble Lord spoke.
Beyond that, a wide range of major sporting events are now broadcast. The proliferation of satellite and cable channels which are mainly dependent on

165
subscription has meant that sporting events are now more widely available, as the Minister has just said. Undoubtedly, in general that has been good for the sporting organisations which can now get a much fairer price for their sporting rights than was the case in the days when only the BBC and independent television competed for them. It has been good for BSkyB and other satellite and cable operators. In general, it has been good for viewers and listeners, apart from the concerns which are the main thrust of this amendment.
In my judgment, given the spread of the broadcast of sporting events, our starting point ought to be that there is now ample money to go round if no one is too greedy or too shortsighted and if there is a willingness to put the interests of the general viewing and listening public first.
We must bear in mind that for some years ahead the vast majority of people will depend on the main public terrestrial channels for their viewing of sporting events. All the research indicates that well into the next century main viewing will remain with the terrestrial channels. The rights to television highlights or to live radio should therefore not be "hoarded", to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Where a broadcaster has bought exclusive live rights for subscription, there should be a legal obligation to make the highlights available to channels with a universal audience.
We believe that the ITC should be responsible for regulating that. It can do so through the conditions that it already imposes in licences on subscription broadcasters. One should not forget that once the Bill becomes law the ITC will be able to regulate the BBC if the BBC decides to go in for a minority subscription channel in the future in just the same way as it can regulate BSkyB and other satellite operators.
The amendment does not prefer one channel to another. The ITC would regulate those over which it had coverage; the Radio Authority would regulate the radio channels; and the Director General of Fair Trading would, of course, have the ultimate sanction. If concern remains about the BBC avoiding regulation, the provisions can—I would support this—be made binding upon the governors. It goes without saying that the changes that we propose in the amendment are in no way retrospective. There is no question of existing contracts being hit.
The change can help the sports bodies—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—if they take other than the most short-term view of where their interests lie. It will help to create a longer term market—a new set of secondary sporting rights. They will be able to negotiate in different markets and extract the highest price from them all.
My experience of the preparations for the Bill, and the vigorous lobbying that we have all received from the various interested parties, has been a vivid insight into the fact that the market place for sporting rights has become a jungle in which everyone fights fiercely, and understandably, for their own interests. I do not in the least regard the BBC or ITV as knights in shining armour with regard to operations within that
166
marketplace. No one who has spent time as chairman of the IBA could ever regard ITV as a knight in shining armour. Nor do I regard the other side, represented by the subscription broadcasters, as being the forces of darkness.
In the amendment we are genuinely trying to strike what the Minister called the balance of various conflicting interests. From these Benches, we believe that in the interests of the viewer and listener the marketplace requires some statutory regulation. It cannot be left just to voluntary codes of conduct and to the chance of agreements being made, as they have sometimes been made recently, at the very last minute. In such cases, I believe sometimes that it is only because the matter is being debated in your Lordships' House. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment is the best way to look after the interests of the viewer and listener, and it is the best long-term bet, incidentally, to stop undesirable monopolies emerging.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, this is an important advance. My noble friend Lord Thomson—if I may call him so—has put forward a generous offer. He believes that it is the right way for the Government to go forward. I understand the important way the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has put forward the matter. It should be considered carefully, but when one hears what my noble friend the Minister said—he has worked extremely hard in a difficult situation—I feel that it is an opportunity for the House to make a valuable advance which can be taken forward by the Government when the Bill goes to another place.
This seems to be a sensible plan for many people who are anxious and want to see the service developed. I thank my noble friend the Minister for having made a considerable effort in moving in what I believe to be the right way.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has done a marvellous job generally in his handling of the Bill. I would be the first to concede that he has done an excellent job generally throughout our discussions. The discussions I have had with him have confirmed that.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he did not understand the issue of unbundling. Perhaps I may try briefly to explain. For example, last night—the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, with his previous interest in the north east may be sorry to know this—Newcastle lost to Manchester United. I was pleased about that, but I did not have an opportunity to see the match. I should have liked to have seen it. Under my noble friend's amendment, we would have had a chance to see it on terrestrial television. That must be helpful. I see that the noble Viscount agrees. I hope that if the Minister does not accept the amendment today he will at least come back, as he has done on the main amendment, at the next stage of the Bill.
It is important that the ITC, and no one else, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, should have the responsibility. That is not because, as he said, the BBC and ITV are knights in shining armour. As a former vice-chairman of the BBC I never saw myself as a

167
knight in shining armour, as I know he is aware. The change could help everyone concerned. This is the big issue. It helps the sports bodies. It would help them create a new set of secondary sporting rights. There would be live rights on television for all concerned.
There would be no question of doing anyone out of the responsibility of presenting the sporting programmes that we all want to see. I see that one noble Baroness, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, does not want to see them. I know that there are some people who do not want to see sport on television, but they can watch other channels or not bother at all.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the matter is simple. There are no complications about this. Anything a monopoly television power has on its subscription or other channel should be available elsewhere. Even if it is a monopoly to the BBC or ITV, that should equally be available elsewhere. That is all that is being said by my noble friend Lord Howell. The change would work in the interests of viewers, listeners, and the sporting bodies themselves. It is also in the best long-term interests of stopping monopolies emerging any where.
My noble friend Lord Howell will correct me if I am wrong, but that is the main purpose of the amendment. Put briefly in that way, I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Newall: My Lords, at first glance I had great sympathy with the amendment, but after looking at it more carefully I feel that it is not right. Many of the movers of the amendment are friends of mine. I have supported them and they have supported me. I support the Government over my noble friend the Minister's recommendation that the so-called unbundling provisions are neither desirable or necessary.
As noble Lords know, and as I have said on many occasions, I have an interest to declare as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. Greyhound racing, together with all other major spectator sports in this country, strongly opposes the suggestion that rights for live and recorded television and radio rights should be sold separately.
Recorded rights could lose all their value, as any broadcaster could claim them by statutory right. That is not what we want. The bidding process would be almost impossible. It would be impossible for a rights holder to agree a price with a broadcaster for exclusive rights if neither party knew the extent or the price of the highlights package. That is important, although it is complicated.
We have to ask what are the reasonable terms which the amendment suggests, and how are they arrived at. Who would have to agree them? It is a minefield. The Government are wise to oppose instant legislative solutions in this area. We need to look at this issue in much more depth in the future. Without taking a great deal of time, I agree with my noble friend the Minister and oppose the amendment for the reasons I have given.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I support what my noble friend said. Perhaps I may comment on the amendment and say who it affects. The main beneficiaries will he those who operate the terrestrial television channels. It is worth noting that the ITV Association, which represents all ITV companies, has said that on balance it prefers to allow the market to take its course on unbundling within existing competition rules rather than the complicated legislative process which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is suggesting. We must remember that competition rules carry weight. If there is any anti-competitive behaviour those who feel hard done by can go to the OFT. The problem with the amendment is that it is extremely complicated and, I believe, unworkable. The terrestrial broadcasters who are affected say that they would prefer the market to take its course.
The BBC, which is also affected, states that it is in favour of the amendment. However, we must remember that the BBC is a past master at anti-competitive behaviour because it does not make its highlights available to other broadcasters. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, criticised the Minister's consultation exercise as ludicrous. I offer the same criticism of the noble Lord's survey, which was the same as asking, "Do you wish to have everything for free?". Of course, the answer is always yes and we must not read too much into the survey. We must look at what those in the industry say and take their comments to heart. My noble friend the Minister has made an offer which we should consider most carefully.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor said that the main beneficiaries will be the organisations concerned. Perhaps I may remind him that the main beneficiaries should be the viewing public, who we must also consider.
When the related amendment was debated in Committee I was snow-bound and regretted that I was unable to support it. When I entered the Chamber I intended to support the noble Lord's amendment and I still intend to do so. However, I would qualify that because I would wish to read what my noble friend the Minister has said. His comments were difficult to follow exactly and they could alter one's opinion.
Two issues are involved. The first is that we are dealing with individual assets and it has been asked whether it is right to circumscribe one's rights to deal with those assets. That is not a unique problem and it would not be a precedent to say, "No, you cannot". Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, for instance, I am not allowed to sell a mantelpiece in a house that I happen to own freehold. There are innumerable instances of inability to have freedom to deal with assets.
The second issue is the financing of sport. The phrase "short-termism" has been mentioned and I endorse the comment. In my view, the opponents are adopting extreme short-term attitudes if they believe that by eliminating 85 per cent. of the viewing public they are advancing the interests of their sport. In the short term

169
they might be doing so, but I am sure that in the long term it will be the ruination of their sport. That is why I support the original decision reached by the House and this amendment.
I conclude by asking the Minister to mention to the Secretary of State the fact that I can think of no better way of losing for her party and mine 500,000 votes at the next election than by denying the general public the opportunity to watch not the finals of Wimbledon but the whole of Wimbledon.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I fully support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, but I understand what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about the screening of a football match last night that he was unable to watch. But why does the noble Lord believe that if the amendment were accepted he would be able to watch such a match? If no one could afford to pay the subscription he still would not be able to see the match. I support the Government and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that we need to consider the matter again. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I support the idea because it is important that the highlights should be shown separately from the main event. Time is of the essence for television because many people are not at home when events are shown live during the afternoons. It is desirable that highlights are shown in the evenings, perhaps on a different channel.
The Minister was sensible in proposing flexibility because that is also desirable. Circumstances are changing fast, not only technically but in sport too. The Boat Race used to be one of the highlights of the reserved sporting events. Although it is still televised it is not a protected event. Rugby League was played mainly north of The Wash but now it is a popular event and the finals must be considered. There will be many more changes and I am in favour of flexibility and consultation taking place over the years. These items are not set in tablets of stone and they will change. Therefore I ask the Minister to build flexibility into the system.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I agree that public taste in sport changes. It may well be that in future there must be negotiations about what have been defined as the crown jewels of sport. However, that is not the purpose of this amendment. It deals with the issue of highlights appearing on the screen if there is an exclusive contractor for pay television on the terrestrial channels or vice versa.
Such matters are one's of taste and judgment. It is my opinion, because I am an impatient man and I do not mind admitting it, that the highlights are considerably more worth while seeing than the original event. I should have thought that any contractor such as Sky, which has exclusive rights to a match or series of matches, would have a valuable market in which to sell the highlights. However, the value of that market is difficult to determine.
170
The amendment provides for "reasonable terms". The difficulty with that phrase is that it will be a part of the law which will depend on the agreement of third parties who are not party to the law. They may be susceptible to it but they are not party to it. What will happen if they do not agree? That being the case I ask: why bother with an amendment? I believe that we should allow a reasonable market for what I regard to be a most valuable commodity. In that case the BBC or ITV will, if they wish, readily purchase for a reasonable sum the highlights of an event to which they do not have exclusive rights. I believe that the matter would be best left in that form and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the issue of the crown jewels has already been settled and my noble friend rightly seeks to go further. I believe that that is the proper thing to do. I never regarded the crown jewels as being the major issue. It is an important issue but we wish to go wider because people are interested in more sport than is included in the crown jewels. When noble Lords opposite say that we should leave it to competition they appear to assume that the academic concept of perfect competition can be operated. However, it does not operate like that in any industry and certainly not with broadcasting and sport because the so-called competition leads to monopoly. A monopoly means that the vast majority of people cannot watch sport because the monopoly rests with those who can afford to pay the most. That is the nub of this debate.
The noble Lord mentioned Rugby League. That is now of national interest. It is of national interest because it was not confined to Sky Television. The BBC televised it. That is why we must preserve the freedom for the majority of people to watch sport, and that is why my noble friend's amendment is the right way forward. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the will of this House and the country on Clause 1. I was intrigued to read that the Secretary of State was in favour of our clause all along. You could have kidded me in view of the tussles which took place beforehand. However, we graciously welcome the conversion.
We are still not happy with the Government's statement, especially in regard to highlights. In that respect we support everything which my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said. I did not add my name to the amendment but that reflects what I might call the clamour for signatories. On these Benches we give the amendment total support.
I shall not repeat all the arguments because we have a great deal more work to do today. However, I emphasise that the amendment is basically an implementation of the basic principles of Clause 1 which the Government have accepted. Those are the principles of national public access and non-exclusivity. I believe that the 85 per cent. of the British sporting public who do not pay hundreds of pounds a year for satellite television should not be

171
excluded from watching the highlights of golf, rugby and its Five Nations competition, Formula One, and so on. In practice, such exclusion would be the consequence of rejecting the amendment.
The Government's main argument against the amendment will be the familiar one of market forces. I do not accept that. The purchase and sale of monopoly rights for a minority audience is not the ideal example of the free market in operation. In fact the amendment seeks to safeguard competition by ensuring broadcasting competition and consumer choice. Above all, it prevents minority monopoly control. Nor do we believe that the sporting bodies which control golf, rugby and so on will benefit if they create a monopoly view for 15 per cent. of supporters. They have an obligation to their wider constituency of supporters, including the young, the old and the poor who cannot afford satellite fees. I believe also that it is not in their interests to create a monopoly purchaser. I agree with everything the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, said about that.
I make a particular point which I ask the Minister and the Government to take into account. The logic of eliminating highlights from protection will increase the pressure to extend the protected list. It is possible to have a short protected list when people have highlights of other sports such as, for example, golf. But if 85 per cent. of the nation is not able to view any golf—for example, the British Open or the Ryder Cup—then there will be great pressure to put it on the protected list. That will apply also when the rights to the Rugby Five Nations competition are renegotiated. I believe that Sky will purchase the rights to live coverage. If the highlights are not protected most people will not be able to watch any rugby. Therefore, if the highlights are not protected we shall have to consider adding to the protected list.
The amendment is not anti-pay TV and not anti-subscription satellite. It gives to Sky the same rights to highlights when the BBC or ITV are showing live coverage as happens vice versa. Clause 1 gives Sky the same non-exclusive live coverage rights as it gives the BBC. In our view it is a fair amendment. It is fair between broadcasters and it is fair to television and radio customers. I hope sincerely that before Third Reading the Government will think again.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that I may turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I begin by confirming that in that area the fair dealing provisions contained in the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 apply. That permits the use of news clips of sporting events in news programmes. That would have enabled the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to have seen at
172
least the goal to which he referred. I speak with sadness as a Member of a House full of Newcastle United supporters.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so quickly. Would it allow any of us to see the knock-out in the big fight if it lasts only one minute?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that one could not only see the knock-out but the whole fight. The Government have considered unbundling with great care. We have discussed it with all the relevant interests as part of our consultation process. I am very grateful for the comments made by my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Orr-Ewing. But we remain unpersuaded that any advantages of an unbundling provision would exceed the disadvantages of a major and complex interference in the market. We are therefore not able to support it.
This amendment is different in kind from the amendment on listed events. It introduces an entirely new concept unparalleled in any other aspect of broadcasting here or, to our knowledge, elsewhere in the world. Its scope is far wider than the listed events amendment. All events of national and local interest, actual and potential, are covered. The financial effect on sporting bodies could, we believe, be considerable, with corresponding damage to investment in facilities and training. Moreover, it imposes rigidities at a time when broadcasters need flexibility to respond to technical and market developments.
Nor are such controls justified by public policy considerations. As I explained, we are taking action to protect the sporting events which are of acknowledged special importance to the nation as a whole, and we retain the power to extend that protection by adding to the list of listed events. There is no substantive public demand for wide-ranging new powers to make more sport available on television and radio. Viewers can already enjoy over 2,500 hours of sport a year on terrestrial free to air TV. There is no question of an insufficiency of sport in general. Coverage includes items on the list and live coverage of many other events, highlights of major events, and a plethora of lesser interest sports. At an average of seven hours a day on terrestrial free to air television, I do not think that viewers can seriously consider themselves deprived of sport. Indeed, some respondents in our consultation exercise thought that broadcast sports coverage was already excessive. And we must not overlook that large proportion of the public, of whom my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham spoke, who do not like sport and want to look at other things on television.
The Government understand, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out, that the ITV Association thinks it preferable that the market should take its course within existing competition rules and sees advantages in this approach. Furthermore the Government also understand that the Sports Council advocates a voluntary code of conduct including an agreement by governing bodies of major spectator sports that viewers and listeners should have the widest possible access to

173
major sporting events. The Government also see attractions in that approach and invite the Sports Council to develop it with the governing bodies. No doubt they will bear in mind the comments of my noble friend Lord Harrowby and the fact that the popularity of sport depends on the public's access to it.
The amendment implies, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare pointed out, an intrusion into the legitimate rights of sports rights holders which we consider unwarranted as drafted. It fails to recognise the reality that in general there is widespread availability of highlight coverage, duly negotiated between the sports bodies and broadcasters. It is clearly in the interests of sports bodies to secure wide coverage for their sports. Despite a number of specific causes célèbres, some of which may not be quite as generally supposed, we do not believe that the case has been made for the kind of changes proposed. Indeed, the publicity generated by your Lordships' House in debating this subject is, we believe, likely to focus sports rights holders and broadcasters on the central issues involved and we hope that this will lead to sensibly thought-out policies recognising the implications for all those affected. In short, the amendment would impose controls where we believe they are not justified on grounds of public policy, as my noble friend Lord Newall pointed out. I must conclude by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Howell—I am sure that it will be a disappointment to him but not a surprise—that the Government cannot support his amendment.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am most grateful to all the speakers who have taken part in our reasonably brief but fascinating debate and for the spirit in which they have done so. I shall be brief and comment on just one or two points that were made. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, wondered whether the principles were necessary here, having previously told us that he supported the same principles in the Division Lobby regarding the listed events for which I expressed my appreciation. But we are now dealing with the very same principle; indeed, it is the very same principle that I am asking the House to accept and extend to major sports not included in the listed events. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Donoughue said; we may have to look again at the listed events. I believe that that is what the country would want us to do.
The noble Earl, Lord Newall, told us that it would be difficult to agree a price for such matters if highlights were to be negotiated. Why would it be so difficult? There has been no difficulty in negotiating the price of World Cup cricket: it was £1 million and both sides agreed that that was a reasonable price. Indeed, that has happened where other highlights have been shown. There is no difficulty in agreeing a price when reasonable people want the highlights to be shown. All the mechanisms of supply and demand apply.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, for the point that he made. Indeed, he raised matters which the House will know concern me regarding the social responsibilities of sport. However, I shall not repeat that argument, except to say that I have raised the
174
matter several times in Committee and on Second Reading and in private correspondence to some of the major sports bodies. I have asked the latter how they intend to discharge their social responsibilities regarding the elderly and others who do not have Sky or cable television because they cannot afford it—£300 to install and a yearly charge just to look at sport. I have also asked them, "How do you intend to discharge your responsibilities to the youth of the country?". If millions of homes are deprived of seeing any sporting excellence, that might undermine the future of British sport. The noble Earl was right to raise the matter again, because we have received no response whatever from those sporting bodies as to how they intend to meet that situation. If they cannot tell us how they intend to discharge their social responsibilities to the nation, they can have no complaint if this House decides that we must do something about it. Those responsibilities remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, told us that we could have highlights concentrated in the evening and that that would be most valuable. I am inclined to agree with him—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Get on with it!
Lord Howell: My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that I am getting on with it. I am sorry that he feels a little exhausted, but that is because he does not like sport; indeed, he likes to see legal matters, which is hardly the sort of sporting contest that the rest of us enjoy.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is because there is no commitment at present to show highlights that we have this problem. If the commitment was there by subscription and terrestrial TV—and I believe the Government hope that that will be the case, especially if the voluntary code of conduct of the Sports Council comes into being—that would deal satisfactorily with the matter.
As always, the Minister has dealt with the matter most kindly and gently. I believe that, like us, he is trying to reach some sort of agreement, or consensus—if the latter word is more appropriate. The reason for the issue of highlights not arising in his consultation process is that no one has been talking about them. The whole public argument on television, in press reports and elsewhere has been about listed events. Had we gone into the subject of highlights at an earlier stage I can assure the Minister that his postbag would have reflected the situation; indeed, that would be the case were we to do so now.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not responded to the point that I made about the ruling of the European Court. I regard that as being extremely important. As I said earlier, if the European Court has decided that highlights must be sold separately under European competition policy, that is an important consideration. However, I do not ask the Minister to comment now on that aspect because the course of action that I am about to ask the House to follow will enable him to give more consideration to it just as I intend to do. Indeed, the point was only brought to my attention this morning.

175
If it is right that the European Court's decision now means that, according to case law, it will now be unlawful not to "unbundle" highlights from the main contract, then obviously that would render my amendment unnecessary. I also have regard to the fact that the Sports Council is trying to negotiate a voluntary code of conduct. I am prepared to give that a fair wind. I hope that the council will be able to do so and that it will be able to tell us how it has got on by the time we reach Third Reading. If the council makes progress and if all the sports bodies and the terrestrial and subscription channels of television find it possible to agree to a code of conduct as a voluntary matter, I am sure that that would be a great relief to all of us. It would unite both the Minister and myself and obviate the necessity to proceed much further.
It is because I want to bring that agreement about and ensure that in future we do not have another case like the Ryder Cup, where a great event was screened but denied to the majority of the public, that I believe the amendment should be withdrawn now in the knowledge that, when we have all reflected further on the matters which have arisen, we can return to the issue on Third Reading. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No.2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
HOLDING OF LICENCES: RESTRICTIONS ON INVOLVEMENT IN ADMINISTRATION OF SPORT
(".—(1) Sections 5 and 88 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 are each amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), after "who" insert—
("(i) is involved, or any of whose employees, agents or representatives is involved, in the government or administration of any sport in respect of which he is the holder of any exclusive broadcasting right, or
(ii)".
(3) At the end there is inserted—
"(8) In this section "exclusive broadcasting right" means any contract or agreement providing for the exclusive right to include in a broadcasting service any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a sporting event, or of a recording of that event.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I call this the "conflict-of-interest amendment". That ought rightly to be prevented, but many of us have a suspicion that it may be necessary to do so by legislation. It seems increasingly clear that in certain sports people are speaking both for the sport and for the television company in discussions which they are holding with each other. I shall not spend much time on the matter, but I should like to point out that when we negotiate such important contracts, which involve large sums of money and the rights of television companies, it is absolutely vital that there should be a clear distinction between the executives of the television companies and the governing bodies of sport. Therefore, the amendment has been tabled to express that opinion and
176
to seek the Government's views as to whether they think that that is a danger for which Parliament ought to legislate. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I read the amendment with great care. I have to tell the noble Lord that, while one has a certain sympathy for much of what he said as regards his earlier amendment and indeed the one that he moved on the last occasion when we debated the matter, the current amendment would seem to have a rather dangerous effect. When the noble Lord replies to the Minister's response, I wonder whether he could answer a few questions. First, why should those who have a stake in a sport not be allowed to have a stake in its broadcasting? There seems to be no reason why they should be excluded.
I shall give a couple of examples. The noble Lord's amendment would affect the Racecourse Association which owns a share of SIS which is the service which is transmitted to betting shops and also, via cable or satellite, into people's homes. Under the noble Lord's amendment such services would be excluded because they would be classed as shareholders in a broadcaster, and as sporting bodies. Further, a sport which is currently unable to find an outlet on television might, in order to try to encourage interest in the sport, commission its own programmes and then transmit them on a cable channel, whether that be in London or in the noble Lord's home town of Birmingham. It might do that for the sound reason of encouraging interest in that sport.
I believe that the noble Lord's amendment would stop any of those things happening and that must have a bad and restrictive effect on sport and sports' ability to be broadcast. All noble Lords know that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is a keen racing aficionado. I hope that he will consider the impact of this measure on racing. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, could be damaging to certain sports' bodies.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for explaining that this amendment is intended to avoid possible conflicts of interests for those involved in negotiations between sports rights holders and broadcasting bodies. I am sure we would all agree with the sentiment underlying the first of these amendments. Conflicts of interest for those involved in negotiations between sports right holders and broadcasting bodies are clearly wrong. However, the Government are not persuaded of the case for legislation to deal with a matter that is best dealt with under the criminal law which has a full range of sanctions at its disposal.
Legislative provision along the lines of the amendment would also have damaging effects of the kind alluded to by my noble friend Lord Astor. It would prevent the development of new television services by sports bodies, using digital broadcasting techniques—that idea is being seriously considered by a number of sports—which in turn would damage digital television

177
and digital audio broadcasting. We do not believe this could possibly be in the public interest. For that reason the Government do not support this amendment.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for his comments, and to the Minister for his explanation. The short answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is that we should not allow people to negotiate with themselves. I agree with what was said about the possibilities of digital techniques and about some sports' bodies wishing to promote their own programmes, or to engage producers to put a programme together. I do not object to that concept, but I object to people who negotiate with themselves. I believe there is some evidence that that is happening, or there is a danger that it could happen. However, this amendment has served its purpose for the moment by enabling us to have a brief discussion on this matter. I hope that my friends involved in sport and in television will take note of the discussion and of the fact that we do not want any conflicts of interest in negotiations on the televising of sport. The advent of digital television may be some years away, but I hope that when that matter is discussed these principles will be borne in mind. As I have said, the amendment has served its purpose in allowing me to express these anxieties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING AND SPORT
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee to be known as the Advisory Committee for Broadcasting and Sport.
(2) The Committee shall consist of—

(a) a Chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) fourteen members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of the interests of—

(i) broadcasters,

(ii) sporting bodies, and

(iii) viewers of and listeners to broadcast services.

(3) The Committee shall—

(a) review such matters relating to the broadcasting of sport as it considers appropriate, and

(b) consider any matter referred to it by the Secretary of State,

and shall from time to time report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(4) Any report or recommendations made under subsection (3) shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this amendment as one of considerable importance. It seeks to establish an advisory committee of people representing the interests of broadcasters, sporting bodies, and viewers of and listeners to broadcast services, to advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning listed events. It is incredible that the matter of whether or not an event should be labelled a listed event depends entirely on the whim of the Secretary of State.
When Mr. Kenneth Baker, when he was Home Secretary, drew up the previous list in 1990, he consulted no one. Out of the blue he declared that the
178
eight listed events that we are discussing today—and have discussed on previous occasions—were the jewels in the crown. He was more or less correct in that assertion but it is monstrous that one Minister should be able to take such a decision without being required to consult anyone and without any known criteria having been established. We have applied our minds to this matter to establish what we can do to prevent that position persisting in the future. We have sought to suggest who should be represented on the committee. We propose that the Secretary of State should be allowed to appoint the members of the committee. We are not trying to impose any members on the Secretary of State whom he would find unacceptable.
We believe there are three main areas of interest where the relevant people should be consulted when listed events are determined. Those people are the broadcasters, the sporting bodies and the viewers of and listeners to broadcast services. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. I hope that the Minister can embrace the principle, if not the wording of this amendment. If he cannot do so, I hope he will tell us how in future the Government will determine listed events. We shall return to these matters from time to time but I should prefer to have a simple, tidy and permanent solution as to how these matters will be determined, and what criteria should be applied. This amendment seeks to achieve that solution. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has most helpfully put forward the case for a committee to assist the Secretary of State by advising her on matters relating to the broadcasting of sport. I can see the arguments for a committee of this sort although I remain to be convinced of its precise remit and added value. The Government are prepared to consider this proposal further although, obviously, can give no commitment. I hope on the basis of that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am delighted to receive that assurance. I believe that as this day has progressed we have moved closer together in what we intend to achieve. That is a good sign. Sport should not be a matter of party political argument. We should seek to reach agreement, as I have endeavoured to do, on the principles of these matters, even if some of the wording is not quite right. I welcome what the Minister said. In the circumstances I am content to leave the matter with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF "SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT" AND "SUBSCRIBER AUTHORISATION" SERVICES
(".—(1) In this Part a "subscriber management service" means a service provided to any holder of a licence under the 1990 Act to provide a television programme service, or to any holder of a licence under this Act to provide a digital programme service or a multiplex

179
service, for billing or payment handling in respect of charges for and payments received from viewers within the United Kingdom of encrypted television programmes.
(2) In this Part a "subscriber authorisation service" means a service provided to any holder of a licence under the 1990 Act to provide a television programme service, or to any holder of a licence under this Act to provide a digital programme service or a multiplex service, for the remote actuation, processing or control of equipment for receiving encrypted television programmes within the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I wish to speak also to the whole list of amendments grouped with it. The purpose of the amendments is to create a legislative framework for the ITC to license and regulate for the provision of conditional access and subscriber management for digital terrestrial, digital satellite and analogue satellite. At the moment the ITC cannot apply a code to News Datacom—that is the company which supplies the Videocrypt conditional access system used by BSkyB—or to any other provider which is not an ITC licensee. The matter was debated in some detail on the second day in Committee. That debate makes very interesting reading. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—I hope that he will not object to my calling him my noble friend—with his support not only for these amendments but also for the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke of the Clydeside MP, Jimmy Maxton, and his reference to riding two horses at one time. Perhaps I should refer to what might appear to be another "riding of two horses" at one time. My noble friend Lord Donoughue has his name in support of the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, Amendment No. 164. As my noble friend Lord Donoughue supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—and I hope that he will support my amendment today—my mind turned back to the old proverb attributed to G. Herbert dating back to 1640. Noble Lords will understand that one carries this sort of saying in one's head day in and day out. The proverb came into my thoughts:
"For the want of a nail the shoe is lost;
for the want of a shoe the horse is lost;
for the want of a horse the rider is lost".
We do not want to lose our horse. If we lose our rider, the viewer—in modern-day parlance—will be lost. That is why we have put down the amendments.
The amendment before the House today is not the same as the amendment in Committee in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. This group of amendments has a wider application. The key difference is that we refer to the role and the involvement of the ITC whereas the noble Viscount's amendment leaves the matter to the DTI and Oftel.
To use the horse analogy, we should not allow this important matter to become a battle for turf, although I rather suspect that that might have been a factor behind the scenes in the discussions on the European directive between the DNH and the DTI when considering the issues. How much easier it would be if we had not had such a proliferation of regulatory bodies in the communications field.
Conditional access has become one of the key issues in our consideration of the Bill. It is not surprising that that is so. The availability of wider choice, of diversity of programming, will themselves be dependent on the gateway access availability—a gateway which must not be so restrictive as to squeeze out competition and the start up of small service providers.
The issue of open competition and access was of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, at Committee stage. Indeed, the area of competition and access was referred to by the Minister at Second Reading.
On these Benches, we readily accept investment. The courage and money available to take a gamble in the market place have to be recognised and not penalised. However, the viewing public interest has a place in this debate. In dealing with broadcasting, one cannot simply treat the issue with a class licence as one does in telecommunications. In the nature of broadcasting, content will be a crucial factor, not just for diversity but in leading to commercial success too. We readily accept that the new digital era will provide not just broadcasting and television services but a range of services, many of which we have not even thought about as we discuss the Bill today.
I believe that it is in that area of broadcasting—diversity for the viewer—that the ITC has the prime experience: that of balancing the requirements of fair, effective competition with content. Indeed, it has such a responsibility under the 1990 Broadcasting Act.
The Minister confirmed, as does the DTI consultative document on conditional access, that the ITC will be consulted. But what does that mean? One can consult a range of people when making changes. It could end up a useless consultation with the views of the ITC not required to be taken on board by the regulator or the Secretary of State for the DTI. If there is open competition at present, as we are told by so many, why is there no rival to Sky Sport or some of the other services which one would think would be attractive to the public, having a range of similar services available?
At Committee stage, at col. 351, the Minister referred to the review of BSkyB's position by the Director General of Fair Trading. It was referred to earlier today. That review relates to the cable industry. The problem is that the review is due to be completed by May of this year. That is too late for consideration before this Bill leaves this House. Depending on the consultation procedure, it is probably too late for the other place to consider it when dealing with the Bill.
When dealing with the amendments at Committee stage, the Minister referred to an extension of powers necessary for the ITC which would place operators under the risk of regulatory double jeopardy. Of course, no one wants that. Under the 1990 Act, the ITC's duty in relation to fair and effective competition extends to services such as conditional access and subscriber management where they are connected with the licensed programme services. These amendments do not take the ITC into new or totally unoccupied territory. They allow the regulator to perform his duties across the sector rather than in selected and therefore defective areas of it.
I believe that the cable companies are concerned—I believe that the anxiety was raised in Committee—that regulating conditional access could lead to unequal treatment of their sectors. Let me assure noble Lords that that is not the intention of the amendments. We recognise that there are issues so far as concerns the cable sector.
The amendments—they are the same as those discussed in Committee—are before us today because although it has been the Government's intention to keep conditional access outside the Bill, it has been very much at centre play in our considerations. I hope that the amendments find approval with your Lordships today. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde on the amendment that she has so ably moved. I congratulate her on the work that she has done in producing this series of amendments. My name is on the Marshalled List in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. As I said in Committee, whether the body is the ITC or Oftel is not the fundamental issue. Perhaps understandably my balance of attraction goes to the ITC because, generally speaking, in the new developments between telecommunications and broadcasting I am always anxious to safeguard the broadcasting considerations. Those seem to be more considerations of creative value than of the technical issues as regards the DTI. However, that is not the most fundamental issue here. The fundamental issues are those which the noble Baroness stated.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to define rather usefully the encryption system on the one hand and the subscription system on the other. It is important to bear in mind that those are two different operations, sometimes with different although linked considerations. At present, with analogue transmission BSkyB is the gatekeeper for rival programme providers with which it competes. I do not wish to repeat my arguments at Committee stage. However, that seems to me to be fundamentally wrong in principle. It demands an open and transparent licensing system. For the life of me I still cannot see why what is regarded by Government as essential for the digital future (albeit for European Union reasons)is not regarded as necessary for the analogue present, which may be with us for a long time.
I leave that side of it and move on to the digital aspects of conditional access. I am becoming disturbed by what I hear about the Government's attitude to the European Union's directive and proposals for digital encryption. As the Minister will know, the directive provides for a standard encryption system but leaves conditional access to a code of conduct. There is a risk in that. The code of conduct is intended to make it possible for any conditional access system to work both with the standard European encryption system and with any subscriber management system to link them.
182
The two systems now becoming available on the continent, I am told—Multicrypt and Simulcrypt—satisfy that condition. But there is no assurance that Videocrypt, which is developed by BSkyB, does. I understand that the Government are reluctant to face up to the situation. If they do not it will leave BSkyB able to impose its own proprietary system in the new digital age. There will be created a new de facto monopoly.
In common with other noble Lords, I have received a letter from EUTELSAT, the inter-governmental organisation for European telecommunications. It emphasises the same point—the need in the Bill for a single common conditional access interface. The letter goes on:
"A mandatory common Conditional Access interface will mean that the same receiver/decoder can be used to access all channels even though the Conditional Access systems may differ…Key to achieving choice and accessibility will be the development of a Common Conditional Access Interface".
That is linked with the need to have a receiver/decoder which,
"should be able to receive from all types of distribution be it terrestrial, satellite or cable".
During the progress of the Bill I have tried to make a test of the views I have expressed from these Benches—the viewer and listener interest. I well recognise that there are many conflicting and valid interests to be balanced, as the Minister said. But the viewer and listener interest is extremely important. Together with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, I am a patron of the Voice of the Listener & Viewer. That society puts the issue in simpler language than I have been using from authoritative sources. It says:
"The universal adoption of a common interface would enable manufacturers to simplify their products and bring prices down most rapidly".
I conclude by asking the Government to seek to define what is essentially the public interest in this complex matter. I believe that the public interest is that the consumer has a single black box with a common technology that enables him to move freely between the various on-line services. Linked to that is the ability of the providers of programmes and other interactive services to use a common interface to bid for customers. If the Government were ready to look at the case for a mandatory interface, it would enable both manufacturers and retailers to compete in the high street stores with the new device alongside any other electrical appliance. That would speed up the digital revolution by bringing prices down.
I hope that I am wrong in hearing that the Government appear in discussions to be setting their face against a mandatory common interface. I hope that they will reconsider the matter. If they do not, once again we will need to look at the European dimension to see whether, through the European Union, we can bring about a mandatory arrangement that the Government in this country are not ready to recognise as being in the public interest of viewers and listeners

183
here. That is a new development since we discussed matters in Committee. I thought it right to bring it to your Lordships' attention at Report stage.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my Amendment No. 164 is similar to that of the noble Baroness. Although it is not grouped with hers, it is on the same issue, except that my amendment makes Oftel the regulator while hers makes ITC the regulator. The noble Baroness said that she was letting the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, know that she was going to ride two horses. I am more modest. I find great difficulty riding one horse at a time. Therefore, I shall speak to my amendment when it comes, but it may help your Lordships if I say a few words on Amendment No.4.
First, I wish to thank the Minister for arranging a meeting for me with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry. It is the policy of the department that affects the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me. We had a useful discussion after which we understood each others' views much more clearly. Unfortunately, having said that, at the meeting I was unable to persuade the Minister of the validity either of my case or of that of the noble Baroness. His arguments were not dissimilar to those we discussed previously: first, that digital would arrive relatively quickly; secondly, an amendment could undermine investor confidence in the future by the fact that we are changing the rules; and, thirdly, analogue transponder capacity is limited and therefore it is a much more serious obstacle than the terms that would be offered from BSkyB. In any event, the Minister's final point was that it was all covered by competition law.
There are good answers to those points. First, as regards digital arriving quickly, even BSkyB cannot say when it will begin transmitting by digital satellite. If anyone knows, it should. As we have heard, no one can say when there will be a switch off for analogue satellite broadcasting so we do not know when it will happen. The second point was that any amendment could undermine investor confidence. The simple answer to that is that any future investor in digital will have to abide by the same rules. All we are doing is taking the Government's own rules and extending them to analogue. Thirdly, there is the point that analogue capacity is limited. Of course it is. There are about 80 channels, some more successful than others. They change hands between broadcasters; the spectrum is bought, sold, transferred and rented out. That does not mean that anyone could be excluded. Fourthly, we all know that competition law covers the area. As the noble Baroness said, the OFT is looking into the issue, but we know that the review will take at least six months. OFT reviews always seem to take at least six months. The point of putting it in the Bill is that it does not have to take six months; it is there as a licence condition.
It is worth making another two points. I just about understand my amendment; I do not understand that of the noble Baroness because it is even longer. I am sure that mine does not stray into the area of regulation in cable transmission capacity. I believe that the focus should be on conditional access systems only. Any regulation of cable would remove incentives from cable
184
operators to invest in network provisions. I believe that I am right in saying that neither the noble Baroness's amendment nor mine applies to the underlying networks.
My other point is that my amendment and that of the noble Baroness have strong support throughout the industry; the ITV companies support them. The thrust of the amendments is important because we believe in competition. I hope that we believe in fair competition. Without the amendments there is the possibility that BSkyB will have an unfair advantage over anyone who wishes to join the market. Without this amendment companies face the possibility of having to wait until the introduction of digital. We know that that is somewhere down the line. By the time digital is introduced, BSkyB will have had the ability to saturate the market. It will be too late. The very reason that BSkyB has been so successful—and we must commend it on its success—is that the 1990 Act prevented ITV companies from joining in the game. They are not allowed to by statute. We are not trying in any way to inhibit the growth of BSkyB, or affect it. What we say is that there must be fair competition. I very much support in principle the noble Baroness's amendments. I hope that mine are marginally better, since they offer Oftel as the regulator, which seems to be the way things are going, and follow the Government's line.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, what matters is not who the regulator is, but the fact that there is regulation.
5 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I make two points. First, the best technical advice that I have been able to receive concerning digital and set-top boxes is that it would be dangerous at this moment to plump for any one of the particular systems mentioned and that, if we hang on, something better may emerge which allows everything that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, seeks and which I wholeheartedly endorse. I caution against fixing on something at this particular stage for digital.
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for her comment that her amendments are not intended to include cable companies. However, I draw her attention to Amendment No. 43, which links subscriber management systems to local delivery services. Local delivery services include cable companies. They provide a gateway for access provision. As I hope everyone realises, those gateways are wide open. The more the companies can bring through the cables, the happier they are.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I spoke briefly in Committee on this group of amendments covering analogue conditional access and subscriber management systems. I have to admit that, as the debate continued, I realised that I did not fully understand the position. However, I have now done some homework and, regretfully, I still cannot support the amendments. I hope to be able to cover some further points on this matter, including the analogue/digital position, in further

185
discussion on my noble friend's Amendment No. 164. At this stage, I ask the House to reject these amendments.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, once again we have had a very useful debate on this subject. In addressing my remarks to it, I shall speak to the grouped amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred. I shall also touch on the substance of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor. I suppose that it will enable your Lordships to have a preview of some of my later arguments. But at the same time I hope it may assist the House in the general consideration of what is by any standards an important subject.
We saw in Committee the general substance of these two amendments. They seek two broad results: first, to institute a licensing regime for both analogue and digital conditional access services; and, secondly, to establish the ITC as the regulator in this area. In Committee, as the House may remember, I gave a full account of our reasons for selecting Oftel as the appropriate regulator, and many noble Lords indicated that this was, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, "obviously not an issue we would wish to die in a ditch over". The greatest attention focused on the question of analogue conditional access, on which I intend to concentrate.
First, let me just rehearse, briefly, the question of which regulator. As I noted in Committee, conditional access systems already require licensing under the Telecommunications Act framework—they are concerned fundamentally with the transmission and processing of telecommunications signals. The ITC's powers would need to be extended to deal with them, and this could result in regulatory double jeopardy. Close co-operation would in any event be required by our proposals between the DTI, Oftel and the ITC in administering the licensing regime. Broadly speaking, Oftel licenses communications-related systems, while the ITC is concerned primarily with broadcast services. This is, in our view, a sensible division of labour which is already working well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the question of the content that flows through the conditional access gateway. She made the point that because it is the content that is so important—and Oftel is a regulator principally concerned with the mechanics of gate-keeping rather than the substance of what passes through the gate—it is therefore appropriate that the regulator should not be Oftel but should be the ITC, since it is the best body to deal with the matter of regulating content. That overlooks the important fact that the content passing through this particular gate is not just content "plucked out of thin air"; it is either content that will be regulated by the ITC under general broadcasting legislation, or content coming to this country under the rules of the single market, with the relevant safeguards and regulatory systems inherent in that. What we are seeing here is not a gateway which is a form of tariff through which an enormous cascade of unregulated content will pour, but rather a gateway through which content regulated and controlled content
186
at a previous stage in its existence will pass. I therefore feel that that particular approach by the noble Baroness is inappropriate for the reasons I have just given.
So far as digital conditional access systems are concerned, the Government's proposals seek to provide the necessary support for effective competition in the market-place. This includes requirements to offer services on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, to prohibit linked sales, to implement accounting separation, and to allow the director to demand published tariffs where necessary. They also provide, in our view, for more effective and comprehensive remedies for anyone affected by abuse of a dominant position or anti-competitive behaviour.
I believe that our debate has again underlined that we all wish to see the development of an efficient and competitive market in television programme services. The difference between us appears to be only a question of judgment as to the benefit of new regulation in analogue satellite broadcasting.
The question has been raised on several occasions: if regulation is needed for digital, surely it must also be needed for analogue—what is the difference? The fundamental difference is that when digital services are fully developed the digital conditional access services will be the gateway to every home and customer in the country, over every delivery mechanism—that is, for terrestrial as well as cable and satellite broadcasts.
Analogue satellite, by contrast, serves just 15 per cent. of homes in the country. It is unlikely that this will grow significantly in the future. Even with the latest advances in conditional access technology for analogue systems, the scope for any of the existing broadcasters using satellite to support a significantly larger pay-TV base seems distinctly limited, particularly on pay-per-view. Our judgment is therefore that the market is unlikely to grow to any significant degree.
The reason is that any of them would probably need to cannibalise some of their existing channel capacity for conditional access signals, which would reduce the attractiveness of their offerings. That is because the signals needed to authorise a set-top box to descramble a particular programme have to be packed onto the available analogue frequencies along with the programme itself. The bandwidth available for this is extremely limited in analogue, but more is required if there are to be more subscribers. Any substantial development of pay-per-view services is even more demanding of bandwidth. Taken together with the absence of a return path from the customer to the service provider, this makes significant expansion of pay services on analogue satellite before the move to digital highly unlikely.
In considering the move to digital, there is a clear advantage to being the first mover in the new markets. With the prospect of competition between terrestrial, cable and satellite there is a clear strategic incentive to begin the move sooner rather than later. Once begun, it would be beneficial to move subscribers across quickly to focus resources on the new markets with growth potential and to build the subscriber base as quickly as possible.

187
Analogue satellite is therefore a small segment of the total analogue market which is unlikely to grow significantly but which is likely to give way relatively quickly to digital services. That is not the sole basis for the Government's view of the need for licensing, as some have attempted to suggest. But it is the background against which we have to judge the balance of interest in imposing a major change in the regulatory framework for an established market.
One key issue we must consider in reaching this judgment is the investment environment for companies in long-term projects such as new broadcasting services. It is important for companies, and their investors, to understand clearly the framework of regulation which will apply at the outset of their investment. Stability in this framework is very important in maintaining investment confidence, particularly in financing bond and equity markets. That is why we have set out our proposals for digital conditional access now—before the markets have developed. We have to consider the impact of a major change in regulation for an established but limited market on investment confidence—not just in analogue, or even in digital, but in the wider market opportunities in the UK. We have to take account of the potential impact that such a move could signal in the widest context.
We know well the importance of regulatory stability in this regard from our experience in setting the framework for competition in the provision of cable entertainment and telephone services. Here, a guarantee of regulatory stability produced a step change in the investment in alternative telecommunications infrastructure in this country to the tune of over £10 billion in this decade.
That does not mean that we are prepared to tolerate abuse of a dominant position or anti-competitive behaviour to the detriment of competition and consumers. Ex post facto, additional regulation may be justifiable where such behaviour has been demonstrated. The Government are committed to making a robust response to any proven instances of anti-competitive behaviour. There is already a proper framework and process for all established markets through the general provisions of competition law. Noble Lords will know that that is currently being used to examine questions in the very area that we are debating, as has already been mentioned. The Director-General of Fair Trading is conducting a thoroughgoing review into various aspects of BSkyB's wholesale supply of programming. Should he have a concern about competition, options open to the director include seeking binding, enforceable undertakings from the offending parties or referring all or parts of the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for a ruling. Both give the scope to introduce any further measures that are demonstrably required.
A second key issue that we must build into our considerations is what benefit there might be in introducing new regulation. We must ask who could gain from this new regulation. It has been suggested that, for example, existing ITV companies, which prior to the changes proposed in this Bill were prevented from offering satellite transmissions, might now wish to offer
188
subscription or pay-per-view services on analogue satellite, before the move to digital. If so, it is argued, they would not wish to develop their own analogue encryption system, but would naturally seek to use the News Datacom Videocrypt system to provide the conditional access services that they would need. They might, however, get a more favourable commercial deal for the provision of conditional access services if detailed regulation were imposed specifically to drive down prices.
However, the most fundamental issue for any broadcasters wanting to take this step for the first time is likely to be not conditional access, but the availability of analogue satellite transponder capacity. Analogue satellite capacity is basically saturated at present. Astra—the principal satellite provider—is now providing new capacity as digital only. Although there may be some scope to buy out, or take over, existing channels from a variety of other broadcasters currently using analogue, there is in practical terms very little room, if any, to accommodate them alongside the wide range of broadcasters already transmitting through the satellite.
Contracts for conditional access services in analogue markets are in any case already covered by the general provisions of competition and contract law to regulate any anti-competitive behaviour. Furthermore, there is nothing, as I understand it, to prevent such broadcasters from seeking encryption services from BSkyB while providing subscription management themselves or seeking it from other providers—of which several already exist. That would certainly provide a basis for negotiation of acceptable terms. The question is whether it is appropriate to intervene directly in a transaction between two companies in an established market with further specific and detailed regulation. The outcome of the OFT inquiry into the current practice on issues of this kind will be known by the time any such moves for new analogue channels come about. It is, in our view, only justifiable to introduce such additional regulation ex post facto, if there is a clear case of anti-competitive behaviour. To date, that case has not been made, but should the Director-General of Fair Trading have competition concerns, then it will be possible to implement any necessary action at that time, as I have already noted.
Before concluding, I should like to make some comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, about what I might describe as the establishment of a mandatory single interface. In this context, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Chelmsford. From this perspective, one cannot be sure what might be the best form of interface, if one were to go down that particular road. It is relevant that the digital television group is working currently in co-operation among its various component members on this very problem.
As I understand it, the European directive sets certain standards without establishing a single form of mechanism. In doing so, it also specifies that one cannot so arrange matters as to exclude one's competitors. Indeed, that is underscored by competition policy. Equally, later I shall move an amendment on behalf of

189
the Government in respect of the multiplex licensing criteria, which is concerned particularly with ensuring that the way in which the ITC—we are talking here principally about television—looks at possible multiplex proposals has to be judged against an overarching criterion of measuring it against its ability to drive forward the successful take-up of digital television. In itself that is a very considerable impetus towards bringing subscription management and encryption systems together in such a way that any individual player in the game has to try to devise his proposals in a manner that will encourage the take-up of digital as a whole; and anyone doing the kind of things to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, alluded—namely, to try in some way or other uncompetitively to exclude some other player in the game—would undoubtedly be undercutting efforts to develop the digital terrestrial television in this country as a whole.
In summary, the Government remain of the view that the suggested amendments are not needed. The Government have published proposals for regulating digital conditional access systems. Analogue satellite is an established market segment, which has strictly limited growth potential, but which is likely to give way relatively quickly to digital markets. Concerns about behaviour in this market are being addressed through the current OFT investigations. This process will be able to provide for any further action which is necessary if those concerns are substantiated. The case for benefits which might flow from the amendment is very unclear. On the other hand, the potential for damage to investment confidence in UK markets is very clear, on the basis of our experience in the last several years. This is the balance of our judgment and why we shall oppose the amendments if the noble Baroness wishes to press them to a vote.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, first, I must thank all noble Lords who supported this group of amendments in the discussion. Perhaps I may sum up on three key points that have emerged from the debate. In front of me I have the consultative document from the DTI. The Minister put up a valiant argument as to why the DTI is the appropriate department. But the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that:
"we have always recognised the importance of conditional access to digital television … I welcome the DTI's proposals and in particular their commitment to full co-operation with the ITC".
To me, such Whitehall language is saying, "We put up a valiant fight but we didn't win. We just hope that the DNH and the regulatory bodies accountable to us will have some part to play in the future of regulation in this field."
The noble Viscounts, Lord Astor and Lord Chelmsford, quite rightly raised the issue of cable. I should like to give an assurance to the House that there is no intention in the amendments that I put forward in any way to harm the cable industry. That is not the intention of the amendments.
190
The third point was the issue of fair competition. The OFT can always look at that as they are looking at BSkyB at the moment, as can the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. But those bodies take a long time. In my experience when a service provider has an idea for a service to put on, it is nipped in the bud if it comes up against a power bloc which does not allow it reasonable access to promote those services.
I hold a press release from New Media Markets dated November 1994 which says that a company called Travel wanted to provide a service through BSkyB. Discussions took place—no one has ever said that there have not been discussions. The company did not go on line with BSkyB because it was told that the satellite company wanted a 50 per cent. stake in the channel which was to provide the travel service. The result was that it did not go on air. Those are the kinds of worries I have in relation to free competition. That is not the market at play; that is dominance at play. That is one of our concerns and one of the reasons the amendments were tabled.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for lifting the curtain on the discussion that took place between himself and the junior Minister for the DTI. At the end of the day it would appear that the amendment of the noble Viscount will be opposed up to the hilt, as this one has been. I am becoming extremely concerned about the whole area. There is general consensus across the House that conditional access is crucial in the Bill. It is crucial for the consumer, for the industry and to ensure that we have competition, fair access and that the new services are successful.
We seem to be up against a brick wall, though in the course of the debates we have seen the Government make a considerable number of acknowledgements and changes. They have been extremely co-operative. The Minister has been complimented, and rightly so, for the open-minded way in which the Bill has been approached; that is, until we came to this crucial issue. We need to test the opinion of the House. This is an important part of the Bill and I ask the House to decide the issue.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Addington, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chandos, V.

Astor, V.

Chapple, L.

Barnett, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Berkeley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Devonport, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Diamond, L.

191

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Marsh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Gainsborough, E

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Geraint, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hayman, B.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shaughnessy, L

Hollick, L.

Shepherd, L

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B

Hooson, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Howell, L.

Stedman, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tenby, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Varley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Addison, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crathorne, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cross, V.

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L.

Boardman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ferrers, E.

Carnock, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Geddes, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Goschen, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Clinton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

192

Harrowby, E.

Northbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Northesk, E.

Holderness, L.

Orkney, E.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Hothfield, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe, E.

Pender, L.

Inglewood, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Prentice, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Pym, L.

Kimball, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Knollys, V.

Rawlings, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reay, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rees, L.

Long, V.

Renwick, L.

Lucas, L

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lyell, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Savile, L.

McConnell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mancroft, L

Stockton, E.

Manton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swansea, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Torrington, V.

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Norrie, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
DIGITAL BROADCASTING SERVICE LICENCES
(".—(1) Any person who operates a conditional access system, for digital television broadcasting, receivable in the United Kingdom must have a licence granted by the appropriate regulatory authority.
(2) In discharging their functions as respects the licensing of the service referred to in subsection (1) the appropriate regulatory authority shall ensure that there is fair and effective competition in the provision of such services and the access services connected with them.
(3) Conditions may be attached to such licences requiring system or service operators to—

(a) offer all broadcasters fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to such services,

(b) ensure that access to any system is not conditional upon the use of any subscriber management or other support services,

(c) ensure that tariffs are unbundled with prices for transport or access services separately identified,

(d) comply with European Union competition law and other related legal broadcasting requirements; and

(e) ensure that there is a clear business separation in cases where the owner of the system or service operator is also a broadcaster.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 49. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have put their names to these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has put his name to Amendment No. 7. The amendments are linked. In the interests of coherence, and to save time, I think it best to deal with them together. The subjects of the amendments are conditional access, "must offer", "must carry" and electronic programme guides.
We have already discussed the fact that competition policy and broadcasting policy go hand in hand. Therefore an amendment is needed to ensure that there is effective competition for conditional access and for subscriber management services. My noble friend the Minister's commitment at Committee stage to implement the European Directive on Television Standards is very welcome and I hope that it will achieve the aims of Amendment No. 5; namely, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to conditional access. However, important though competition policy is, it will not achieve everything. Competition authorities would not feel comfortable or able to take decisions on the grounds of universality or—this is a very important point—preserving our national culture. I believe that this last point is of prime importance to all noble Lords but it would not necessarily be top of the agenda for a non-national television service provider through satellite or cable. Because of that, "must offer" is needed.
The European Television Standards Directive does not mention free public service channels. It states that equipment manufacturers would not be able to prevent viewers getting channels broadcast free to air. But public service broadcasters may well not be distributed free to air because they need to target their channels at one country. That is where they are funded from and it would be wrong for them to spend public money on buying the rights that would be needed to cover the entire satellite footprint which could indeed extend right across Europe.
The European Television Standards Directive is also the basis for ensuring that subscription services are provided on fair terms. But that would not cover free public service channels either. Public service channels cannot charge their customers. They would therefore be disadvantaged by a pricing regime that was created for subscription broadcasters. Under the directive all that the competition authorities would have to ensure is that public service channels were not discriminated against. But that means there would be nothing to stop public service channels being forced to charge viewers. There would be nothing to stop conditional access providers charging free channels the same for carriage as subscription channels and there would be nothing to ensure that public service channels broadcast over satellite were easy to find. That is why all the amendments link together.
Competition law is too slow for "must offer". It can take five years or more. For example, the Government and Oftel proposed the need for number portability in
194
1990. It was not until November 1995 that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finally ruled that number portability should happen, and it may be another year or even more before the service is actually offered to customers. Five years is half the term of the BBC Charter and quite honestly the BBC could not afford to lose 10 or 20 per cent. of its viewers for that long. As anyone knows, in business, if you lose your customers for that period of time, it is a difficult task to get them back again; and it could be that the damage would be irreversible.
In a normal competition situation there can be financial compensation. But how would you compensate the BBC for loss of public support, perhaps indeed leading to the end of the licence fee if it did not have enough public support having lost it that way, or indeed leading to the non-renewal of the Charter? How could that be financially compensated? Satellite companies would know that the BBC could not afford to take this risk. It could be a case of delivery blackmail in which the BBC was forced to accept unreasonable terms or even to charge for its service. "Must offer" is needed to avoid that.
The amendment would ensure that viewers had automatic access to public service channels which were distributed by satellite. This is an extension of the principle in the European Television Standards Directive that conditional access providers should not be able to prevent viewers receiving channels broadcast free to air. The directive also states that subscription channels will be able to contract with conditional access providers on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. However, the directive does not cover free channels that are also encrypted. In future, public service channels may be encrypted, for obvious copyright reasons, to ensure that they are not received outside the intended country. But they would still be free. "Must offer" is needed to fill this gap in the regulation and to ensure that consumers can receive free but encrypted public service channels.
The aim of the amendment on "must carry"—Amendment No. 7—is to guarantee viewers access to public service channels in the digital age by ensuring that cable companies must carry public service channels. There are two types of cable licence: those granted under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and those granted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Holders of the 1984 licences must carry the BBC's publicly funded services and Channel 3 and Channel 4 public service broadcasting; in other words, BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C. The 1990 Act removed that obligation. It was a move in the field of deregulation, which of course I support. But, in these circumstances, some of the cable franchisees have the 1984 statutory requirement but the 1990 ones do not. But eventually all cable franchisees will have to apply for the 1990 Act licences. Therefore, ultimately, all cable franchisees could stop distributing the public service channels.
The amendments would extend the "must carry" obligations to the 1990 Act licences ensuring that all cable companies carry the BBC publicly funded services plus Channels 3, 4 and S4C—that is to say, all public service broadcasting. In return for this "must carry"

195
obligation, the cable companies get free carry. The Copyright Act 1988 gives the cable company exemption from copyright law when re-transmitting public service broadcasts which are neither encrypted nor broadcast by satellite. With digital broadcasting encryption will be more common. As worded, the exemption would therefore not apply to many future public service channels.
The Cable Communications Association, in response to the White Paper on digital broadcasting, specifically requested that the Copyright Act should be amended to allow free carriage of new digital public service channels, whether or not they are encrypted. Therefore, subsection (5) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 7 grants the cable companies an exemption from copyright when carrying out their "must carry" obligations.
Amendment No. 49 deals with the electronic programme guides. It seeks to ensure that electronic programme guides cannot be used to prevent effective competition or to bury deep down 127 or 150 free public service channels. In the world of hundreds of television channels, which is quite feasible, electronic programme guides will be essential for viewers in order to make an informed choice about what they will want to watch. The electronic programme guides can be extremely sophisticated, acting like an electronic media helpmate in effect, learning their owner's programme preference; remembering to video their favourite programmes; guiding them towards new programmes that they will enjoy. All this sounds wonderful for those of us who are technologically challenged at the moment! They will be very powerful.
However, if there is no effective competition in the market for electronic programme guides, the owner of the dominant electronic programme guide could abuse that position to guide viewers towards their programmes. Public service channels, which the electronic programme guide owner may see as free competition to his pay television channels, could be buried at the bottom of the programme guide. Amendment No. 49, therefore, seeks to create effective competition in the market for EPGs by creating a pro-competitive licensing regime regulated by the ITC and ensures that if a dominant electronic programme guide does develop, it cannot be used to bury public service channels. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. In speaking to them I do so as someone who carries within the Church a particular responsibility for the regulation of the broadcast media, chairing as I do the Central Religious Advisory Committee.
The quality of provision of our public service channels is world renowned. The networks produce programmes such as "Cracker", "Prime Suspect", "The People's Century" and "Pride and Prejudice"—award winners which, in addition to securing huge audiences at home, are in demand throughout the world. Whereas every other advanced European broadcasting economy
196
has a "must carry" rule, and whereas so many other countries cherish public service broadcasting, here we threaten its role.
What is that role? I wish to highlight but two crucial functions. First, the provision of important programming that is not viable in a commercial, profit-oriented environment. That applies especially, but not solely, to the BBC and, most importantly, to programmes that address religious and moral issues from a mainstream perspective. The public service broadcasters in this country have an excellent record of meeting the spiritual needs of the population in their programming. Indeed, it is part of the BBC's Charter which has just been renewed for the next 10 years.
At the same time, and not dissociated from this work, are those challenging and excellently produced programmes which examine life from a moral standpoint; programmes such as "Everyman" and "Heart of the Matter" to name only two. They constantly seek to address issues of the day from a perspective that values ethics in a modem society.
These programmes do not draw the largest of audiences, but they draw substantial audiences; not perhaps large enough to make them into attractive money-making possibilities, but large enough for them to be sadly missed if no longer available to the vast majority of the population. I believe that if there is no obligation to carry and offer public service channels, the effectiveness of mainstream religious and ethical broadcasting will be seriously damaged.
The second function of public service broadcasting is to provide a national focus. That is especially important at critical times in the life of the nation. Royal and national events receive outstanding coverage in this country. The BBC has long played a role in providing dignified, thoughtful and commanding coverage of those occasions that draw the nation together and contribute to a sense of belonging and social cohesion. To lose that would be a very damaging step in an already fragmented society. Despite changes in society over recent years, there was still a huge audience for the VE and VJ Day celebrations last year. There remains a great need for this kind and standard of broadcasting.
I shall be voting for the amendments which propose that the providers must offer; that they must carry and that the programmes must be easy to find because I believe strongly that this is important for the nation. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that we must not destroy a great tradition of public service broadcasting which is the envy of the world, but must ensure that it is there and freely available for all the people of this country in the years to come.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that the Government are able to support these amendments. I am encouraged by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in Committee as regards Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. He said that the Government were in full agreement with the aims behind them. This amendment is seeking to secure something of very great value for all viewers in the next century. We have comprehensive,

197
first-class television programmes providing for all sections of the community in our society. The BBC and ITV are now the core of our television provision, with some additional extras that have to be paid for. But those who do not want or cannot afford to pay extra are getting as much excellent television as they want just for the price of the licence fee. That fee is like a season ticket to television.
We all know that the future of television will be profoundly different. There will be a plethora of channels and an abundance of programmes. That point has been made repeatedly in this House. Of course, these will all be wonderful programmes—perhaps! I am sure that they will not all be free and that is what matters. People who want season tickets for any service are those who use it often. That applies to rail travellers, health club enthusiasts and equally to television viewers.
The people who watch television a great deal are those who, for one reason or another, spend a lot of time at home. They are the elderly people, those who are ill or disabled, the carers, people with children, the unemployed and those on low incomes. Those are the people who will suffer if they are unable to watch what I would call "season ticket television" and if they are left increasingly with merely subscription or pay-per-view programmes. That would be for the minority.
The Minister seems to think that there is no risk of that happening. He also seems to think that if it does happen there will be time to change the system. That was the clear impression that he gave in Committee. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong. I happen to disagree with the Minister's view on that because it is true that the cable companies so far have willingly transmitted the main television channels. They have done so to attract customers. However, I think that we should anticipate, and be prepared for, the new television world. Commercial interests will feel no affection for our current broadcasters. That is realism. That is the truth of the matter. They can and will be competitors for each others' offerings. If it suits their commercial interests—I believe that it will—they will obviously not hesitate to squeeze out the old favourites. In their terms, that makes commercial common sense.
I was particularly concerned by the Minister's comment that the public service channels,
"have an important role to play in generating demand for new programming services and that consequently cable and satellite companies will wish to carry them".
That is a remarkable statement.
Our television is praised all over the world, yet the Minister damns it with such faint praise. The BBC and ITV have a far greater role to play in our society than merely being generators of demand for new programme services. If ever their role as generators of demand diminishes and if the gateways are allowed gradually to close, that would hit the people to whom I referred earlier—those who simply want to enjoy their television for free after paying the licence fee. I am certain that it is our present structure which has given us such high quality television. Of course, the BBC and ITV watch both pounds and pennies, but the certainty of their
198
respective incomes has given them the assurance to provide what is undoubtedly the best television in the world. If the amendments are accepted, that will continue well into the next century. That is why I regard Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 as being particularly important.
I should like to say a brief word about the electronic guides, to which the noble Baroness referred. I support the amendment, as I did in Committee, because it gives a cast-iron guarantee of a prominent place for BBC and ITV programmes on the electronic guides. This is an issue of growing importance because, over time, the electronic programme guides will become the main shop window, displaying the programmes available.
I know now that I was too critical of Videotron when I accused it in Committee of manipulation, which I regarded as dirty tactics. Mr. Phil Kirby of Videotron has explained the situation in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, with a copy to me. It seems that Videotron's action in relocating Channel 4 on its cable television network was necessary. There was, I believe, no manipulation intended to dissuade viewers from watching the channel. However, that episode illustrates the difficulties that non-technical people like myself find with procedures that are transparently clear to the scientifically minded.
I hope that the Government will be able to give a more constructive and more sympathetic response to this amendment than they gave in Committee. Although I welcome the Minister's awareness of the importance of the amendment, I really do not think that it is an adequate response for him to say that we should rely on European and domestic competition law and the review. We need visibility for our traditional channels and protection against anti-competitive behaviour and potential abuse. Those basic principles should be written into the Bill. That can be done most effectively by the Government accepting the amendment.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, not for the first time we have heard some stirring words, but they do not altogether seem to tie up with the wording of the amendment. I should like to make three points. The first is technical and can easily be changed. We are dealing now with digital terrestrial broadcasting and the amendments are wide enough to include satellite.
Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 5 states that any person who operates a conditional access system requires a licence. The licence can apparently tell him that he "may", if the regulatory authority chooses, not be able to use his own conditional access system. I cannot see why he should bother to apply for a licence in the first place. I do not think that that is what was intended.
Turning to Clause 6, we find that it is the duty of the regulatory authority, under paragraph (b), to ensure that the broadcaster is not paid other than through a television licence. If he is a satellite broadcaster, he is hardly going to broadcast if he does not have any revenue coming in. It seems to me that there are some curious drafting errors in the amendments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I hope that it is sufficient for me to say from these Benches, with the serried ranks in support behind me, that we agree totally with what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said about "must carry", "must offer" and the electronic guides. In some ways, the electronic guides are the most important. It may very well be the case that what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, called commercial common sense will be sufficient to ensure "must carry" for some years ahead, but electronic guides are a much more immediate matter and I hope that the Government will respond positively on that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I must admit to being slightly puzzled. I understand the need to carry so-called "public service broadcasting". I use that term deliberately because people are perhaps over-defensive of it and seem worried that it will not be able to stand the heat of the competition that is coming. I do not share that lack of confidence.
I accept that such broadcasting must be free to the recipient who has paid for it through his licence. However, if I understood correctly, what was being suggested was free carriage of such programmes down the cable. I am not sure that I can go along with that. There are costs in transmitting down cables, so I have some difficulty in understanding why public service broadcasters, such as the BBC, should not pay those who carry their service for them—in other words, the cable companies—for the privilege of having their public service programmes sent down the cable. Therefore, although I accept the concept of the service being free at one end, I have the gravest difficulty with the concept of it being free throughout. That applies particularly to what I would call the "transmission end". I have some problem in resolving that point.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, if I may rise now I hope that I shall be able to put noble Lords' minds at rest. If there are costs involved by the satellite people or the cable people—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must remind my noble friend that this is Report stage.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sorry. I tried to check whether I could intervene.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do hope that I am right.
6 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall try to take the amendments in order. I shall begin with Amendment No. 5 but speak only briefly because we have just had a discussion of most the issues involved. I reiterate that the Government have published proposals in the policy document The Regulation of Conditional Access Services for Digital Terrestrial Television which cover in full all the matters covered by the amendment. Indeed, those proposals are based on the need to ensure that digital conditional access providers offer all
200
broadcasters fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. They also prevent providers refusing to supply encryption and subscriber management services separately and making supply of those services dependent on acceptance of others. The proposals, in line with the European Community directive on advanced television standards, require separate accounting for conditional access services whether or not the provider is also a broadcaster.
I shall be glad to have further discussions with my noble friend. I wish now, however, to move on to Amendment No. 49, an important amendment which covers electronic programme guides. Again, I am happy to assure my noble friend that the Government to a large extent take the same view as she does and have proposals in place to address it through the Bill we are debating.
Let me once again state unequivocally that the Government are concerned to ensure that electronic programme guides are not used to distort competition between broadcasters. It therefore seems eminently sensible for the Bill to establish certain principles, as it does. EPGs will need an additional services licence and as such will be subject to the ITC's general power and duty to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of all the services it licences. In that context it means that one cannot deliberately bury someone else's offering on the system.
Commercial as well as regulatory considerations are likely to work in favour of public service broadcasters. They will have an important role to play in generating demand for new programming services and consequently cable and satellite operators will wish to carry them. For the same reasons, the public service broadcasters will have a strong negotiating position with regard to the presence of their services on EPGs. Nevertheless, as I made clear in Committee, the Government intend to monitor the situation carefully. And should EPGs in the digital market develop in a way which makes further regulation necessary, we shall introduce it. But we cannot yet predict exactly how they will develop either in technical or commercial terms.
What is not sensible therefore is to write on to the face of the Bill specific requirements which depend on a particular conception of how EPGs might be configured. And that is what the second part of this amendment would do by requiring that the existing public service broadcasters be given a prominent position on the first page of all guides. By the time digital television is up and running, this sort of terminology may well be obsolete. Indeed, some existing guides do not even have first pages but scroll continuously through pages so that the viewer's point of entry depends on the exact moment he or she consults the guide, in the same way as multi-page Teletext entries. EPGs might also be configured by type of programme. Thus, if you were to call up an EPG and ask it for a selection of sports programmes currently showing, and no public service broadcasters were showing a sports programme, it would not be reasonable for their services to appear on the first page. To take an example which might be more redolent of science fiction—but how many existing technologies appeared

201
not so long ago to be fantasy—it is not too far-fetched to suggest that some EPGs might eventually be speech-activated. I use that example merely to illustrate the unpredictability of the technology we are debating. If we set down a requirement of the sort my noble friend proposes it would either mean that all EPGs had to have a designated first page or that those that configure their system in another way will not be covered by the regulation she suggests.
The effect of that sort of prescriptive requirement, depending on exactly how it is set out and interpreted, might therefore be either to constrain providers of EPGs in terms of the technical arrangements they can make or, conversely, strictly to regulate something that to all intents and purposes does not exist while allowing providers to evade the principles of that regulation. Having said that, the Government are in agreement with my noble friend in that we want fair competition. We also want to see that the public service channels continue to be available to all and that they are accessible without difficulty. But the way to fair competition is to regulate by reference to principles, not to speculate on what technology might look like in 10 or 15 years' time. In view of those considerations, I hope that my noble friend will be reassured.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. Again, I thank my noble friend for raising the points in the amendment and for the helpful discussion she had with me and my officials following Committee stage. I hope I shall be able to offer her a considerable degree of reassurance.
First, conditional access services, including subscriber management, for digital satellite television are clearly covered by the provisions in the EC directive on advanced television standards and the proposals in the Government's policy document The Regulation of Conditional Access Services for Digital Television, published in January. Such services will require a licence as has been said a number of times today, issued by the DTI and enforced by Oftel, both in close co-operation with the ITC. That licence will include a number of conditions intended to ensure fair and effective competition. I do not propose to go into detail here. Instead I refer noble Lords to the policy document concerned.
Those conditions are also relevant to the second part of the amendment, which, if I understand my noble friend correctly, is intended to ensure that viewers have access to public service channels through their satellite set-top boxes where those services are transmitted by satellite. I understand from my own discussions with the BBC last week, at which my noble friend was present, that what is sought in the amendment is an assurance that public service broadcasters using satellite delivery will be able to reach viewers through satellite set-top boxes whether the services they are transmitting are encrypted or not. If those services are not encrypted, then Article 4(a) of the directive requires that all digital consumer equipment shall be able to receive them.
As my noble friend said, even programme services for which the broadcaster does not intend to charge viewers might be encrypted in order to avoid encroachment into countries where they are not intended to be received.
202
In that case, of course, the broadcaster concerned will need either to provide for himself, or to purchase, encryption services. Providers of such services, according to our legal advice on the meaning of the directive, will be required to provide them on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to all relevant broadcasters. If the BBC, or any other public service broadcaster, wishes to provide an encrypted service, regardless of whether the viewer is to be charged for the key, and if that public service broadcaster has contracted with a provider of satellite transmission capacity, say Astra or EUTELSAT, then a conditional access provider cannot unreasonably refuse to supply the encryption and de-encryption services necessary to enable those viewers who have digital satellite set-top boxes to receive the service. It will, of course, charge the broadcaster a fair price for them. But the viewer will pay nothing beyond the cost of his TV licence and the set-top box if the broadcaster does not wish to charge him anything.
In summary, if I have understood the purpose of the amendment correctly, so far as concerns digital satellite television, the intention behind the amendment is already achieved by the proposals I have spoken of. If a public service broadcaster wishes to transmit a service, free to air or encrypted, via digital satellite, it will have to meet the costs of doing so, just as it needs to meet the costs of its terrestrial broadcasts. But it will not be possible for a conditional access provider to use its position in the market to prevent viewers receiving that service by denying the broadcaster supply of encryption services on reasonable terms. I appreciate that I have spoken at some length. I shall be happy to have further discussions with my noble friend if she would find that helpful.
I turn now to Amendment No. 7. Again, I do not wish to go over the ground I covered in response to my noble friend in Committee. However, I think it worth repeating that the Government are in full agreement with the aims behind her amendment in so far as we want the services of existing public service broadcasters to continue to be available to all the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, that is one of the key principles on which our proposals for digital terrestrial television are based. It is why we are offering them guaranteed places. But there are other principles from which I am very reluctant to depart and which this amendment infringes. One of those is that regulation should be introduced only where necessary. Another is that industry should not be faced with frequent moving of regulatory goalposts. The amendment would involve rescinding provisions made in the 1990 Act, as my noble friend pointed out, regarding the conditions of local delivery licences during the validity of a number of such licences. This might be largely symbolic. As I shall explain, we do not think whether or not regulation is reintroduced in this area will affect cable companies' behaviour. But we must give a message to industry more widely that the regulatory environment will be stable. I made that point earlier today.
As I also said in Committee, the Government intend to monitor the situation as it develops. That will be a continuous process, though the review of the scope for analogue switch-off, due to take place within five years

203
after the commencement of digital terrestrial television, will clearly need to cover among other issues the matter of the availability of the public service channels. There is no reason at this stage to take unnecessary regulatory action. Indeed, we believe that to do so would be precipitate.
Currently, all viewers can receive the public service channels via terrestrial aerials; and analogue services will not be switched off until the vast majority of viewers have acquired digital receiving equipment. Until then, viewers will continue to be able to receive the BBC and Channels 3, 4 and 5 in the same way as they do now.
It is pretty clear that viewers like those channels. That is a great vote of confidence in them and echoes the views of the right reverend Prelate. Even in homes with cable and satellite they are by far the most watched, which is a credit to those who provide them. Everything suggests that they have every reason to be confident that viewers will not suddenly turn against their programmes. Viewers will not simply renounce terrestrial and switch to other means of reception unless they know that they will continue to receive the public service channels. Is there something which public service broadcasters imagine will make them do that? If so it would be interesting to hear of it.
Once viewers have the appropriate set-top boxes or digital receivers they will, at no further cost and using their existing aerials, be able to receive a substantial number of free-to-air services, including the existing channels and new services, at very high technical quality, via digital terrestrial transmission. I believe that that will be an attractive proposition. To compete with it, it will be all the more necessary for cable companies to provide what people want, and that includes the terrestrial channels.
All cable companies currently choose to carry the services of terrestrial broadcasters and will continue to do so. They want to attract customers and I repeat that public service broadcasters attract customers. What is more, once cable goes digital operators will have far more capacity. This will make it even more likely that they will continue to wish to carry the main terrestrial channels. If they carry them now, when they have 40 or so channels to play with, why would they stop when they have 500? Introducing regulation to ensure that cable companies carry the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 would simply be obliging them to act in their own interest.
I am aware of the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that cable companies might offer the public service broadcasters, along with their other services, for a while and then once they have built up a significant customer base, drop them and leave their customers marooned. In the first place, this supposition betrays a view of the cable industry which I am bound to say is self-evidently somewhat cynical. It is also unrealistic to suppose that industry wins by acting against its customers' interests and wishes, in particular this kind of industry. But I am glad to reassure your Lordships that any such case of a monopoly franchisee abusing its dominant position to deprive customers of services they want to receive,
204
or making access to those services deliberately difficult, having attracted custom on the basis that it would offer those services, would swiftly attract the attention of the fair trading authorities. Indeed, the phrase "their feet would not touch the ground" would seem apt.
All of that said, however, let me repeat the assurance that I previously gave. Should further action become necessary, and I am far from certain that it will, we shall take it. But far better to take that action once we have a fuller picture of exactly what dangers, if any, we are seeking to eliminate and what the problem we are seeking to remedy might be. For example, if by the time analogue is switched off the industry has developed receivers able to receive all three modes of transmission—terrestrial, cable and satellite—then what would be the point of requiring more than one of those to carry particular broadcasters? Meanwhile, we can recognise the continuing success of British public service broadcasting and the success of the cable industry. Neither is a threat to the other. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive, and the cable operators clearly realise this. That is why they carry public service broadcasting.
I recognise the real and heartfelt concerns that have been expressed in the debate. However, I hope that on hearing that exposition of the Government's position and the legal background to it noble Lords will come to the conclusion that the kind of amendments being proposed are not appropriate for dealing with the problems that they are intended to tackle.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us such a detailed, conciliatory and helpful response to the four amendments. Perhaps I may deal with them in turn. As regards Amendment No. 5, the Minister said that he was prepared to discuss the matter further with me and I shall be taking him up on that offer. I thank him for it.
As regards Amendment No. 6, he spent a great deal of time talking about everything that is reasonable. I began by looking at the whole Bill on the basis that everyone was innocent until proved guilty. However, the more I look into what is happening with satellite and cable and the way in which the operators view public service broadcasting the more concerned I become.
I accept that our public service broadcasts take the great proportion of viewing time at the moment. However, I must remind the Minister that the satellite and cable companies are in business to obtain as many of the viewers' hours as possible so that in turn they can run a commercial business. If they cannot say to their advertisers, "We are gaining a market share. We now have 25 per cent. of the viewers' hours", they will not have a good commercial future. Therefore, commercial reality is such that there will always be a pressure on the satellite and cable companies to push their product ahead of public service broadcasts. That is what the marketplace is like.
I repeat that the public service broadcasting companies in this country—that is, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C—represent to a greater or lesser

205
extent the culture of this country and we must be sure that we preserve that situation. We cannot have wall-to-wall imported programmes. Although the companies might carry public service broadcasts, if they do not carry them in a prominent position or, by extension, do not allow them to be advertised prominently on electronic programming guides there is a concern about the future. I promise noble Lords that I am not looking for problems but I feel greatly uneasy about that. However, my noble friend the Minister asked us to be reasonable, so I shall be; but I will enter into further discussions on the matter.
As regards electronic programming guides, I was given many crumbs of comfort by the fact that my noble friend said that the Government will monitor them and any abuse will be dealt with. I take the point that, with the ever galloping advances in technology, it could well be that the amendment will appear to be stupid because it requires the public service broadcasting to be on page 1 of the guide and there may not be pages in the guide. But at the moment pages are suggested on the guide and while that is the case I should like to see the public service broadcasts on page 1. I take the point that if one were to scroll the guide looking for a sports programme but there did not happen to be an offering on a public service broadcast network the provision would be a little foolish. However, I believe that we are trying to anticipate what the technology will be and I am a little concerned about that issue.
As regards Amendment No. 7, I agree that regulation should be introduced only when necessary, but that apparently makes a nonsense of making a regulation in 1984, removing it in 1990 and then proposing to implement it again. Of course, a stable regulatory environment is needed. I subscribe to all of that. However, I am scared—and I put it as strongly as that—that the competition from the satellite and cable companies will leave us in a situation in which the public service broadcasts will suffer.
It may be that I am being very suspicious and highly cynical about this, which is not in my nature. I am anxious, but my anxieties have been reduced to quite a large extent by my noble friend's offer of further talks between now and Third Reading, and I shall avail myself of that offer. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Multiplex licences]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("and (f)" and insert (",(f) and (ff)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 16 and 23. These amendments refer to a single set-top box. I am aware that we strayed into that area when we talked about conditional access and we also did so in Committee.
If these amendments are accepted, they will ensure that there is a single standard set-top box providing availability of access for all digital terrestrial services. As presently drafted, the Bill makes no such provision. In fact, without the amendments the reverse could happen.
In Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, said that it is too early to look at technical standards for a single set-top box. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, has some expertise in this field and is president of the European Informatics Market, of which I am a member. The noble Viscount was referring to the fact that the main European suppliers have agreed a voluntary common standard for set-top box equipment—a DVB agreement, which has been referred to today. The view of EURIM is that there is still a potential problem in that the agreed standard allows two options: the first providing a single set-top box with several slots so that several channels can be received with access by use of a smart card which is paid for; or one box with one slot for a proprietary conditional access system.
The amendments do not seek to state which technical standards should apply. I suggest that the Bill provides the only opportunity for discussion on that single standard. We must not have a monopoly dominance, as we do at present, which prevents people having access unless they pay for a different box. I believe that we all have the same aim; namely, one box for which an entrance fee is paid which provides access to whichever services or channels one wishes to access. But the technical requirement should be a single standard. We must bear in mind also that although we are discussing this Bill now, it will not reach the statute book until much later this year and I understand that talks are taking place at present about that very issue.
When we discussed this on the first day of Committee, the Minister accepted that there were concerns about the whole area. He said that he was prepared to look at the criteria to be applied by the ITC. As yet, we have had no response, but I do not criticise the Minister because I see how many amendments there are on the Marshalled List and in view of the number of changes that have been made, it may be that there has not been an opportunity to deal with this matter.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the DTI consultation document on conditional access, a copy of which we received on the day of that debate. The Minister went on to say that many of our anxieties were dealt with outside the Bill; and therein lies the problem. Those anxieties are real. They refer to broadcasting. I presume that the Minister is referring to the DTI consultation document.
The fact is that the DTI document gives no assurances that the viewer will see the emergence of a single standard through which access can be gained to digital services. The ITC has said that an integrated digital receiver, which is capable of receiving all digital terrestrial programme services, is in the best interests of the viewer. It is not surprising that he said that because I believe that that is generally accepted as the commonsense view. The amendment does not mean that

207
there will be one identical receiver—in other words, a monopoly supply. We are talking about a single technical standard.
The difference between us is not whether a single set-top box is desirable, because I have heard no opposition to that proposition. We all agree that it is desirable. The difference is whether we accept that there is a need to make provision on the face of the Bill for the ITC to take into account proposals for set-top box compatibility when assessing applications for multiplex service licences. We believe that there is a need to have that on the face of the Bill.
In Committee it was mentioned that the German companies had concluded agreements on a standard decoder and that is referred to in the paper by the European Informatics Market and the review that it has carried out. The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, is right in thinking that there may be some drawbacks to that. I gather that talks are taking place in the UK but I have heard only rumours and I do not have much detail about them. The Minister referred to that earlier today.
If there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that we have a single decoder system and if no industry-wide agreement is concluded, where do we go? It means that we reach a position in which there is no fair competition. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it will be too late to take measures which may be needed to deal with the problem. I suggest that it will be too late not only for the viewer but also for the many services which we all hope will take off.
We cannot leave this matter to chance or even to common sense. Unfortunately, all too often there is too little of that about when one is dealing with money and competition. Since we discussed this matter in Committee, I have received two interesting briefing notes. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to one of them from EUTELSAT, the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation. That organisation also refers to the need for a single decoder. It notes the amendments put forward in Committee and that they were subsequently withdrawn. It urges us to put forward those amendments again at this stage. EUTELSAT is not a consumer organisation but it rightly says that market forces will determine an acceptable level of charge for the services, which is our intention. We want the customer to pay what he is prepared to pay. But to have a system which means more than one decoder box will not allow that competition to develop.
The other letter which I received is from the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association whose members last year manufactured 5.6 million colour television sets and 3 million video recorders in the UK. The association makes it quite clear that there are shortcomings in the Bill on set-top boxes. It does not want the issue to be left open—and it represents the manufacturers of televisions and video recorders here in the UK—to a voluntary agreement being reached. The association supports the ITC; as we do on these Benches. It wants the ITC to have the authority in the Bill to take into account how proposals from applicants for multiplex licences will ensure viewer access to the whole range of the new digital terrestrial services.
As BREMA says in its briefing note, the general principle which motivates its anxieties—and ours—that there should be a single standard is that there should also be a free market which would encourage consumers to purchase equipment in the knowledge that it will be cost effective and will give them access to the variety of services available. It will be convenient to use; it will be flexible; and it will not tie people to any one particular programme or service provider. How right BREMA is! That is what the amendments are intended to achieve. Those are the principles lying behind them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness in what she said. She put the case most carefully and thoroughly. I believe her argument that such a provision ought to be on the face of the Bill at this time is a strong one. I shall not say more beyond that because, as the noble Baroness said, I strayed into the matter during the course of debate on her earlier amendments. Therefore, having committed the sin of trespass, I think that the best price I can pay is to say that I am content to stand on the arguments that I put to the Minister earlier.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I certainly support the noble Baroness on the desirability of having a single set-top box for digital terrestrial transmission, although it would be nice if we could have one that was wider. I also support the noble Baroness that it is right for the ITC to put pressure on all the parties concerned to try to move towards that position. However, I am neutral on whether there is a need for such a provision in the Bill. Indeed, I am not sure. I do not remember the ITC's latest briefing paper requesting further powers in that respect, and it has not been backward in asking for powers when it felt that it did not have sufficient. Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for promoting me, but I am only a director of EURIM.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, the noble Baroness very comprehensively explained the amendments which relate to the matter of a single set-top box for digital terrestrial television. The amendments would make co-ordination between multiplex providers on a single set-top box a criterion for the award of a multiplex, and would allow the ITC to set minimum requirements to be met by all applicants seeking those licences. The implementation of the measures proposed for co-operation would then, in turn, become conditions in the licence.
As I said when we debated the amendments in Committee, the industry is well seized of the importance of co-operation to the success of digital terrestrial television. Fragmentation would be in no one's interests. The existence of the Digital Television Group is proof of that. I am pleased to inform your Lordships that, since we last discussed the issues, membership of that group has continued to expand so that now some 24 companies are involved.
Noble Lords will also be aware that I am moving an amendment to Clause 9 which fulfils the commitment that I made in Committee to look again at the criteria

209
for the award of multiplex licences. I referred to that amendment earlier when responding to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, which was indeed the beginning of the trespass in which we all seem to have become involved. In particular, I said in Committee that we would consider whether we might do more to take into account the extent to which an individual multiplex applicant's proposals would contribute to the overall development of digital terrestrial television. It is clear that a multiplex provider's commitment to co-operation on the provision of a single box could be a significant element in the contribution his proposals might make to that end.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not seek to press the amendments. I also hope that she will support my amendment, the purpose of which both she and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, welcomed in Committee. It will pull together the future development of set-top boxes without prescribing the form that any particular box might take—which might well in fact be illegal under the rules of the single market—in a form within the general parameters imposed by the licensing conditions and competition policy. I hope that my response will reassure the noble Baroness.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. We looked at his amendment to Clause 9. It seems that we are in fact backing two horses in this Bill. However, we think that ours is a stronger one because we believe that our amendment would give the viewer much more assurance for the future.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, towards my point of view regarding the ITC. He asked whether such a provision was needed on the face of the Bill. We believe that it is because we shall have a proliferation of service providers, not just the very narrow group that we have seen thus far in the UK. Experience shows that the more people one gets in the ring, the more likely one is to face litigation about one's authority. If such a provision were on the face of the Bill, such a possibility would be avoided.
The Minister would like us to support his amendment. But, with my background as a trade unionist, I am inclined to enter into a little negotiating here and suggest to the noble Lord that we will support his amendment if he will support ours. However, I do not believe that that would succeed in this arena. I believe that we could have provided a good measure for the viewer had we been able to put such a provision in the Bill, although it is always possible that the matter will be raised in another place. It is with great reluctance that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4)(f) "acquisition" includes acquisition on hire or loan.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 54 and 56. The amendments seek to clarify two existing provisions in the Bill. The Bill provides that applicants for television multiplex and national radio multiplex licences must submit proposals for promoting the acquisition of digital receiving equipment by consumers in the area of their service. The amendments seek to clarify that the word "acquisition" does not just mean purchase but also includes equipment acquired under hire or loan arrangements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Award of multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("regard") to end of line 44 and insert ("to the extent to which, taking into account the matters specified in subsection (2) and any representations made to them in pursuance of section 8(7)(b) with respect to those matters, the award of the licence to each applicant would be calculated to promote the development of digital television broadcasting in the United Kingdom otherwise than by satellite").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the award of multiplex licences is the key element in the establishment of digital terrestrial television and radio. The multiplex provider plays a pivotal role in the introduction of the new technology and the new services.
The Bill, as introduced, provided for the award of a television and a national radio multiplex licence to be made mainly on the basis of three particular criteria. First, there are the applicant's plans and time-scale for putting in place the transmission infrastructure, so that the services on his multiplex might be received as widely as possible and as quickly as possible throughout as much of the country as can be reached by the multiplex.
Secondly, there is the capacity of the broadcast services to be offered on the multiplex to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. Thirdly, there are the applicant's proposals for promoting or assisting viewers and listeners to obtain equipment capable of receiving digital broadcasts.
Each of those elements is vital to the successful launch of digital terrestrial broadcasting. However, as I have already indicated, in response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, there is a further factor particularly important to television which needs to be taken into account; namely, the way that, taking everything together, a prospective multiplex provider's proposals will contribute to the overall development of digital broadcasting.
The amendments which I have tabled address this issue. In doing so they provide the regulators with a framework, a common currency, in which to weigh the separate elements of the proposals put to them by the applicants for the multiplex licences. The regulators will therefore be able to look at the applicants' proposals in the round and judge them by looking at the contribution they will make to the successful launch of digital terrestrial broadcasting as a whole. This means that the ITC can look at proposals for promoting and encouraging the acquisition of set-top boxes, and

211
consider whether they are likely to lead to a cohesive rather than a fragmented market. They can look at whether multiplex providers intend to co-operate with each other on other aspects, too; for example, the roll-out of transmission infrastructure, where significant economies of scale might be achieved through co-operation with other multiplex providers.
I believe that these amendments go a long way towards meeting the concerns of noble Lords opposite, and will provide a clearer and more effective framework for the regulators to do their job. They establish the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting as a whole as the touchstone for decisions on multiplex licences. We all want this enterprise to succeed. We cannot do that by state direction, but we believe that willing co-operation between the various parties involved is likely to make a successful outcome more likely, and this measure we believe will help to achieve that. These amendments will help ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting is given the fairest of winds as it sets sail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert ("and the extent to which such services (taken as a whole) may be expected to include programmes of quality,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14—which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde—and to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19, which stand in my name. The purpose of all of these amendments is to make a further attempt to ensure that requirements about the quality of future services are placed on the face of the Bill. The arguments about the importance of quality in broadcasting have been rehearsed at earlier stages of your Lordships' deliberations but it is worth summarising and highlighting a few of them again.
It has been generally agreed on all sides that we in the United Kingdom have an enviable tradition of high programme standards, of which we are justifiably proud. However, the Government now seem to feel that it is enough to rest on our past laurels and that little needs to be done to try to ensure that those high standards continue into the digital world. There are, of course, exceptions. The obvious one is that of simulcast transmissions of existing services where existing quality regulations will continue. However, the situation we should be considering now is that of the medium term when digital broadcasting will be the only terrestrial system for any listener or viewer. As the Minister predicted at Second Reading, there will be initially—I stress the word "initially"—18 national channels on six multiplexes.
The Government have proposed that together with technical ability, variety not quality will be the touchstone against which service bids for a multiplex will be judged. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord
212
Inglewood, said that the ITC would take full account of proposals for local, regional, community and special interest channels and programming as an important element in increasing variety. Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 would simply ensure that on that same basis and formula, quality as well as variety is considered. After all, variety in broadcasting is certainly a commendable and appropriate aim but it does not by any means always embrace quality. There can be an enormous variety of programmes, all of them of poor quality. Any of your Lordships who have switched between the 20 or 30 cable channels on offer today in any large American city will have a vivid and pretty depressing picture of what low quality multiple-choice TV can produce, however it is delivered in a technical sense.
In Committee, the Government also seemed to believe that the powers of the new Broadcasting Standards Commission to publish guidelines and to consider complaints about taste, decency and impartiality will in the future be sufficient protection against the worst excesses. Your Lordships will remember from the Committee proceedings that we on these Benches do not think that the present proposals for the remit and the activities of the Broadcasting Standards Commission are sufficiently pro-active to act as a significant voice of the viewer and the listener. In our opinion, they are certainly not robust enough to establish and monitor general quality standards. In this context, noble Lords may have been as apprehensive as I was to read the remarks of Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, the ex-editor of the Sun newspaper and now head of Live TV, at a media conference last week. He looked forward to more and more TV channels which would result in an electronic freedom to match that of print. Mr. MacKenzie gave an example when he said:
"My own guess is that 20 years from now people will look back at the impartiality requirements of broadcasting as a quaint piece of history… The present rules will not be heeded and they will wither away".
Surely that is something which we should try to prevent in this Bill, not, as my noble friend Lord Donoughue said in Committee, to achieve lofty cultural ambitions but simply to raise the sights of the digital operators.
The Minister has argued that to impose quality constraints on multiplex providers would badly inhibit the development of new services. In Committee the Minister warned that in his opinion a tight corset of regulation would mean that entrepreneurs would simply not bother to invest in digital television. It might, he said, be strangled at birth. He spoke somewhat dramatically as though this were a threat to our cultural life as we know it. We on these Benches do not see it in that way at all. The prospect of an absolutely unregulated market of expanding digital services does not seem irresistible, particularly if it produces dozens, or indeed hundreds of television programmes all of the type which—as I have said—we can already see on American cable networks, or as enthusiastically envisaged by Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie. In those circumstances it would seem that there is no advantage to the viewer. We would be quite happy for choice and variety to be less and quality higher.
It is, of course, a question of achieving the right balance between appropriate growth and appropriate standards. However, as the Bill stands, the balance seems to be tilted too far towards uninhibited development. Frankly, I think that the Government have been too cautious. After all, there is nothing whatsoever in the history of television development—since the days when we talked about the licence to print money when ITV was set up in the 1950s—to suggest an entrepreneurial reluctance to invest in new opportunities.
The ITC apparently believes that quality criteria will not stop digital TV taking off. It has sought an additional qualification, as expressed in Amendment No. 13. In Committee, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the Minister admitted that the Government had rejected the ITC's advice on this matter, but nonetheless the commission continues to press for statutory powers to be able to evaluate applications for quality. Amendments Nos. 13, 17 and 19 propose a flexible formula to allow the ITC to ensure that multiplex operators provide quality programmes within a range of programme services. They do not insist that each and every programme available on a multiplex should fulfil those criteria. It is not too late for the Government to empower the ITC in this way. After all, in 1990 in the previous Act the Government created the quality threshold for licence applications which undoubtedly mitigated but did not harmfully impede the free flow of market forces. These amendments simply seek a similar environment for the digital future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I support the broad thrust of the argument of the noble Baroness, but there were one or two aspects which concerned me slightly. I have to confess to being a book publisher, which is perhaps an extremely outdated form of communication in terms of this Bill.
I detected a prescriptive element here. One of the successful aspects of broadcasting is that it should be as broadly cast as possible. I was a little nervous that we were getting into the realm of somehow having organisations, or even Parliament, deciding what people should be watching. The terms of the amendment bring us dangerously close to that. On the other hand, like the noble Baroness, I have the deepest suspicions of people who would exploit public taste. I have no doubt that she agrees with me that William Randolph Hearst was probably right when he said that no man ever lost money by underestimating public taste.
However, I believe that the terms of the amendment are probably unnecessary. In the 400 years in which the publishing industry has been fairly active in this country, there have been very bad publishers and very good publishers. I can reassure the noble Baroness that on the whole it is the good publishers who survive.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, was sympathetic to what the noble Baroness said. I raised my hopes when I saw the word "quality" in Amendment No. 13. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness but I was a little
214
mystified as to whether the word went far enough to eliminate the violence and sex of which we have much too much on the television even now.
When considering Amendment No. 19 and the meaning of quality, we find reference to matters which, quite frankly, do not have much to do with quality. It refers to,
"programme production from the regions; new and original programmes; independent productions; British-made programmes; and programmes catering for minorities".
There is not a word there about good taste or the avoidance of violence or sex.
Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the way in which the noble Baroness presented her case, I am not sure that her amendments fulfil her desire.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, presenting her case for fundamentally shifting our country's approach to digital terrestrial television, an industry which hardly exists now and which requires millions if not billions of pounds to create. I have listened; I understand her concerns. I sympathise with some of her aspirations, but I have not been convinced by her arguments. Were these proposals to be accepted, I do not believe that we would somehow acquire some kind of "superior" digital terrestrial television. I think that we would have none at all.
We have been told that it is in the public interest to require quality by statute: that it is necessary to legislate for programme services that are free to air, or consist of original productions or programmes catering for minorities; that it is necessary to pile obligations upon requirements on to prospective multiplex providers and broadcasters. I should like to step back from the detail of each individual amendment—Amendments Nos. 9, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19—and assess the overall impact. What messages do these amendments give the two groups most important to the success of digital terrestrial television—the industry and the viewer?
I believe that those contemplating investing in the programmes, the multiplexing and the transmission necessary to launch digital terrestrial television, would think again, and then probably think no more, if these proposals were imported into the Bill. They are looking for encouragement and flexibility. These amendments would box them in on every side. They would conclude that "the game is not worth the candle".
And what message goes out to the viewer? It is that the programming on the new channels will not be designed to meet their viewing wishes. Rather, it will be predetermined by high-minded and well meaning people who know better than they what they should watch and spend their money on. They are the up-to-date manifestation of the "men from Whitehall" who know best.
Perhaps I may revert briefly to the comments of my noble friend Lord Stockton. He referred to publishers. As he said, what applies to publishers also applies to television programmes. Those books which are read and re-read are good books. Those television programmes which are viewed and re-viewed are good programmes.

215
I believe that the kind of world painted for us by the noble Baroness is one where those potential viewers will vote with their feet, their wallets, or perhaps I should say their smart cards. They will not buy the sets; they will not watch the programmes being broadcast at such great expense. That in turn would undermine the whole enterprise.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I explained fully the Government's views on these issues. I should like briefly to remind noble Lords of the salient points.
We, like the Opposition, value public service broadcasting which, as I mentioned earlier, is popular. It is and will remain at the heart of broadcasting in this country. That is why we are providing for four, soon to be five, terrestrial broadcasters to move to digital, and why the existing licence regime for those broadcasters will continue in place for their digital simulcasts. The BBC will have scope to expand the range of quality programmes that it provides under the terms of its Charter and Agreement. I suspect that the other existing terrestrial channels will be keen, too, to maintain their reputations as quality broadcasters in any new services they provide.
But the future digital world is different. More spectrum and more channels will be available. There is no inherent need to extend the present public service broadcasting regime with its quality and other thresholds to the further new services which digital technology makes possible. As we all know, they will be subject to the general rules relating to taste, decency and impartiality and so on which apply to all broadcasters.
It seems inherent in what has been said from the Benches opposite that there is some underlying assumption that the market must deliver rubbish. But surely that is not the case. After all, the real case is that instanced by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
The key issue for us now is that we must do all we can to create the right environment for digital terrestrial television to take root and flourish. The Bill as it stands does that. We are taking steps to improve it where possible and we welcome all the constructive suggestions that we have been given. We have been given plenty of helpful comments and suggestions throughout the currency of the Bill. We want to create an enabling framework, not a disabling one.
It is for those reasons, and in the interests of the future success of digital terrestrial television, that I hope that those who propose the amendments will not seek to press them.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to those Members of your Lordships' House who took part in the debate, and to the Minister for his reply. My first concern is that all noble Lords who spoke seemed to imply that some level of prescription was going to be devised by some body of the great and good. It was not entirely clear whether it would be great and good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Renton, or too great and good for the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton.
Put simply, the aim was to put the regulatory device in the hands of the ITC. Whether the ITC qualifies under this heading is not perhaps relevant to this debate.
216
But the aim was certainly not to set up some additional star chamber to police those concerns. That may be one misunderstanding; perhaps I did not make the position sufficiently clear.
I take up the point of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, about parallels with publishing. As has been mentioned at all stages of debate on the Bill, the broadcast media have enormously greater powers, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad, than even the most reputable and distinguished publisher of books. It is in that context that we on these Benches are a little more fearful of the influence of the market.
The Minister considers that we are cynical—he did not use that word—or over-suspicious in believing that the market must always deliver rubbish. We do not wish to believe that, but my example of the cable television diets that we are offered in the United States as a possible prospectus of what we might be offered here on digital television is not necessarily unrealistic.
I am concerned that the Government do not feel that they need to be consistent about the adoption of quality standards as provided in the 1990 Broadcasting Act, or that they need to ensure that those standards will remain in the new technological future. I hope that another place will return to these arguments. We feel strongly that they are relevant to the enormous power that the broadcasting media have on the culture and social life of our society. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly drew attention to that. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 14, at end insertߞ
("( ) In subsection (2)(e) "acquisition" includes acquisition on hire or loan.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to require two or more multiplex licences to be granted to one person]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Failure to begin providing licensed service and financial penalties on revocation of licence]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 27, after ("or) insert ("whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, or

(b) ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is grouped with a large number of other amendments and unless your Lordships wish I shall not read out all the numbers. The numerous amendments relate to one topic: the system of fining licence holders who have failed to comply with their licence conditions.
Current provisions in the Bill hold that the amount of any financial penalty should be calculated according to percentages of the multiplex revenue accountable to a licence holder for his last complete accounting period. This system of fines is used right across the board—for multiplex licence holders, digital programme service licence holders and additional service licence holders for both digital television and digital radio.
However, we are concerned that in the start-up period, multiplex revenue may be modest and the proposed percentages will therefore mean only negligible fines. This would undermine the enforcement regime. The sums involved may provide an inadequate sanction.
Our amendments make provision for the two types of penalties which may be levied: first, the penalty for failure to begin providing the licensed service, which by definition can only fall upon the multiplex provider. Our amendments provide that a penalty levied for this reason should be whichever is the greater of £50,000 or 7 per cent. of the multiplex revenue attributable to him. The other type of penalty is against failure to comply with conditions of licence; this may be levied against multiplex providers, programme service providers and additional services providers. We need to be more flexible here in recognition that there will be companies of hugely differing sizes within this group. Our amendments provide that the penalty for breach of licence conditions should not exceed whichever is the greater of £50,000 or the appropriate percentage of multiplex revenue attributable to the licence holder. The important difference is that the regulators are granted discretion to set the penalty at a figure which is less than £50,000 or calculate the appropriate percentage of multiplex revenue. This gives the regulators some discretion as to which base it is appropriate to invoke and to decide whether a £50,000 fine or a fine based on a percentage of multiplex revenue would provide the most appropriate penalty. I believe that this will allow more realistic and more effective sanctions.
The purpose of these amendments is therefore to bring the Bill into line in the various sections.
There is also another provision to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. The new clauses to be inserted after Clause 30 and Clause 61 allow the Secretary of State to vary by negative resolution the £50,000 figure set out in the clauses on financial penalties. This recognises the fact that such a figure may need to be varied at some point in the future in order to take account of inflation.
In addition, Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 223 have been brought forward following representations we have received from the Independent Television Commission to regularise the position of all their licensees. I should stress that these amendments deal solely with the maximum levels of fines for breaches of ITC licences. The level of actual fine imposed and in what circumstances remains a matter for the ITC. The amendments bring the holders of non-domestic satellite service licences and the holders of licensable programme service licences into line with Channels 3, 4 and 5.
Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the maximum financial penalty the ITC can impose on these two categories is £50,000. That limit can be altered by the Secretary of State by order. With the growth of the broadcasting industry and particularly rapid growth in some sectors we accepted the ITC's point that such fine limits could quickly become out of date. Rather than the Secretary of State having to amend limits by order, we agreed with the ITC that it was more sensible to base maximum fines on the same basis that applies to Channels 3, 4 and 5; namely, a financial penalty up to 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the licensee's last complete accounting period for the first offence and a fine not exceeding 5 per cent. for subsequent offences.
While the new limits bring the non-domestic satellite service licensees and licensable programme service licensees into line with other broadcasters, we have retained the £50,000 provision as well, since for some licensees such as small community cable channels, it is more sensible to keep the cash limit as qualifying revenue can be negligible.
The differing arrangements were made at a time when many satellite and cable services were newly established and needed significant help to get off the ground, but there is no reason now why they should not face the same level of fines. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Conditions attached to multiplex licence]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 43, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) No order under subsection (5) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish to speak to Amendment No. 62. The first of the amendments relates to television, the second to radio and they mirror one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, at Committee stage and on which I undertook to think further. They provide that the Secretary of State's power to alter the percentage of the broadcasting spectrum which may be used for additional services should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. We accept the noble Lord's argument that an order which alters the extent to which the broadcasting spectrum is actually available for programme services might well raise substantial issues for which the affirmative resolution procedure would be justified. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for being so constructive and helpful on the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Attribution of multiplex revenue to licence holder and others]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 15, line 9, leave out (" 17(2)") and insert (" 17(2A)").

219
Page 15, line 23, leave out (" 21(2) or section 25(2)") and insert (" 21(2A) or section 25(2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duration and renewal of multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 30:
Page 16, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) At any time before determining the application, the Commission mayߞ

(a) require the applicant to furnish—

(i) a technical plan which supplements that submitted by the licence holder under section 8(4)(b), and

(ii) proposals which supplement any proposals submitted by the licence holder under section 8(4)(f), and

(b) notify the applicant of requirements which must be met by that supplementary technical plan or those supplementary proposals and relate to the matters referred to in section 8(4)(b)(i) and (ii) and (f).

(4A) The consent of the Secretary of State shall be required for any exercise by the Commission of their powers under subsection (4) and for any decision by the Commission not to exercise those powers.").
Page 16, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 28 and insert—
("(b) any supplementary technical plan or supplementary proposals submitted under subsection (4)(a) fail to meet requirements notified to the applicant under subsection (4)(b),").
Page 16, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
("(7) Subject to subsection (7A), on the grant of any such application the Commission may with the consent of the Secretary of State, and shall if so required by him—").
Page 16, line 42, at end insert—
("(7A) Where an order under section 13(2) is in force on the relevant date, no percentage of multiplex revenue shall he payable as mentioned in subsection (7)(a) during the period for which the licence is to be renewed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 and speak to Amendments Nos. 65 to 68. We have provided in the Bill as it stands for multiplex licences to be awarded for 12 years and to allow licence holders to renew their licences at the end of the first licence period for a further 12 years. These arrangements recognise the investment needed and the likelihood that the return on that investment will begin to be realised towards the end of the first licence period.
As I have so often emphasised, we cannot be certain how far and how fast the digital terrestrial market will develop. But we certainly hope that it will develop in such a way that will allow us to set a timescale for the withdrawal of analogue frequencies and to switch to an all-digital regime. It could well be that, as we approach the end of the first multiplex licence period, we are in a position to prepare the ground for the end game in our analogue switch off strategy.
The Bill already provides for the ITC and the Radio Authority to set new minimum requirements for the roll-out of transmission and the promotion of receiver take-up which licence holders would have to be prepared to meet if they wanted to renew. My amendments require the regulators to obtain the Secretary of State's approval of those minimum requirements. This does not undermine the proper role
220
of the regulators, but rather underlines the Secretary of State's role in determining the timescale for analogue switch off—a policy issue which is clearly for Government rather than the regulator.
My amendments also require the regulators to obtain the Secretary of State's approval to the percentage of multiplex revenue to be paid on renewal, again reflecting the importance of creating the right conditions for the future of digital broadcasting and for analogue switch off. I would remind your Lordships that we have already stated clearly our intention that no payments to the Exchequer should be made during the first licence period. We will need to reassess the position as licences fall due to be renewed, and will take into account then the state of development of the market and the need for licence holders to provide the taxpayer with a reasonable return in exchange for the use of spectrum, which is of course such a valuable commodity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Enforcement of multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 17, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 27 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, or

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the multiplex licence during any period for which his licence has been in force ("the relevant period")").
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 17, line 32, at end insert—
("and in relation to a person whose first complete accounting period falling within the relevant period has not yet ended, paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be construed as referring to 3, or (as the case may be) 5, per cent. of the amount which the Commission estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for that accounting period (as so determined)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Duration and conditions of digital programme licence]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
"(c) that by the eighth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 95 per cent. of the programmes to be broadcast in the service are subtitled to such technical standards as is specified by the Commission,
(d) that by the eighth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 10 per cent. of the programmes to be broadcast in the service are presented or interpreted into sign language and
(e) that by the tenth anniversary of the commencement date of the digital programme licence not less than 50 per cent. of the programme hours to be broadcast are audio-described.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, of all the amendments to the Bill this is the most significant for deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people. I regard the amendment as terribly significant for those people who are very often deprived of enjoying television. I hope the Minister will be able to accommodate us tonight. Millions of deaf people and blind people are looking forward to the Government's co-operation in opening television to them.
The amendment seeks to set targets for subtitling, signing and audio-description for digital services. As the noble Lord will know, the respective targets are 95 per cent. for subtitling; 10 per cent. for signing; and 50 per cent. for audio-description for blind people. The reason for the 95 per cent. is that we want to accommodate the difficulties and technical problems that will arise. We do not want to penalise people if they cannot keep to 100 per cent. However, we do want to achieve mass coverage. Therefore we are setting a target of 95 per cent. Ten per cent. for signing is a very small step forward but a very important one for those who depend on signing. Blind people need audio-description to explain what is going on.
The point of the amendment is that the targets are to be achieved by fixed dates. Targets are essential if those who are seriously impaired are to follow and enjoy digital television. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rejected similar amendments. He expressed concern about "the need to strike a balance" and to avoid "suddenly imposing onerous requirements out of the blue." The Minister wanted to avoid deterring new entrants. He was right. I do not want to deter new entrants either. Nor do deaf people; nor do blind people. I am anxious to strike a balance, as the Minister wanted. I also want new entrants into television. By specifying now what will be required in eight or 10 years the amendment removes uncertainty, itself a great deterrent to entry. It also ensures that there are no sudden, onerous requirements on the television companies. The requirements are carefully—some would say too crefully—phased in. I hope that that allays the anxieties of the Minister.
For sensorily impaired people, the expansion of television through digital channels will be welcome; but it is not enough. There will be no gain from the entry of even 1,000 new companies if they are all unintelligible, as they will be if there is no subtitling for deaf people, no signing for hard-of-hearing people and no audio-description for blind people. In other words, provision for television can be multiplied as much as we like, but it will remain inaccessible to deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people without the provisions of the amendment. Without parliamentary pressure that could happen. Those people will still be deprived while television provision is expanding for everybody else. We have a responsibility to those people which I hope the House, and especially the Government, will accept.
History is on our side. We know that it was the addition by the Minister—I underline the word "addition"—to the 1990 Broadcasting Act of the amendment to set targets that resulted in the gradual but definite increase in subtitling. Subtitling is now at
222
37 per cent. but is on course to meet the target of 50 per cent. by 1998. It is significant that the ITV companies are doing no more and no less than the Act requires. The targets set in the Act are determining progress. That is why those targets are essential. It is also significant that there has been no increase in signed programmes comparable with that of subtitled programmes. The reason is that there were no signing targets in the 1990 Act.
Each year hearing people have available to them, according to ITC/BBC figures, over 200,000 hours of terrestrial, satellite and cable television. Yet 62,000 profoundly deaf people, reliant on sign language, have no access to general programmes. That means they are prohibited from watching television. The new technology will enable signing to be done without being visible to the hearing audience. That will be encouraged by the amendment. If the amendment, or any measure that the noble Lord can present to the House, does not become part of the Bill there is no doubt whatever that deaf, hard-of-hearing and blind people will be excluded from enjoying digital television. That would be a terrible deprivation. We have a unique opportunity to include them in the new television era.
On the question of cost, the seemingly miraculous simultaneous presentation of words on a screen as they are spoken is not unduly expensive in relative terms. In fact it is very cheap. I put the figures to the Minister in an interview with him a short time ago. The cost of subtitling is about £600 an hour. That has to be compared with the cost of £600,000 an hour for television drama, £120,000 for documentaries, and £34,000 for sport. So £600 is a very tiny amount, especially when official figures show that some 10 million people use the subtitling provision. Apart from the "See Hear" programme, there is no signing or audio-description. I am reliably told that the cost of that provision would be of the same order.
The amendment calls for the targets on subtitling and signing to be met by the eighth anniversary of issuing a licence and by the 10th anniversary for audio-description. In an area where technology is galloping ahead those timescales are very generous. In the 1990 Act, a five-year period was allowed. We are now allowing an eight-year and 10-year period. Today it is far easier to advance subtitling because the mechanisms are well understood. Much of the expertise is available, although there will be a need for more trained operators. Once the size of the market is defined and the salary earned by operators becomes well known, I anticipate that market forces will establish training schools. At present the BBC is doing virtually all the training.
I hope the Minister will not say that the amendment is not required because we have the Disability Discrimination Act. I know that. The noble Lord was number two on that Bill as it passed through Parliament. There are good reasons why we should not leave the question of digital television access for seriously impaired people to that Act.
The Disability Discrimination Act rests on what is "reasonable". Until codes and regulations are published we have no idea what the Government will consider to

223
be reasonable. This is an issue of very great importance to broadcasters and disabled people. It should not be left to others—in this case the ITC and civil servants—to decide what is "reasonable". It should be decided by Parliament and hence be part of the Bill.
It will also take some time before the codes and guidance emerge. But with this amendment companies planning to enter this exciting market will know, immediately the Act is passed, precisely what is required of them. That is beneficial to the companies and to a large section of their potential audience. It is far better to develop those facilities as they go along rather than try to tag them on at a later date. The "tagging on" approach would inconvenience the television companies and is an inappropriate and unacceptable way to meet the needs of disabled people.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively. On his words tonight will rest the hopes of millions of deaf people and blind people of watching television. I hope that he is able to oblige. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not want now to cover all the ground that I covered in responding to the noble Lord in Committee. I repeat that the Government take this issue extremely seriously and fully acknowledge the importance of the services described in the amendment to people with a sensory disability. I should also like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for the helpful meeting that he arranged with representatives of some of those suffering from disabilities.
I apologise to the House for the fact that we have not yet managed to bring forward the amendments in this area which I agreed in principle to accept at Committee. I refer to the amendments requiring the ITC to consult representatives of those with sensory disabilities before publishing its code on provision for those people and to publish the code in accessible forms. I intend to bring those forward at Third Reading, with the House's permission.
We want to ensure that the maximum amount of subtitling, signing and audio-description is provided compatible with the investment needed to launch digital terrestrial television and make it a success. But we must also bear in mind that other relevant legislation has also recently been passed. I may disappoint the noble Lord, but I should like to refer to the Disability Discrimination Act of last year, which in Section 21 states:
"where an auxiliary aid or service would enable disabled people to make use of a service, it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is reasonable … for him to have to take in order to provide that auxiliary aid or service".
That is the approach we need to take here. A general principle has been established in law, and it should be followed through.
Of course, the crux of the matter is how we define "reasonable". The Disability Discrimination Act does not attempt to do that on the face of the Act, but provides for detailed provisions to be drawn up. After all, "reasonable" will mean different things in different circumstances. And what is reasonable can change over time. For example, a technological improvement making an auxiliary aid or service cheaper to provide may make
224
it reasonable to expect an increase in its provision. I think that in dealing with the issue of provision for people with sensory disabilities by digital terrestrial broadcasters, it makes sense to ensure that we achieve the flexibility to take account of differing and changing circumstances. That is the principle behind the provision in the Bill for the ITC to draw up a code of practice and I see no reason to depart from that principle. The approach ties in well with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. One way of dealing with this matter—though I shall need to look into it further—might be a regulation brought forward in that Act which would simply make it clear that, so far as broadcasting is concerned, the circumstances in which it is reasonable for auxiliary aids or services to be provided are set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and in the code drawn up by the ITC in this Bill, on which there will be detailed consultation. However, we deal with the relationship before the two pieces of legislation. I am convinced that a code is the right way forward.
I acknowledge that the code represents a different approach from that adopted in the 1990 Act, which, as I said, predates the Disability Discrimination Act, for subtitling by existing analogue broadcasters. As the noble Lord explained, the 1990 Act sets down progressively increasing minimum requirements for commercial broadcasters, and those are also reflected in the BBC Charter and Agreement. But we were dealing then with a set of circumstances considerably clearer and less uncertain than our current vision of the digital future.
I should like to set out the main differences. I do so shortly, bearing in mind the time of evening. First, in 1990 the four existing analogue channels had established audiences and revenue flows. The audience for digital terrestrial will initially be close to nil. Secondly, they had large programme budgets. Thirdly, those existing broadcasters were using an existing transmission network and broadcasting to sets that already existed. Fourthly—and it is an important point—the existing analogue broadcasters all provide heterogeneous services which include comedy, films, drama, sport, news, and current affairs and, even more importantly, those which include a mixture of live unscripted, live scripted and pre-recorded programmes. The increase in the number of programme services permitted by digital technology will mean that many new broadcasters are likely to provide specialist services, just as cable and satellite broadcasters do.
The effect of that is that, depending on the nature of the programme broadcast, the costs of doing the relevant subtitling—if I may so describe it in shorthand—will vary considerably. For example, some programmes might cost as little as £200 an hour, whereas others, involving unscripted live performances might be up towards £2,000 an hour. We are concerned that the nature of the programmes offered will have a very big impact on the nature and cost of the type of subtitling, and so on, which will be appropriate. Against that background, there will be problems of what is reasonable for a particular broadcaster. If the

225
broadcasters are all new broadcasters, it means that they all start from a very low base and incur quite different costs.
I appreciate that much of what I said will be felt by the noble Lord as offering little comfort. But I should like to make some suggestions which I hope will convince your Lordships that the Government have taken full account of the points raised and, having done so, are prepared to make sensible alterations to their position without compromising the principles that I set out in my earlier remarks and promising things which, quite honestly, cannot reasonably be delivered by broadcasters.
As I said in Committee, broadcasters will act in their own interests to provide as extensive a service as they can for disabled people. This Government believe that regulation for its own sake should not be imposed. But I recognise that that cannot be guaranteed. We might need to look again, once the market is up and running, at the status of the code. If some broadcasters, after a reasonable time, do not comply, it might be appropriate to take steps to enforce compliance. But we believe that the position from which we start should be that we should not place figures on the face of the Bill. We believe that that would be both inflexible and unfair. Rather, we believe that the code is the right delivery mechanism (if I may use a television analogy), which will allow the industry the flexibility to adjust requirements on provision for disabled people both in the light of the development of the market as a whole and the differences in the situation of broadcasters within that market.
That is in line with the principles of the Disability Discrimination Act. Therefore, it is a solution that we continue to support. We believe that it is the right way to deal with this particular important problem, in the context of the very differing abilities of new broadcasters to deliver, at the same time bearing in mind the significant differences in the products that those new broadcasters will place on the market.
I hope that my words help explain to the noble Lord first that we take these matters very seriously and secondly that this is the right way to address them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I must not detain the House. I know that people are waiting to get on to other business. But perhaps the House may hear a very brief response to some of the points raised by the Minister.
The fact that the new companies begin from a low base means nothing whatever. If they are unable to make provision for deaf people and blind people, they should not be in business. The BBC and ITV have incurred the expense of subtitles and icons of audio description. Therefore, with digital television, they should do likewise.
The nature of the programmes and the nature of the subtitling is irrelevant. If a programme is on TV, it should be subtitled. If it is not subtitled, deaf people cannot follow. There is no point arguing about the lack
226
of need for subtitles and saying that it cannot be done on this or that programme. Subtitles are subtitles; they are the key to understanding for deaf people.
The Minister says that it is in the interests of the programme companies to provide the service; that is not the case. History proves that it is only because of the provisions of the 1990 Act that subtitling was brought forward—admittedly, the BBC is the exception—and the programme companies only maintain the targets laid down in the 1990 Act. That is why we want targets on the face of the Bill.
The Minister says that we should wait until the programmes are up and running. That is the wrong way to go about it. It is like tagging an out-house on to the main building of a house; it is an oddity. It is far better to build as one goes along. The subtitling and the audio description can be integrated.
The Minister says that there should be no target. That is quite wrong. The target is crucial. We are leaning over backwards; we are saying five years, eight years and 10 years. We are giving more than adequate notice. When the Minister considers the rights of the programme contractors I beg him to bear in mind the rights of deaf people and blind people to follow television. Those are basic fundamental rights and they go by the board unless targets are laid down in a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 21 [Enforcement of digital programme licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 72 and 77. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 38:
Page 20, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 24 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, or

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the digital programme licence during any period for which his licence has been in force,").
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("(2)(a)") and insert ("(2A)(a)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Enforcement of digital additional services licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 42:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").

227
Page 22, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 45 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, or

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the digital additional services licence during any period for which his licence has been in force,").
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("(2)(a)") and insert ("(2A)(a)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 25 minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
7.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 121 [The lieutenancies]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 63, line 25, at end insert—
("(2) It is hereby declared that the validity of the appointment of a lord-lieutenant after 20th April 1980 is not affected by the fact that the instrument appointing him refers to the power of appointment previously contained in the Local Government Act 1972 or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and not the corresponding power under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
This subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when last week the House was considering this Bill on Report, I raised an issue relating to the appointment of lord-lieutenants which had been brought to my attention by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I said that I hoped the Government would be able to bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading.
The statutory powers governing the appointment by Her Majesty of lord-lieutenants for each county in England and Wales are contained in Section 130 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. That was a consolidation Act, and the provisions of that section repeat word for word provisions previously contained in Section 218 of the Local Government Act 1972. In Scotland the corresponding provisions are in Section 131 of the 1980 Act, which re-enacted Section 205 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Until 1980 the instruments of appointment rightly referred to the 1972 or 1973 Act, depending whether the appointment was in England and Wales or in Scotland. Thereafter, they should of course have referred to the Reserve Forces Act 1980, but regrettably that was not
228
always the case; many of them continued to refer to the 1972 or 1973 Act. It is quite likely that those appointments are nevertheless legally valid, but it is thought sensible to make it clear that that is indeed the case. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to dispel any doubts there may be about the validity of these appointments, and about the validity of any acts done by a lord-lieutenant whose instrument of appointment cites the wrong Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 63, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For subsection (1) of section 17 (prohibition of dismissal for liability to whole-time service) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) If the employer of a person who may be required to enter upon a period of whole-time service—

(a) terminates that person's employment without his consent at any time when he is not in that service, and

(b) does so solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities which that person may be liable to perform or discharge—

(i) if required to report at any time or place with a view to entering into whole-time service; or

(ii) if he enters upon a period of whole-time service,

the employer is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3.
These amendments relate to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. I mentioned them during the Report stage. The change to Section 17 of the 1985 Act will mean that individuals who report as required on call-out or recall but are, for whatever reason, not accepted into service, remain entitled to the protection of the Act. The omission of Section 20(4) is consequential. The change to Section 20(3) introduces an explicit reference to maternity leave, and follows up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment but ask for a point of clarification. I take it that the phrase "whole-time service" does not include members of the reserve forces who sign up to become members of the high readiness reserve.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is correct. If I am wrong, I shall write to him straight away.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 64, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) For subsections (3) and (4) of section 20 (interpretation) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) A period of whole time service shall not be regarded as having ceased by reason of any absence on leave (including sick leave or maternity leave) before release from service or discharge."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 97, line 28, column 3, at end insert ("140, 151").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 relates to pensions issues. As I mentioned during the Report stage, the Bill includes the repeal of almost the whole of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Some sections of that Act are superseded entirely by the Bill and will be repealed immediately the relevant provisions are brought into force. Other sections will continue to have effect for limited purposes and will be repealed when they become spent.
Sections 140 and 151 of the 1980 Act give authority for the payment of war pensions to former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Guard. It has been suggested to me that the inclusion of those sections in the repeal schedule might give the impression that it was the Government's intention to cease the payment of pensions to the individuals concerned, or perhaps to exclude new applicants who develop a disability attributable to their service. That is very much not the case, and to put the matter beyond doubt I have put forward this simple amendment to remove those two clauses from the ambit of the repeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is an important Bill. It will bring the law on reserves up to date, and it will permit those reserves to be used more flexibly. The Bill is complex and, in many respects, technical. Its scope means that it is necessarily lengthy. For the record, I might say that it runs to 132 clauses and 11 schedules, covering 98 pages.
The Bill has been the subject of a very extensive consultation exercise. I believe that that has been most productive. The policy which the Bill implements has been fully aired, and the provisions themselves considered widely. I am sure that that has been an important factor in the general support which the Bill has received from all sides of the House.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates, at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and indeed today. I am most grateful for the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been considered.
Although time prevents me from mentioning every noble Lord who has contributed, I should like to express my particular and genuine thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I very much appreciate the considerable efforts they have made to improve the Bill. I have, of course, felt it necessary to oppose some of the amendments that they have put forward, but I have
230
always recognised that their motivation has been positive. However, in very many more cases I have been able to agree with the points which they have raised, and to accept amendments which they have tabled.
Perhaps I may also mention the contribution to our debates of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has provided some useful insights on a range of issues. I am grateful to him. I am confident that your Lordships' careful scrutiny of the Bill has delivered up a better Bill and that it will considerably ease the burden on those in another place when they come to consider it.
I should now like to touch briefly on some of the topics which we have debated during the passage of the Bill. We spent some time in Committee on various matters concerning special agreements under Part IV of the Bill. I believe it was a very useful debate, and I hope that the details I was able to supply were helpful to your Lordships. Special agreements are necessary if we are to be able to guarantee the availability for operations of individuals with particular skills. They will be skills in short supply in the reserve forces, meaning that it would not be sensible to rely on seeking volunteers possessing those skills at a time of crisis.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, tabled amendments concerning the sponsored reserve concept under Part V of the Bill. I was grateful for his contributions on this, as on other matters, and was able to offer him reassurance in Committee and further details in correspondence. We believe that the Bill offers a flexible framework within which each service will be able to adapt the concept to suit various applications as they arise. In assessing the suitability of a given area of work for the concept, particular attention will be paid to the maintenance of operational capability.
The flexibility I mentioned includes scope to adjust the training syllabus for sponsored reserves according to the circumstances. There are a number of useful precedents for the assimilation of support personnel with particular skills and qualifications into the service rank structure when they are needed, and we do not expect any difficulty on that score. We do believe that the concept will allow the extension of the market testing programme into new areas, to the benefit of both the services and the defence industry.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised a number of issues connected by a common thread—their concern for the position of the individual. I might include in that category the amendments they tabled concerning the position of conscientious objectors; discrimination against reservists by employers; and statutory protection for civilian pensions. I believe that in each case I was able to explain that the present or, in the case of pensions, proposed arrangements were sufficient.
On conscientious objectors, the existing longstanding arrangements apply to both regulars and reservists. They work well, and I would not wish to make any change to them. Both in Committee and on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pressed for the Bill to include a provision prohibiting discrimination by employers. I hope that I said enough to persuade her that, far from encouraging the employment of reserves, such a move

231
would be likely to harden employers' attitudes, and would be counterproductive. Furthermore, to achieve an effective provision would require quite a substantial Bill in its own right.
On the question of pensions, I repeat the assurance I gave on Report. The Government understand the necessity to safeguard the civilian pension provision of reservists. As the House will recognise, pensions issues are complex. We will be consulting closely with the pensions industry, employers and other interested parties as ideas are developed.
I think that the issue which prompted the greatest interest among your Lordships was the maximum length of obligatory service after call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations. Certainly, the debate on Report on the amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, drew contributions from the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Craig of Radley, from my noble friends Lord Vivian and Lord Renton, from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I mention last, but it goes without saying very much not least, the most interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. My thanks are due to all those noble Lords for their contributions.
I explained that the period of nine months in the Bill was the result of very careful consideration. I added that the nine month period was supported by the TA colonels, including my noble friend the Duke of Westminster, and by the chairmen of the 14 Territorial, Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve Associations. The nine months would be a maximum period of obligatory service after call-out, but it was our intention that reservists, like regulars, would not normally serve more than six months on operational tours. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, put it, the penny has dropped on that point. Indeed, if I may say so, the notional penny has been in its fallen position for some considerable time. It was on that understanding that the noble and gallant Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment.
Altogether I have listened with great attention to the various debates on the Bill's provisions. Your Lordships have, with no little knowledge and insight, made your usual valuable contributions. I am grateful for the broad support the Bill has received from all sides of the House. I hope that that will continue in another place. As I said earlier, I am confident that your Lordships' careful scrutiny of the Bill will considerably reduce the consideration that is required there. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at Second Reading I gave the Bill a welcome from these Benches because we recognise that the 1980 Act was out of date, that it needed revising and that there was a case for a new role for the reserve forces. I also emphasised that the reserve forces form a vital umbilical cord, if I may put it like that, between the regular forces and the civilian population. That is the role that has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords in the course of our debates.
232
The noble Earl listened carefully to my point that we would explore a number of matters in Committee. The Government agreed with a number of the points that we put forward and those have been written into the Bill. I am particularly pleased that the penny dropped on the question of pensions in the end because the Government started off from a position that we regarded as being untenable—indeed, not only untenable in equity but one which would discourage people from signing up as reservists. I am glad that the Government have conceded that point. As the noble Earl said, he was unable to accede to a number of our amendments. I fully understand that.
I believe there are four points that will be matter for another place; indeed, they will perhaps be debated at some length there. The first is the question of key personnel who are called up for humanitarian relief. We debated that in Committee. My noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff referred to doctors in the NHS and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, referred to the problem of medical services generally in the Royal Air Force. It is particularly acute when we come to humanitarian relief because, as was mentioned in Committee and at Report stage, people who are employed for humanitarian relief domestically may well not enjoy being called up for humanitarian relief outside the United Kingdom. They probably have enough to do, particularly in the NHS, at home. That could, and does, give rise to all sorts of problems.
The second point that will be matter for debate in another place is that of discrimination, protection and conditions of employment. Despite what the noble Earl said, I have to put on record that I do not believe he went quite far enough for our liking. Under the Bill as drafted we believe that reservists can be discriminated against, particularly in their conditions of employment. We would like to make sure, not in the interests of the individuals, as the noble Earl said, but of the whole system because if that is right people will sign up as reservists. If the system is wrong people will not sign up. Obviously, we have our concerns about individuals but above all it was in order to get the system right that we moved the amendments.
The third point is the vexed question of nine months versus six months for humanitarian relief operations. I have no doubt that that matter will come back again in another place. It links with the fourth point which is the structure of the Bill. I do not believe that we touched on it except peripherally from time to time. There seems to us to be a certain fuzziness in the distinction between call-up in Clauses 52, 54 and 56. It is the difference between what is a warlike operation and a humanitarian relief operation and when a humanitarian relief operation suddenly becomes a warlike operation. The position is somewhat less than clear. I offer this as an afterthought to our discussions. It would make sense if there were a category all on its own, as it were, which dealt with pure, humanitarian relief operations and never got into anything that could be on the edge of warlike operations. If that were the case, then the call-up period of six months—and I put this forward as a personal

233
view—would be appropriate. No doubt it is something that will be debated in another place and the Government will ponder it.
We went into Committee in the Moses Room. I believe that that generally was a success. After the Government had, as the noble Earl said, consulted widely on the Bill and indeed had drafted a Bill and published it, it was unfortunate that they had to produce a whole raft of amendments even before we began in Committee. Somewhat against my will, I was forced to accept the Government's amendments in toto on the understanding that we would recommit the Bill and at that point have a Bill that the Government were prepared to defend. It seemed to me rather odd that we had more than 100 amendments before we even went into Committee when this was the first House to examine the Bill.
Having said that, I consider the Committee experiment in the Moses Room, after we had overcome that rather difficult hiccup, to have been a success. The fact that it was a success is due not only to the participation of noble Lords who had great knowledge of the subject of reserve forces but also to the flexibility and courtesy of the Minister himself. I take this opportunity of reciprocating and thanking the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his courtesy, kindness and the general flexibility and good humour he displayed throughout what were at times somewhat tense debates. The House is indebted to him. He can feel proud of the way in which he carried the Bill through the House. My thanks are also due to my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Turner of Camden who helped me on specific aspects of the Bill and I hope, as the noble Earl said, with some effect. We had a good team. I believe that we made some impression on government thinking.
In conclusion I wish the Bill well. It seems to us to be a Bill that, in its present form, is reasonably well drafted, subject to the points I mentioned and to further opinions that no doubt will emerge in another place. The Bill is certainly needed; it is one which will give heart to the reserve forces. I believe that it will give heart to the regular forces as well. We welcome it as such. I wish the Bill well. We look forward to seeing what happens to it in another place and whether amendments will be introduced which your Lordships will discuss.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I would like to add my words of welcome to the Bill. The Bill is needed. Not only will it be welcomed by all sides of the House but, more importantly, it will be welcomed by the Territorial Army itself and the reserve forces because it will give added impetus to their role. For many people in the reserve forces it will provide a focus on which to train and a reason for retention. I believe that that is the main reason behind the Bill added to the fact that people get "in-field" experience. One of the major problems that the Bill has brought to light—and I understand the Minister's reservations about introducing legislation—is discrimination.
The Bill in its entirety is only a vehicle through which actions can take place such as people signing up to become members of the high readiness reserve force. If
234
there is a feeling—and I believe that this is why the debate occupied so much time and effort—within the reserve forces that discrimination will rain down on them from their employers, we shall be in difficulty in the future. However, having said that, I am sure that the matter will be raised in another place. I add my thanks to the Minister for the way he has undertaken the Bill.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I express my gratitude for the way in which the Minister and his predecessors consulted so deeply and at all levels and for the fact that consultation has been genuine. The Minister obviously acted on the information he received. As to the future, I look forward to taking advantage of the Bill personally and also allowing the men under my command to take advantage of it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too want to thank my noble friend the Minister. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about his great courtesy and the immense care he took to deal with each and every possible amendment, including some relatively little ones of mine. I congratulate my noble friend on having handled this very important Bill so very well.
The advice I have received from those parts of the Territorial Army with which I have dealt for many years is that they very much welcome the Bill. That endorses what those noble Lords with experience in the area have said. I believe that it will be a very good Bill and I hope that another place does not ruin it. I look forward to it returning to your Lordships' House more or less as it is now.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to reply briefly. First, I must thank all noble Lords for their kind and positive words about the Bill and my part in its passage through the House. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Mottistone not only for his most recent comments but for his contributions generally to our debates which have been most constructive at all times.
I should like to make two points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He expressed doubt about the availability of reservists for humanitarian purposes overseas. I take note of his concern, but it is likely that only willing individuals would be called out for that type of operation.
The noble Lord also implied that the Government had given some ground on the issue of pensions. We had a useful debate on that matter. I agree with the noble Lord that many important issues were aired. In fact, we have not changed our position on pensions. The power to safeguard civilian pensions has always been in Part VIII and our intentions, which I set out at Report stage, have been clear for some time. Nevertheless, I am glad that I was able to satisfy the noble Lord and his noble friends on those issues.
Once again, I thank your Lordships for the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been debated. It has been a pleasure to be responsible for a measure which is welcomed by all parties and which has stimulated many interesting debates. I suspect that at the forefront of all our minds is the realisation that the reserve forces want to play a significant part in our

235
military contribution to future crises. They have a most valuable capability to do so and this Bill will enable that to be used. With that thought, I ask your Lordships to agree that the Bill should now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.35 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 26 [Provision for broadcasting of services provided by independent analogue broadcasters]:
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 24, line 11, at end insert—
("(c) ensure that the amount of digital capacity to be reserved for the Welsh Authority and Channel 4 respectively in Wales shall not be less than the digital capacity reserved for the Channel 3 and Channel 5 services in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, but I have been following events carefully and reading the Hansard reports of the debates. I see that the case for the amendment has already been argued in a number of powerful speeches. I wish to reinforce the central theme of those speeches; namely, that S4C must be in a position to compete for viewers on the basis of equality between it and its competitors. It must be a competition between equals. But on the evidence of the White Paper—this has been confirmed by the Minister during the debates on the Bill—there will not be a level playing field.
According to the White Paper, S4C, as will be the case with Channel 4 in Wales, will enjoy only a quarter multiplex, whereas it is intended that its competitors—namely, BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 5—will be guaranteed twice as much digital capacity as S4C and Channel 4 in Wales.
Unlike its competitors, S4C will be unable to provide all the technical benefits of digital broadcasting. It is not fair. It is not acceptable to the Welsh people. If S4C cannot offer to its viewers the technical benefits which will be on offer from its competitors, its services will be seen as old-fashioned and second-rate, and many viewers will not choose to watch its programmes. As a result, S4C will inevitably lose some of its audience. Surely that is unfair to S4C.
I am sure that there is no need for me to remind the House that the Act of Union of 1536 relegated the Welsh language to an inferior status in the public life of Wales for centuries. It was one of the black spots in our history. It was my great privilege as Secretary of State for Wales to pilot the Welsh Language Bill 1967 through the other place. The central purpose of that Bill
236
was to confer on the Welsh language, for the first time since 1536, a status of equal validity with the English language in the public life of Wales. That has been the policy of successive governments since then.
It was also my privilege to co-operate with other noble Lords, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in setting up S4C 15 years ago. I can assure the House that the founders of S4C never intended that its programmes should be of second-rate technical quality compared with English language programmes. It was intended that they should always be technically comparable with the English language programmes of its competitors. Otherwise, how on earth could they hope to withstand competition? They have been technically comparable and, as the whole House heard on Second Reading, the S4C programmes have been a huge success. It is an achievement of which we are proud.
I would respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has shown great understanding and compassion in the course of our debates on the Bill, that it is far too late in the day to expect Wales to put up with a Welsh language service which is inferior in technical quality to alternative services in the English language. Indeed, Welsh speakers would feel justifiably aggrieved if they were deprived of Welsh language television services of technical comparability with the English language television services. This amendment would ensure that such a grievance would not arise.
My amendment affords the opportunity for the Government to promise that they will think again. I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend will respond positively to it. If he does so the news in Wales will be received with pleasure. If he fails to do so there will be great disappointment in the Principality. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment. We all want the Bill to succeed. It will have been a terrible waste of time if the digital revolution never occurs. We all assume that it will occur because there will be an incentive for ordinary viewers and listeners to invest in the new digital equipment.
Aside from the arguments in equity that S4C should enjoy equal access to capacity which the other main terrestrial broadcasters enjoy, there is the argument that the Welsh viewers of S4C will have little incentive to invest in digital technology if their programmes can be delivered only at analogue quality or if the ancillary features which will be available on other channels will be unavailable on S4C.
We can all appreciate the unique remit that S4C has in delivering Welsh language programmes of quality to its viewers. The other side of the coin is that Welsh-speaking viewers have no other channel to which they can turn in order to view programmes in the language of heaven. It follows that the Department of National Heritage is missing out on a particularly strong marketing opportunity by depriving Welsh-speaking viewers of the prospect of enjoying full digital capacity on S4C. The achievements of S4C in creating an independent film and television industry essentially from scratch have already been rehearsed in this House.

237
It has been a significant contribution to the richness and diversity of culture within Wales and the UK. It has helped to diversify the economy of Wales, once so dependent on heavy industry.
If S4C is to continue to seed such welcome development and growth it will need to be able to commission programmes with full digital capacity. If a constraint of capacity is put on S4C, that constraint will be reflected to the independent production industry in Wales. It would handicap the development of the industry, making it less viable in the face of competition from companies elsewhere, experienced as they will be in the production of content dependent on the latest technology.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question. Is there any inescapable shortage of capacity in the Principality which makes awarding S4C parity of capacity impractical? Is there really no multiplex with adequate coverage that would accommodate S4C's requests? As I hope I have explained, if there is parsimony in the award of capacity the danger is that the move to digital will be slower in the Principality and the emerging production industry in Wales will be handicapped. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I support the amendment which stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Aberdare and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. We are facing a difficult issue as regards the relationship between technology and culture. In a sense, we are speaking in the dark because we are not clear about the nature of the frequency planning exercise. It would be helpful if in response the Minister could let us know the state of play on the ongoing frequency planning exercise. Can he also tell us what news he has of the technical capacity that is becoming available?
I was involved in discussions on the broadcasting legislation which established capacity for the IBA, as it then was, to begin the engineering work for what became S4C in Wales and Channel 4 and to carry on later when the channel was established. I am anxious about the tendency to make a more limited form of technology available for the channel. If there were an argument as regards the then terrestrial capacity and the fact that it was appropriate to allow the technology of S4C to develop later in terms of the fourth station on the repeaters and on the main transmitters in the 1970s and 1980s it is certainly not the case that it is inappropriate to allow S4C to have full capacity at the present stage. We are not talking only about the broadcasting capacity but about all the other digital services which we hope S4C will be able to provide.
I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he has had in this Chamber and outside about the arrangements. No doubt he will tell us that it is not the Government's view that digital capacity should be put on the face of the Bill. I submit that the form of the amendment clearly indicates that we are arguing that the
238
capacity should not be less than the capacity for Channels 3, 4 or 5. We are arguing for a flexible form of delivery on whatever multiplex is most appropriate but we are seeking parity of delivery on that particular multiplex with the other services being made available. In view of the total capacity which will be available through the new digital system it seems a reasonable argument that we are putting forward.
S4C and Channel 4 in Wales have been offered one-quarter of a multiplex. Channel 3 and Channel 5 have been offered one-half of a multiplex in Wales, as in the rest of the UK. I believe that that is an unacceptable structure. It will limit the possibility of S4C being able to develop a wider choice of services, unlike its competitors. We are awaiting the Minister's further amendments on the question of the commercial flexibility available to the channel, as we discussed in Committee.
By denying S4C as equal an access to multiplex as Channels 3 and 5 the Government are in danger of undermining the possibility of the very commercial flexibility of which they say they are in favour. There must be the technical capacity to be able to deliver that range of services but that will not be made available under the present arrangements. It will also seriously limit the possibility of the Welsh authority to raise additional commercial revenue at a time when the Government—and I agree with their emphasis—are looking for commercial partnerships as the funding for additional services.
As we have indicated, there has been a level of commercial success in terms of the income generated by the Welsh authority and the possibility of generating further income may well be reduced as a result of this decision if S4C is unable to have the same technical capacity as the other players in the field.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will indicate that they are prepared to accept the spirit, if not the letter, of my noble friend's amendment. We are seeking to ensure that the full capacity available to the other channels in Wales should also be available to S4C. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support this important amendment. The Minister will know that since the Second Reading debate we have tried to extract from the department the assurance which is embedded in this amendment.
On the first day in Committee, in responding to a similar amendment, the Minister said:
"We are providing guaranteed places for S4C and Channel 4 in Wales".—[Official Report, 6/2/96; col. 229.]
Of course, we welcome the terms of that guarantee as far as they go. But with the greatest respect, the wording does not in itself meet the anxiety expressed this evening by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, and Lord Elis-Thomas. That anxiety relates to the digital capacity which has been reserved for S4C.
It seems to me that to reserve for S4C a lesser capacity than that for its competitors will be transparently unfair to S4C, its viewers and the Welsh

239
nation. Anyone who is familiar with the history of Welsh language broadcasting from the beginning will know that in the past it was always claimed that frequencies were not available or could not be found until the distant future. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn made it abundantly clear that Wales is no longer prepared to tolerate such unfairness.
I support entirely the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as to which frequencies are currently available for digital broadcasting in Wales. If the Minister is unable to accept the principle of Amendment No. 47 this evening, will the department disclose the identity of the engineers upon whose advice it is relying? That would be extremely helpful.
I suggest that the engineers for S4C and the engineers for the department should exchange reports with a view to establishing the present position and to get at the truth before the Bill proceeds to another place. For those reasons, I support the amendment but I suggest that it is perfectly fair to ask for the engineers' reports to be exchanged.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by saying how glad we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in his place and to hear him again in such persuasive form.
I first congratulate the noble Lords who have moved this amendment on their persistence and ingenuity in pursuing the cause of S4C. This is certainly not the first time that we have debated the provision we propose to make for S4C with regard to digital broadcasting and I suspect it will not be the last. But I welcome the opportunity to look at the new angle which the noble Lords have put before us today.
As I have emphasised before, our main concern is to ensure that the Welsh language programming which is at the core of S4C's purpose and remit is made available in digital form as widely as possible throughout Wales. I make it clear that it is absolutely no part of our remit that that channel should be anything less than first class. That has to be our primary objective. That is why we announced that S4C would be allocated its own capacity on the multiplex assigned to the ITC which offered the widest possible geographical coverage, because that would guarantee S4C the widest possible reach in Wales.
The planning of frequencies for digital terrestrial broadcasting is a long and complex process. The ITC, the BBC and NTL are co-operating on this work at the moment, and have yet to finalise their report. I understand that the bulk of the work will not be finished until April. Although it seems that noble Lords have had privileged access to some early findings, those must inevitably be tentative and subject to revision. I therefore believe it would be premature to move from our original assumption about the outcome of the exercise and that the best coverage in Wales will be on the multiplex offering the widest coverage overall.
However, I assure noble Lords that, if it transpires that there is no significant difference in coverage in Wales between the top multiplex assigned to the ITC and the next best, I will certainly look again at the position of S4C. In doing this, however, I should remind
240
noble Lords that I will need to take other factors into consideration as well. I know, for example, that another aspect of the debate about the coverage of multiplexes is the fact that there can be a trade-off, at the margins, between coverage and capacity. Thus it may be possible to increase the capacity available without moving broadcasters from one multiplex to another.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the department relies on the advice of the Radio Communications Agency and the ITC. I understand that S4C is in touch with the frequency planning exercise being conducted by the ITC, BBC and NTL and with work led by the ITC on the capacity available on the multiplex. I point the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in that direction towards the ITC in relation to those technical engineering matters.
A further point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about S4C's commercial services. I must apologise to your Lordships because I do not have ready the amendments which I had hoped to put before the House. Suffice it to say that we intend the regime for S4C to be along the lines of those applied to the BBC's commercial services or to any new service provided by the Channel 3 companies on their guaranteed capacity. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's questions.
I put forward those points not because they are in any way decisive but to illustrate the complexity of the issues involved. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have said gives noble Lords a sufficient assurance that we are listening to their anxieties and are doing our best to achieve the most satisfactory result for S4C. Against that background, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether there is any objection to the engineers exchanging their reports?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can see no objection from the department's point of view. However, I am not involved intimately in the exercise and nor do I necessarily fully understand all the implications of such an exchange.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friends Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Prys-Davies for what I thought were constructive speeches which have obviously made an impression on the Minister.
I am grateful also to the Minister for what I thought was a constructive response to what we said. He certainly left me with a measure of confidence, especially when he said that he will reconsider the whole problem when he receives the report in due course. It is in that spirit—a spirit of hope—that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [The S4C digital service]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 25, line 11, after ("57(4)") insert ("58(1),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee on 8th February at col. 340 of Hansard, I drew the Minister's attention to the situation which this amendment seeks to correct. Although I do not have a copy of Hansard with me, I understood from the Minister's reply that he would be bringing forward an amendment on Report. I am rather concerned that I have not seen that amendment. Does the Minister intend to accept the amendment? Can he give us that assurance? If he is not minded to do so at present, can he give us the reasons for his hesitancy?
9 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the explanation for the noble Lord's amendment is most helpful. I appreciate the way that it has been brought forward. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the BBC would continue to be obliged to provide S4C with 10 hours a week of Welsh language programming after the frequencies carrying the analogue channels were switched off. I believe that the effect of the amendment would, in fact, be to double the obligation placed upon the BBC while both S4C and S4C Digital were being broadcast simultaneously. I am not sure whether that is the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment and would like some reassurance in that respect.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is my understanding that it is not the intention that the contribution of the BBC should be doubled, so to speak, but that the contribution should be available when the analogue service is switched off.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am much obliged.
We have looked at the issue and I can certainly assure the noble Lord that it is our intention that the obligation on the BBC should continue beyond the time when analogue frequencies were turned off. However, I must here admit what is, perhaps, a shortcoming of the Bill. It does not deal, nor does it pretend to deal, with all of the issues which would arise from the cessation of analogue broadcasts. The Bill is concerned with getting digital broadcasting off the ground. That, as we all now know, is quite complex enough. I fear that we must accept that further legislation will be needed to deal with all the implications of analogue switch off.
Even though we all hope that that day will come, even the most optimistic among us must, I think, accept that it is reasonable to expect that there will be plenty of time for at least one more Broadcasting Bill before that day actually dawns. The alternative would be to take very wide-ranging delegated powers now to deal with an event which is certainly some, and probably many, years in the future. It is much better, in our view, to focus on today's requirements and not seek to overcomplicate matters by trying to anticipate all the implications of analogue switch off.
242
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord as regards the first part of his concerns. In the circumstances, I hope that he will feel that I have given him a sufficient explanation of the longer term view.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I must say that I am not reassured by that response. However, the Minister has been very frank with us and I appreciate that fact. I propose to reflect on what he said. Obviously I would prefer to have a bird in hand, but I shall take instructions and possibly return to the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I thank the Minister for his frank information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 25, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) to adhere to a code of practice, drawn up by the Commission, to promote equality of opportunity in the employment of women, paying special attention to the participation of women in decision-making and editorial processes, to make arrangements for promoting it, both with the licence holders and independent companies working with them,
( ) to set up clear monitoring procedures, to review progress and to publish statistics annually on progress within the agreed arrangements, and
( ) to ensure that in its membership, the Commission itself will reflect fairly the diversity of society, including women, different racial groups and the disabled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81. Both amendments deal with equal opportunities. The first relates to equal opportunities in television and Amendment No. 81 relates to the area of the Bill dealing with radio provision.
The amendments are not new. Indeed, we discussed them in Committee but, unfortunately, because of the time factor we grouped them with amendments covering the areas of racial discrimination and disability. We felt that we should bring them forward again and talk specifically to the area of equal opportunities relating to women in an industry which has substantial numbers of women employees.
If accepted, the effect of the amendments would be to change the emphasis from the multiplex or digital licence, including conditions requiring the licence holder to make arrangements for promoting equal opportunity, to one of adhering to a code of practice drawn up by the ITC and then promoting that code. So it would be very much a proactive role for the ITC rather than a reactive one.
A further amendment to the Bill would require the licence holders to set up monitoring procedures which would track the progress, or otherwise, of the equal opportunities policy in their companies. It is not a new or unique proposal; in fact, this happens in a number of the very broadcasting companies which will be covered by the Bill. The BBC is just one of them. As I said, it is not unusual and we do not believe that it would prove to be too much of a burden on companies.
The last subsection in both amendments seeks to ensure that the Commission itself which will be monitoring and drawing up the code reflects "diversity" in society. Again, that is not a unique development; it is happening continually now in representative bodies. In Committee, the Minister referred to the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. He said that they were there to take care of the problems in equal opportunity provision in companies and that, therefore, those Acts would cover the clauses in the Bill which deal with equal opportunities.
The words in Clause 29 as it stands at present were in fact in the Broadcasting Act 1990. I should like us to consider what has happened from the time that the 1990 legislation was enacted. Quite frankly, its provisions have proved to be totally insufficient in achieving their worthwhile aims; namely, equal opportunity within the industry. It may be helpful to the House if I were to quote some statistics. I am told that women make up less than 35 per cent. of the employees in ITV companies. Let us remember that we are dealing with broadcasting which is received in all our homes and which is supposed to reflect society and the diversity within it.
Women constitute less then 10 per cent. of the membership of the boards of ITV companies. All prime time commissioning editors of the BBC and of the ITV Network Centre are men. Moreover, women appear in front of camera less often than men and, when they do, they get paid less. We are talking about an Act of Parliament which is now nearly six years old and which has not moved this ground on very far.
Even television companies themselves recognise that there is a problem, though their policies are not in any significant way changing the situation. In May of last year a Charter for Equal Opportunities for Women in Broadcasting was endorsed at a conference which took place at the BBC. The charter was endorsed by 49 European broadcasting organisations and 14 British broadcasting organisations. The BBC, ITN, Channel 4, Carlton and Granada were among them. It is no good signing charters or saying how good we are, let us look behind the words at what is happening in this industry.
The Bill requires a commitment to equal opportunities, as did—as I have said—the 1990 Broadcasting Act. However, the requirements for implementing that commitment are vague. The ITC has a mandatory responsibility to review each company's performance annually against its franchise contracts. The 1993 review made it clear that the monitoring procedure on equal opportunities needed to be more rigorous. Why not treat failure to meet equal opportunity requirements—which are provided in this Bill, and in the 1990 Act as a real requirement on companies—as seriously as non-compliance in other areas?
The Bill calls for the equal opportunity arrangements to be reviewed from time to time. What does that mean? Does it mean at the end of the licence period, or when someone feels moved to do it? The expression "from time to time" can mean that nothing is done at all. I think, quite frankly, that is what may be happening in some cases. I agree with the phrase in relation to good
244
business that if one cannot measure it, one cannot manage it. That is a clear, factual statement. If one cannot measure the equal opportunity improvements that this Bill is intended to implement—the 1990 Act sought to implement those improvements, but has failed abysmally—one cannot monitor them. Monitoring should take place annually. The position should not be reviewed from time to time; it should be reviewed annually. I suggest that the results of that monitoring should be published in a company's report. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, naturally I would not he against anything that favoured women, but I do support the original text in this case because if we try to introduce quotas of any kind, it would invariably be unsatisfactory. We have seen the same problem in the past with the Télévision sans frontiérs report to the European Parliament when the French tried to introduce Euro quotas barring American and Australian programmes. That was a disaster. It does not work and I urge your Lordships to support the original text.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as a signatory to the amendment, I should tell the noble Baroness that the amendment does not mention quotas. My noble friend simply talked of the commission adhering to a code of practice on equality of opportunity rather than promoting any concept of numbers of women. As she said in her concluding remarks, she seeks to introduce the clear monitoring procedures which are necessary to measure the appropriate employment of women as part of that process. Certainly the word "quotas" and reference to the numbers of women to be employed are not mentioned in this amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, would it not be possible in the circumstances to meet the principle of this amendment in terms of putting some sort of obligation on the companies which recommends them to follow the leadership 2000 programme whereby companies are committed, on a year-by-year basis, to increase the proportion of women in senior positions? That is not a matter of quotas but of making a public commitment through annual reports that they will try to help younger women to achieve promotion and acquire senior management positions in the longer term. I make that suggestion because most large, respectable companies in the private sector are doing just that.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I inevitably open my remarks by saying that I feel a trifle diffident as the only man to participate in this debate. I am answerable to a lady Secretary of State, so I am pinned in on every side. I understand the wish of the noble Baronesses to see a higher representation of women in broadcasting. Of course the Government agree with that, but we do not believe that it is necessary to introduce a code of practice of the kind suggested, as the ITC and the Radio Authority licence holders are already bound by the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and by the United Kingdom's implementation of a succession of EC directives in the equal opportunities field.

245
In addition, the Bill as drafted already requires television and national radio multiplex and programme service licence holders to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by "him"—which presumably includes "her"—equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups, and to review those arrangements from time to time. Therefore, I do not believe there is any need for further provisions above and beyond this. The suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain seems to be a possible way forward in this area. I also believe that it would be quite improper to expect regulators to interfere in the internal affairs of independent companies working for broadcasters. The Equal Opportunities Commission already has a code of practice on sexual discrimination in employment which would apply to independent companies.
In respect of the third subsection of both amendments, the Government do not believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be directed in the manner specified when making appointments to the ITC and the Radio Authority. As a matter of course, the Secretary of State already ensures that the best possible appointments are made from the pool of talent available at any one time. She has asked particularly that candidates should reflect the diversity of the viewing and listening population and would like to achieve across all broadcasting appointments at least 35 per cent. women, and representatives from different ethic and disabled groups.
We also hold firm to the principle that only the best candidates should be appointed. I understand that that may not go as far as the noble Baroness would like. However, having heard what I have said, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make a correction. I referred to Leadership 2000. I meant Opportunity 2000. I apologise.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have joined in the debate. I assure the Minister that he should not feel too lonely when he is the only one of his sex who has spoken. It happens to women all the time.
In responding, I declare that I am a member of the target team of Opportunity 2000 and have been since it was formed. The BBC is a member of Opportunity 2000 and has been since it was formed.
I do not believe in quotas; I never have. I think that they turn people off. They do not encourage people to make equal opportunities happen. Quotas were the subject of one of Opportunity 2000's earlier debates. Targets are better. It is far better to have targets set individually within the company. The Bill does not provide for targets. It is woolly and vague, as is the 1990 Act.
246
Opportunity 2000 also requires that companies who are members monitor their progress annually, publish their progress in their annual report and have internal reviews and discussions on it. That is what a code of practice would do. However, the Bill and the 1990 Act do not provide for that.
As regards the code referred to in the amendment, I would expect the ITC to consult industry on that code. It would not simply draw up the code and impose it on industry.
The Minister believed that it was wrong for a regulatory body to interfere in the internal management of companies. What then does the clause in the Bill require, if that is the view of Government? I am strengthening a clause already in the Bill which requires the licence holder to make arrangements for promoting.
I am not sure whether the Minister was given briefing on this issue, but the ITC already publishes figures with regard to women in this industry. It must obtain them from individual companies. So we do not seek to impose more on companies but to attain a better structure and ensure that progress is monitored year on year against a code issued by the ITC and measured within the industry.
The Minister hoped that I would withdraw the amendment. I seek to be realistic. Looking around the Chamber, perhaps we might have eight members voting against my amendment with six for it, unless the Government blow the whistle and draw Members in on the Government Benches. It is regrettable that I have to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but that is the leave that I seek.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO VARY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend any of the provisions specified in subsection (2) by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) areߞ

section 11(5)(a);

section 17(2)(a);

section 21(2)(a); and

section 25(2)(a).

(3) An order under subsection (1) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Radio multiplex services]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 27, line 40, leave out ("provided for any area of") and insert ("provided without any restriction by virtue of this Act to a particular area or locality in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment but one which we believe makes fully watertight our definition of national radio multiplex.

247
The amendment provides that a national radio multiplex is by definition any multiplex which is not by virtue of this Bill a local multiplex. This will avoid any problems of definition which might otherwise occur. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [National radio multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 34, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4)(f) "acquisition" includes acquisition on hire or loan.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Award of national radio multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57:
Page 35, line 3, leave out from ("regard") to end of line 4 and insert ("to the extent to which, taking into account the matters specified in subsection (2) and any representations received by them in pursuance of section 40(7)(6) with respect to those matters, the award of the licence to each applicant would be calculated to promote the development of digital sound broadcasting in the United Kingdom otherwise than by satellite.").
Page 35, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (2)(e) "acquisition" includes acquisition on hire or loan.").
Page 35, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Duty of Authority to reserve digital capacity for certain purposes of BBC]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 36, line 33, after ("BBC") insert (", and to all independent local radio services in operation at the relevant date, except where the number of existing analogue licences exceeds the number of available channels on the multiplex,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58 and speak to Amendment No. 59. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the subject has not come up during the passage of the Bill so far and is appropriate to the Report stage.
Many people will be pleased that independent national radio is to be guaranteed right of access to the national multiplex and that the Secretary of State has promised that national stations will be able to renew their national analogue licences for a further eight years if they take up their guaranteed digital radio places. I understand that similar renewal of analogue licences will be offered to local commercial stations that elect to take out DAB licences. That might encourage commercial radio participation in DAB and is a good thing. However, it is less easy to understand why current local commercial radio services are not afforded the same courtesy as that granted to local BBC services. That is, guaranteed places on the local multiplexes.
Commercial radio might be said to be treated as a second-class citizen in the Bill, despite enjoying a greater share of listening than the BBC. Each national commercial radio station must be in separate ownership and so will not be allowed the same DAB advantages
248
as those available to the BBC which will own its own national multiplex and may own and operate all the services on it. In addition to giving the BBC that important national monopoly advantage, the Government wish local commercial broadcasters to compete for multiplex places while BBC local services are guaranteed a presence on all local multiplexes, irrespective of either the popularity or merit of the BBC services concerned or the business interests of the commercial broadcasters involved.
Perhaps the Minister is unable to treat local commercial radio with the same care as he has shown to BBC local radio because it is not possible to get all the current London independent stations on the available local DAB space currently set aside. Please do not allow this local London difficulty to affect the rest of the country. There is no need for it to do so, as the words of the amendment make clear. It seeks automatic access only where that is possible. I urge the Minister to reflect on the need for DAB to be strongly supported by all radio broadcasters as soon as possible. The BBC wishes commercial broadcasters to participate fully, swiftly and loudly so that the fruits of the corporation's enormous investment in DAB come through swiftly. The gesture I seek will improve the prospects for that to occur.
If either the amendment I have proposed or the principle behind it is accepted, no doubt subsequent related clauses will also need to be changed. I hope that my noble friend and his department will be able to help in that way. I commend the amendment to the House and take the opportunity to raise briefly a related issue which I hope the Minister will take into account as the Bill proceeds. I have already mentioned the Government's announcement at the time of the Bill's publication which proposed to offer extensions of analogue licence to those who take up digital opportunities. This was encouraging.
However, I understand that some parts of the United Kingdom (mainly along the south coast and in East Anglia) are unlikely to have DAB frequencies made available until around 2005. If and where that is the case, I hope those stations that wish to participate in DAB once it is licensable will be able to declare their interest and claim an extension to their analogue licence, even if they have to wait considerably longer than those more fortunately placed. I am sure that the Minister will share my concern at the possibility of DAB creating a two-tier independent local radio system. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn explained, the amendments seek to require the Radio Authority to reserve digital capacity for independent local radio services as well as for the BBC's local services.
Independent local radio companies have petitioned for some time to be given a guaranteed place on a digital multiplex, arguing that this would give them parity both with BBC local services and the national independent radio services. However, there are important differences which lead us to believe that the case for guaranteeing capacity for independent local radio cannot be sustained.

249
Let us first consider the position of the BBC. The BBC has been assigned a full multiplex for its UK-wide services, and indeed began broadcasting those services in digital form last September. However, at the local level the BBC's local radio stations must be broadcast on frequencies allocated to the Radio Authority for independent local radio. It is therefore necessary, on the face of the Bill, to provide for the BBC's local services in that context.
Under our proposals, the BBC will negotiate capacity for its local services with the authority. This does not amount to a guarantee that every BBC local and regional service available in an area will automatically gain a place on a digital multiplex. Rather, it allows the authority to look at the coverage of each digital multiplex and agree with the BBC a suitable allocation. If the BBC and the Radio Authority cannot agree, the Bill provides for referral to the Secretary of State for her to determine the matter.
This arrangement is quite proper, given that the BBC has certain duties and obligations placed upon it to ensure that if fulfils its public service broadcasting remit—something which is not the case for local independent radio.
Independent national radio has also been allocated guaranteed slots on a multiplex; but here again there are important differences with the situation for local radio. Independent national radio is subject to a different licensing regime, and competitive tender against formats determined by Parliament. That is not the case for local radio. At the national level, there are important spectrum gains to be made—guaranteeing INR capacity on digital opens up the possibility of eventually reclaiming their analogue frequencies. At the local level, we envisage that digital and analogue services will continue to be broadcast alongside each other for the foreseeable future. On the national multiplex, the guaranteed slots will occupy just half of the capacity available. Guaranteeing local radio services capacity might, in some areas, completely fill a multiplex and prevent new entrants to the market. In many areas, however, where there are only two or three local services, they will probably find little problem in going digital if that is what they want to do.
Local multiplexes do not have to put forward proposals for promoting or assisting the acquisition of receivers, nor will they be required, at any stage, to pay a percentage of multiplex revenue. I also remind noble Lords that we intend to provide greater security for independent local radio licence holders going digital by allowing them to renew for a further eight-year term, their analogue licences.
Extension to analogue licences, as I explained, linked taking up the digital audio broadcasting place. We shall consider the point that my noble friend raised, although we can see difficulties in giving open-ended guarantees of the kind that he asked for.
I believe that the regime we propose recognises both the needs of the BBC and the differences between national and local independent radio. It provides ILR licence holders with the incentive to invest in DAB and
250
the security to ensure that they can benefit from that investment. For these reasons, and in the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that long and complex answer, and I think a hint of encouragement.
BBC local radio is very well cushioned. It does not have to bid for its licence or pay part of its revenue. However, I feel that it should perhaps have a guaranteed place on the multiplex. If there is not enough space, then perhaps places should definitely be made available to existing broadcasters. However, I have listened, and I look forward to reading my noble friend's remarks. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("national").
Page 40, line 34, leave out from ("period") to (""the") in line 35 and insert—

("(a) in the case of a local radio multiplex licence, a financial penalty of £50,000, or

(b) in the case of a national radio multiplex licence, a financial penalty of whichever is the greater of—

(i) £50,000, or

(ii) the prescribed amount.

(6) In subsection (5)(b)(ii)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 60 to 80 with Amendments Nos. 22, 24, 27 and 35. In those circumstances, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Conditions attached to national or local radio multiplex licence]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 41, line 47, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) No order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Attribution of multiplex revenue to licence holder and others]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 45, line 35, leave out (" 53(2)") and insert (" 53(2A)").
Page 46, line 1, leave out (" 56(2) or section 60(2)") and insert (" 56(2A) or section 60(2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duration and renewal of national or local radio multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 68:
Page 46, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) At any time before determining the application, the Authority may—

(a) require the applicant to furnish—

251

(i) a technical plan which supplements that submitted by the licence holder under section 40(4)(b) or 44(4)(b), and

(ii) in the case of a national radio multiplex licence, proposals which supplement that submitted by the licence holder under section 40(4)(f), and

(b) notify the applicant of requirements which must be met by that supplementary technical plan or those supplementary proposals and relate to the matters referred to in section 40(4)(b)(i) and (ii) or 44(4)(b)(i) and (ii).

(4A) The consent of the Secretary of State shall be required for any exercise by the Authority of their powers under subsection (4) and for any decision by the Authority not to exercise those powers.").
Page 47, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 8 and insert—
("(b) any supplementary technical plan or supplementary proposals submitted under subsection (4)(a) fail to meet requirements notified to the applicant under subsection (4)(b),").
Page 47, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
("(7) Subject to subsection (7A), on the grant of any such application the Authority may with the consent of the Secretary of State, and shall if so required by him—").
Page 47, line 23, at end insert—
("(7A) Where an order under section 49(2) is in force on the relevant date, no percentage of multiplex revenue shall be payable as mentioned in subsection (7)(a) during the period for which the licence is to be renewed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Enforcement of national or local radio multiplex licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 71:
Page 48, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 11 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, or

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the radio multiplex licence during any period for which his licence has been in force ("the relevant period"),").
Page 48, line 14, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 48, line 16, at end insert—
("and in relation to a person whose first complete accounting period falling within the relevant period has not yet ended, paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be construed as referring to 3, or (as the case may be) 5, per cent. of the amount which the Authority estimate to be the share of multiplex revenue attributable to him for that accounting period (as so determined).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 56 [Enforcement of digital sound programme licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 76:
Page 51, line 2, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
Page 51, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 11 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, and

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
252
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the digital sound programme licence during any period for which his licence has been in force,").
Page 51, line 15, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 51, line 17, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
Page 51, line 32, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Enforcement of digital additional services licences]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 80:
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
Page 53, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("3") in line 34 and insert ("shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, and

(b) the amount determined under subsection (2A).

(2A) The amount referred to in subsection (2)(b) is—
(a) in a case where a penalty under this section has not previously been imposed on the holder of the digital additional services licence during any period for which his licence has been in force,").
Page 53, line 38, leave out ("shall, in any other case, not exceed") and insert ("in any other case").
Page 53, line 44, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO VARY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend any of the provisions specified in subsection (2) by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are—

section 47(5)(a) and (b)(i);

section 53(2)(a);

section 56(2)(a) and (4); and

section 60(2)(a) and (3).

(3) An order under subsection (1) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thompson of Monifieth Lord Thompson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 83:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
(".—(1) Section 20 of the 1990 Act (Duration and renewal of Channel 3 licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for "four" there is substituted "five".
(3) Subsection (3) is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same amendment that was tabled at Committee stage, unlike the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, whom I congratulate on having introduced new material into our proceedings. I should not have brought

253
forward the amendment again in the same terms if I had not been encouraged by the tone of your Lordships' Chamber when this matter was discussed at an earlier stage and by the not unsympathetic response of the Minister at the end of that discussion.
I do not wish to take up much time at this stage but this is a very important amendment in terms of the Bill's consequences for the overall financial relationships within independent television. We shall certainly want to try to come to a conclusion on this matter before our proceedings ultimately end.
It is sufficient to say that the amendment reflects the fact that one of the many anomalies of the 1990 Broadcasting Act was to lay down a different timetable for the financial arrangements in relation to Channel 4 from the financial arrangements in relation to the bids that the ITV companies had made for their contracts. I am very happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in his place. I know that he feels strongly about this matter. He has some direct personal knowledge of the problems created by it.
Before we leave the subject this evening, I remind the Minister that this Bill gives a very important opportunity to the Government to put British broadcasting generally on a more sensible and even base for the challenges of digital technology that lie ahead and to correct some of the major unfortunate consequences of the 1990 Act. Two things went wrong. One was that the bidding system produced results which, even by the standard of Treasury hopes at the time, must have seemed totally grotesque. In the Yorkshire area, which is a prosperous region of the country, there was a bid around the £30 million plus mark; in the neighbouring central region around Birmingham there was a bid of £2,000; and there was a bid in Scotland for £2,000. The most grotesque anomalies arose.
The second major mistake in the 1990 Act occurred with the Channel 4 formula, which was well intentioned and meant to sustain Channel 4 on an independent basis of selling its own advertising with a possibility of a subsidy if it became necessary to enable it to fulfil its remit. In our Alice in Wonderland world that formula has been stood on its head. Channel 4 has been heavily subsidising ITV companies, including some very prosperous and profitable ones.
The general point that I wish to make to the Minister is that there is an opportunity in this Bill to deal with those anomalies and try to obtain a timetable for a change in the Channel 4 arrangements which coincides with a timetable for a change in the ITV arrangements. It is a nonsense that they should be on different timetables. If the Channel 4 formula is altered in a way that reduces the payments from Channel 4 to ITV, there should be a year's gap so that the ITV companies have the possibility of seeking in some cases to renegotiate their arrangements.
The Minister has been understanding and sympathetic about this matter. I have no complaint about that. I recognise the difficulties. But those grotesque mistakes—that is the proper description of them—have produced a certain financial result which affects the
254
Treasury. Trying to put right those mistakes may very well reduce, if only marginally—I do not know the figures—the return to the Treasury. I know very well from my own experience long in the past that anything which affects the return to the Treasury produces the deepest resistance for all Ministers, however understanding they are of the sense and basis of principle of a proposed change.
I do not ask tonight for a response from the Minister of the kind that I hoped for when I tabled the amendment. I know the difficulties. I know that he recognises the strength of the case and indeed the strong views on all sides of the House. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, spoke of this in Committee.
We will need to come back to the issue; but I beg the Minister, in whatever he feels able to say to me tonight, not to close the door on the matter. I say that not merely because of this amendment, but also because it is in the interests of the Government, if they wish to produce a Broadcasting Act 1996 that will correct the great mistakes of the Broadcasting Act 1990, to leave the door open to bring about the necessary changes. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I speak in very much the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Again, I declare an interest as a director of HTV.
As I shall indicate, Amendment No. 83 has considerable significance for HTV and for other Channel 3 companies. There are not many who now defend the Broadcasting Act 1990 as being fault-free legislation. But whatever its shortcomings, it was the foundation on which business plans and bids were based by those who won and those who lost in the somewhat bizarre bid process. My company had to make a relatively high bid to retain the franchise, though not as high as some others. We pitched it about right. If it had been much lower we would have been beaten and, after a difficult period in which we had to fight literally for survival, by improving efficiency and widening the market for our products we have been able to announce a good result for our shareholders while maintaining the outstanding regional programmes which are both a licence obligation and a subject of which we are justifiably proud.
In putting together those bids, companies looked at the prospectus as a whole—pluses and minuses; obligations and opportunities. Those pluses and minuses included the Channel 4 funding formula and the possibility of—in the event the actual—loss of net advertising revenue (NAR) to the new channel.
Channel 4 complained loudly and with great effect about the consequences of the funding formula. Practically every day I drive past its splendid new palace and see its great advertising hoarding proclaiming the iniquities of the system. Among other things, Channel 4 argued that the sums it pays deprive it of money that would otherwise be spent on UK productions. One can argue about the extent to which money would be spent in that way; no doubt the amounts would be quite large. However, much of the same money is at present being

255
spent by Channel 3 companies on their existing production in the UK and specifically on regional programme making.
It was suggested by some at Committee stage that the sums were pretty marginal for Channel 3 companies. They are certainly not marginal for Yorkshire Tyne-Tees and HTV, to take just two companies. If the Channel 4 rebate were to end in 1998 without other adjustments, I would guess that my company would either see about 40 per cent. off the bottom line or, because there would have to be a combination of effects, less would be spent on regional programme making and UK programme making, which would have to be squeezed to offset the consequences. As any change in the funding formula has a variety of consequences, and not just for one channel—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to the Treasury as well—I am certain that the Government are right to think that it should not be written into the Bill now but should be the subject of detailed review and analysis in 1997 before final conclusions are reached. However, I think it not unlikely that the result of that review will be either the ending of the formula or a substantial dilution of it. If that is so, there must be a parallel examination of the consequences for Channel 3, which will be very great, and for the Treasury, and of any other impacts there will be.
The trouble with the 1990 Act is that it does not make that parallel consideration possible. Under the existing rules, the Channel 3 companies cannot go to the ITC until a year later to ask for their bids and their licences to be reviewed. That is an absurd anomaly which must be corrected. Furthermore, if they ask for their licences to be reviewed there is no obligation on the ITC to carry out that review immediately or indeed at any time until the end of the licence period. It is those faults that the amendment seeks to correct. The case is overwhelming. The amendment does not seek to impose a solution on the ITC or on the Government. It seeks to bring into line the two reviews that ought to take place at the same time and to allow for the possibility that the potentially very severe consequences for Channel 3 companies should be adequately considered.
On Thursday, when regrettably I shall not be able to he in the House—I have to chair the final board meeting of the National Rivers Authority on that day and I decided that it had a prior claim on my time—another series of amendments will be considered about regional programming. We have been delighted to hear the commitment made by noble friend the Minister to strengthening the clauses already written into the Bill to protect regional programming. That is an indication of the importance the Government attach to regional programming. In a debate on an earlier amendment we considered Welsh language broadcasting and the impact of changes to digital. I have to say that the abolition of the present funding arrangements for Channel 4, without any parallel changes in the arrangements for the Channel 3 companies, will have adverse consequences—more severe consequences—for a far larger number of people in Wales than the consequences debated a few minutes ago of digital on Welsh language broadcasting.
256
This is a very important matter. It affects a crucial aspect of broadcasting. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I do not expect to get a definitive answer from my noble friend tonight. I know that he has to argue a case elsewhere with the Treasury and I know that he is giving most careful and sympathetic consideration to the case. But I do not want to leave him in any doubt of the importance which I, too, attach to this matter and of my determination, along with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to return to the matter later in order to find a satisfactory way forward.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said and in general give my support to the amendment on the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. However, as he said, his amendment is not without problems. We have to remember that we cannot deal with this issue without looking at the Channel 4 funding situation. Noble Lords should remember the concession that my noble friend the Minister gave Channel 4 at an earlier stage, which will be worth £30 million to it. It is achieved by releasing money from the reserve.
The effect of this amendment, if the two dates are brought together, will be that those who make low bids will not want to negotiate and they will hang out for as long as possible. Those who make high bids will want to negotiate as early as possible. As my noble friend said, the problem is that that will fall foul of the Treasury, and it will mean less revenue.
How will the Treasury make it up? Will it take some of the money that Channel 4 is currently paying to the ITV companies? The Treasury will be getting an extra £22 million from the licence fee of Channel 5, which is going to be a new sum of money coming in. Will the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, on domestic satellites make them fall into the net so that they can charge? It is a very difficult issue.
The point I make is that when we come to look at the matter we should not be in a position where the companies who got their bids right end up subsidising the companies whose bids were too high. That seems iniquitous and unfair. As my noble friend said, the bids were put forward on a commercial basis. We must be careful when we come to look at this matter. I very much support the general principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said. I am sure that the Government will have to look at the whole issue with great care. I emphasise again that it is a crucial issue for the future of terrestrial broadcasting.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Thomson said, so I am not going to add anything to this debate other than to say that I believe we should negotiate the Channel 4 funding at the same time as we deal with the Treasury and the Channel 3 licence fee payers. It seems very unfair to take one out of context with the other. They should be dealt with at the same time. I support the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I completely support my noble friend Lord Thomson. This amendment seeks

257
to simplify and rationalise the ill consequences and irrationalities of the 1990 Act. We appreciate that there are problems within it. I agree with everything that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said.
We know the problems of dealing with the Treasury. If the Minister can come up with any kind of package solution that silences the Great George Street gang, but produces a simpler and more rational situation, I am sure that we will look at that very constructively.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, most helpfully and candidly explained the purpose of his amendment. He very clearly set out the implications of the issue we are discussing. I am very grateful to him for that and also to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for talking about this issue from his perspective. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I have listened very carefully to what has been said and I shall note it with very considerable care.
This amendment is predicated on assumptions about the timing of changes to the Channel 4 funding formula and about the level of Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 companies in future. We shall return to this subject in discussing Amendment No. 162 of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as regards Clause 69, but not, I trust, this evening. For the time being I say only that a range of possibilities exist for changes to the Channel 4 funding formula and that these issues are not cut and dried.
Leaving aside that underlying issue, the Government see objections in principle to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has proposed in his amendment. The Broadcasting Act 1990 was clear as to the duration of the Channel 3 licences. They indicated that they should continue in force for 10 years with applications for renewal no earlier than four years before the date of expiry. That was the basis on which the Channel 3 companies bid for their licences. Nothing has changed the underlying legislative framework since that time and as a matter of principle the Government are not persuaded that a change in the statutory ground rules is appropriate at this stage.
The noble Lord indicated that the purpose of his amendment is to enable Channel 3 companies to seek an early renegotiation of their licence conditions in order to compensate them for the projected loss of income from Channel 4. In effect, the proposition is that there should be an early reduction in Channel 3 companies' payments to the Exchequer. The Government do not accept that taxpayers should be asked to accept an uncovenanted loss in order to offset a reduction of Channel 3 companies' income in that way.
As I have said, we shall return to the noble Lord's amendment on the Channel 4 funding formula at a later stage, but, for the reasons I have given, the Government do not support the noble Lord's amendment on the duration and renewal of Channel 3 licences. As I said at
258
the beginning of my remarks, we shall take careful note of all that has been said this evening. I am absolutely sure that we shall be debating the matter further.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am not surprised, and in that sense I am not disappointed, by what the Minister said but I ask him to take back to his Secretary of State and ask her to take to the Cabinet more generally the unanimous view that has been expressed even in this modest House. All sides of the House have been represented and have tended to express the same view.
It is a question of trying to deal with the problems that have arisen from the 1990 Act and achieving a more sensible outcome from this Bill. In view of the feelings on all sides of the House I hope that the Minister will return to the matter in a more positive manner than he has shown in simply reciting his Committee brief. He has not moved any further forward. However, I know that he recognises the feelings of the House and that the proposal has some merit. I am content to rest with that tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF THE BROADCASTING (RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES) ORDER 1991
(".—(1) The Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991 is amended as follows—
(2) In article 12(3) for "two" there is substituted "three".
(3) In article 13(1)—

(a) for "hold a licence" there is substituted" hold more than one other licence"; and

(b) for "holder of a licence" there is substituted "holder of more than one other licence".

(4) In article 13(2)(a) for "for which the service" there is substituted "for which a service".
(5) In article 13(2)(b) there is inserted "and
(c) provided as a local radio service falling into category A or B".
(6) After article 13 there is inserted—
"Radio service licences
13A—(1) Subject to paragraph (5), a person who holds a licence to provide a local radio service shall not at any time hold a licence to provide a local radio service to which this article applies; and, subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), such a person shall not be a participant with more than 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a local radio service to which this article applies.
(2) This article applies to a local radio service which is—

(a) provided for an area which is substantially the same as that for which the service provided by the person mentioned in paragraph (1) is provided; and

(b) provided on the same frequency band as that service; and

(c) provided as a local radio service falling into category C or D.

(3) A person who holds a licence to provide a local radio service may be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide such a local radio service as is described in paragraph (2) if the number of persons over the age of 15 resident in the smaller area does not exceed 10 per cent. of the number of such persons resident in the larger area.

259
(4) Where such a person as is described in paragraph (3) is a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide such a local radio service as is described in that paragraph he may not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in any other such body corporate.
(5) Nothing in this article shall prevent a person from holding licences to provide local radio services if—

(a) that person was, immediately before the grant of the licences, a local radio contractor for an area which was substantially the same as the area in respect of which those licensed services are provided: and

(b) he provided two or more different programme services on different frequencies pursuant to his contract.

(6) For the purposes of this article two areas are to be regarded as substantially the same if at least 50 per cent. of the persons over the age of 15 resident in the smaller area are also resident in the larger area.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns us to the more intimate field of independent local radio. It has been tabled to bring a limited relaxation of the regulation which at present controls that sector by permitting an independent local radio station to control two FM channels in particular circumstances. It is not my purpose tonight to go over the ground which I advanced at Second Reading and which was developed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others. However, the amendment has been amended in the light of our Committee debates.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is not in his place because his concern in Committee related to the possibility of local monopoly. I spoke to him earlier today. He had received a copy of the revised amendment which puts in place both limitations on the possibility of holding two FM channels in terms of population size—it can happen only in communities of more than 1 million people—and an arithmetical formula which would limit the power of monopoly. The noble Lord was kind enough to inform me that we had answered the vast bulk of his concerns about the original amendment.
I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House. The case is a strong one and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench may find it possible, in the light of this revised amendment, to agree that such provisions should go forward. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, since our debate in Committee, developments have reinforced my view about the risks of excessive monopoly arising out of the proposals in the amendment. I am not sure that I fully understand all the complexities of the amendment. If there is room for manoeuvre in less populous areas of the country in the direction proposed, I am ready to look at it. In terms of the great centres of population, I must say—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment as now drafted is to ensure that the less populous areas of the country would not be areas where it would be possible for a local station to have two FM channels.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am ready to look at that before coming to a conclusion. I note from the media press since we last discussed this matter that, for example, the degree of sales monopoly that is
260
developing in independent commercial radio is very worrying indeed. There is now a sales group in independent local radio that, together, controls almost 90 per cent. of total advertising sales. The advertising industry has a legitimate point of view in this matter which has not been much heard in the debate. If the great stations—I welcome their success—were to be allowed to expand further, the reality is that there are no frequencies for them and they would expand by further mergers and takeovers. One would have a greater degree of concentration and of monopoly. I am reluctant to see that happen.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when a similar amendment was discussed in Committee my noble friend the Minister raised some interesting points that I should like to address in an attempt to allay the Government's fears relating to diversity of output and market domination in any particular area.
The principle of market forces undermines any rationale for a company that owns more than one station on a similar waveband to replicate its broadcasting output. No company would establish a direct rival with itself. My noble friend the Minister appeared especially worried about the convergence of news output. I understand from a leading independent radio operator who owns 28 licences that it has always produced different news items on its AM and FM channels. For example, on its AM channel it might deal with the Budget, whereas on its FM channel, which is mainly music, it might deal with the latest developments in the life of Michael Jackson.
That common practice would extend to companies owning more than one licence on the same waveband. My noble friend the Minister was also worried that in a certain area there was not enough existing competition to allow one company to own more than one station. However, we should consider the listener and the diversity of output. Without the shared resources that would enable one company to offer two stations, a second service might not be economically viable. Therefore, the local listening population may not have the opportunity of diversity to benefit from a second service.
There are two key issues on market domination. The first is that the BBC already dominates the FM market in any area with Radio 1, Radio 2 and the local radio network. All three stations broadcast on the better frequency; that is, the one which has fewer reception problems. Some may say that the independent sector, however, has domination in some localities by way of population reached. We cannot legislate against those organisations that use the same resource more successfully than another. That happens to be business.
Secondly, the Bill provides the Radio Authority with increased powers to scrutinise changes of shareholding and corporate structure. In addition, the Bill allows for the Radio Authority to impose conditions as a result of those changes. The interpretation of such powers can be far-reaching, and would ensure that diversity and listener choice are preserved through revising the promise of performance or other licence requirements.

261
To conclude, the key reason for my support of the amendment is that I believe we have a strong Radio Authority that, with its additional powers as proposed in the Bill, will regulate the industry effectively to preserve diversity and equity.
We honestly do not need to make decisions on behalf of the Radio Authority imposing prescription legislation on an industry which is developing very fast. I am sure that we all agree that legislating for broadcasting is extremely difficult. That has been proved during today's debate. Simple solutions do not reflect the diverse nature of the industry across the country. The Radio Authority is strong and active. Let it have the freedom to examine each case on its merits, as it has done so effectively since the introduction of the 1990 Act. We must allow for flexibility. I am sure that this Bill is the Bill for the future.
10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too support the amendment. In Committee I spoke in favour of allowing a station to run two different services on the same waveband in a single area. Nothing I heard the Minister say then persuaded me to change my mind, but I hope that he will be able to offer some encouragement tonight.
It seems to me that we may be in danger of trying to do the Radio Authority's job for it. We cannot know in advance what circumstances will prevail in, for example, Liverpool, Newcastle or Worcester. It may well be that a minority service of great value is proposed which can be best supported from within a company already broadcasting in the area whose credentials and ability to serve the community concerned have been well established. Let the authority make up its mind in the circumstances that prevail at the time rather than those that prevail at present. Let us free our regulators to regulate in a way that can reflect future circumstances rather than shield them behind legislation based on yesterday's experiences. I support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have once again had an interesting debate on this question. It is an important one for local radio. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has done me the kindness and courtesy of seeking in his amendment to address some of the points that I made in debating the similar amendment put down in Committee. So I hope the House will forgive me if I seek in responding now to set out the Government's position in a little detail. However, I wish to avoid going over the ground already covered at some length on the previous occasion.
As my noble friend made clear, his amendment is designed to respond to the reservations about plurality which I expressed in responding to earlier suggestions that the current limit should be generally removed. Let us examine a little further, however, exactly what benefit would accrue from accepting the amendment before us. There is not really appreciable potential gain in terms of the diversity of services offered to the listener. That is separately guaranteed by the Radio Authority, which has a duty to develop it and seeks to
262
secure it by licensing new services, both on AM and FM, which are commercially sustainable and extend choice. Diversity, then, is not primarily in the hands of the programme service provider or at the mercy of that provider's choice. Of course greater diversity might well indeed be promoted were existing licence holders in an area free to take up new FM licences awarded by the authority; that is, licences to which they could bring existing local expertise and a ready-made incentive to cultivate a different audience. But frequency scarcity dictates that there are likely to be very few further FM licences awarded for category A or B areas. Once a further Greater London licence has been awarded—and that process is likely to begin as soon as next month—there are only three further category A or B licences for which frequencies are likely to be found. Ironically, the case for removing for the existing one FM licence limit to promote diversity is in fact strongest in category C and D licence areas, where the same frequency scarcity considerations do not apply, and allowing what is often the only existing operator to open a further station might be the only way of providing a further commercially viable choice. But, of course, this goes flatly against the purpose of promoting plurality.
Much the likeliest way, then, of companies actually using the freedom they would gain from the relaxation of the current limit in category A and B areas is in fact to take over other existing licence holders. This would facilitate greater consolidation within the radio sector, given that it is usually easier to expand from an existing base in a given area. It is indeed this facilitating of consolidation within radio that is the real benefit which might in practice obtain from relaxing the limit. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it when we debated these matters in Committee, the future will not be mainly to the cuddly local radio station, and arguably only the larger consolidated business emerging from expedited rationalisation will be able to launch the improved service for the listener which digital broadcasting offers.
I confess also to aspiring to a future where there is a place both for strong cross-country conglomerates and for smaller, genuinely local, radio stations. That is certainly what the Radio Authority is seeking to achieve. We should also bear in mind that, as I mentioned in Committee, the Bill removes any limit on the number of radio licences a company may control, subject only to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the total points in the radio system. That represents substantial room for growth, albeit across the country rather than in particular areas.
The Government therefore have various conflicting considerations to assess in deciding whether to amend the existing local radio licence limits. I hope that I have sufficiently indicated in the debates we have had that I have a reasonably open mind on the issue and am aware of the various cross-currents surrounding it. I propose to discuss this matter further with the Radio Authority to see whether the current arrangements can be improved. However, in doing that I hope that no Member of your Lordships' House will take that as being a commitment to do anything.

263
I assure the House that in their further considerations, the Government will have the overall interests of the viewer primarily in mind while recognising that the continued development of strong and successful players within the radio sector is by no means necessarily opposed to those interests. I hope that that explanation of the Government's position has been helpful to your Lordships, especially to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. In the light of that explanation, I hope that he will not seek to press the amendment this evening.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am reassured by the detailed reply given by my noble friend. While he avoids giving any commitment to do anything, I hope that he will forgive me if I continue to press him for a commitment to do something.
Perhaps I may answer to some degree the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, on the question of dominance in advertising. It must be said that the reason for that apparent dominance is the successful organisation of MSM by Capital Radio which handles a very great deal of advertising on behalf of other independent local radio stations. It happens to find that that is the best way to deal with its business.
In all the circumstances and in the light of the debate, I am happy to withdraw the amendment; but in doing so, I look forward to some action rather than no action by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
(" . At the end of section 45(2) of the 1990 Act there is inserted "and section 16(2)(g)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest but not unimportant amendment which, to judge from my mailbag, seems to have caused excessive alarm in some quarters.
The amendment is intended to ensure simply that non-domestic satellite services should be encouraged to do more original programming than they have so far been able to do. Non-domestic satellite services cover a wide variety of activities. Some of them are specialist services like 24-hour news services where there is no opportunity for original programming. But BSkyB, by its own enterprise, has been very successful and is now an extremely profitable business. It does some original programming but it should do a good deal more.
There have been fears that my amendment intends to impose some sort of quota. I should like to put on record that I am opposed to quota in that aspect of broadcasting policy and have been over many years. The wording of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which we seek to insert into this Act, is simply that non-domestic satellite services should ensure that a proper proportion of the matter included in their programmes is of European origin. "European origin" is a term of art for original programming in this country. It is in that spirit that the amendment is tabled. That is a perfectly legitimate demand to make, particularly on BSkyB. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my name is to the amendment and I support everything which my noble
264
friend Lord Thomson said. I have a further question for the Minister. As I understand it, under the European directive the Government—in this case, the Department of National Heritage—have the responsibility for monitoring the extent to which licensees meet the targets of the directive.
Can the Minister tell us what his reaction would be were we to suggest that those targets should be monitored by the ITC, which seems a much more appropriate body than a heavily overworked and deeply understaffed Whitehall department? In my view, it is not appropriate that those in the department should be wasting their time monitoring the matter in detail. In attempting to do so, it may be the case—as is so often suggested—that they are perhaps a little more accommodating and slack towards Sky's meeting of those targets. Does the Minister agree that it might be more appropriate if the ITC monitored the matter and reported it to the department? The department could in turn report to the Europeans on the extent to which those targets had been met.
There are two points for the Minister to consider. First, I support the noble Lord in all he said about European origin programmes. Secondly, there is the question of whether the department would actually be best employed in monitoring such matters.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Donoughue, have raised a number of important points. It may appear to be an apparently modest amendment, but it is one that would have significant implications. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I talk to the amendment at some length. I do so because, as I said, it is an important matter.
Noble Lords will be aware of the obligations laid on all European member states in the 1989 Broadcasting directive. That is the directive we spoke about in Committee under which,
"Member States shall ensure where practicable and by appropriate means that broadcasters reserve for European works, within the meaning of Article 6, a majority proportion of their transmission time, excluding the time appointed to news, sports events, games, advertising and teletext services. This proportion, having regard to the broadcaster's informational, educational, cultural and entertainment responsibilities to its viewing public, should be achieved progressively, on the basis of suitable criteria".
The UK has implemented the directive administratively and my department is in regular communication with individual non-domestic satellite broadcasters to discuss the degree of practicability and the targets and timescales for implementation of agreed percentages. We have deliberately not made an order under Section 188 of the 1990 Act directing the Independent Television Commission to act on our behalf.
The amendment, if your Lordships were to agree to it, would achieve the same result and oblige the ITC to make "a proper proportion" of European content a condition of a licence for non-domestic satellite broadcasters. So I ask your Lordships to consider most carefully what I say and the reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment which, on the

265
face of it, would merely transfer the existing government-broadcaster dialogue to one between the ITC and the broadcaster.
The provision in Section 16(2)(g) of the 1990 Act places a requirement on Channel 3 licence applicants to reflect "a proper proportion" of European works in their programming. Similar obligations are placed on Channel 4 and on Channel 5 applicants in Sections 25(2)(e) and 29(2)(b). They are terrestrial free to air channels with a guaranteed audience base of many millions. This particular public service obligation, as well as complying with the majority quota laid down in Article 4 of the directive, must also be seen in the wider public service context of Section 16(2) which requires such licence applicants to provide high quality and diversity in programme material. That must especially reflect adequate news and current affairs coverage, regional interest material where appropriate, religious and children's programmes, and programmes to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. Clearly, much of that will properly and inevitably be of British origin. We in this House easily translate it also to mean European and vice versa. So the ITV and Channel 4 terrestrial commercial channels carry over 70 per cent. of works of European origin, demand led by their audiences which, in turn, attract a solid advertising base to fund those channels.
Why do the Government not wish to place a similar direct obligation, as an ITC licence condition, on non-domestic satellite channels? I believe that that question lies at the heart of the amendment. Noble Lords suggesting the amendment have agreed that their proposals reflect the flexibility allowed for in the 1989 directive with "a proper proportion" giving adequate scope for individual satellite channels to establish the amount appropriate to the individual themes and commercial viability. But the amendment does more than that. It would place an obligation on the ITC to assess, when a licence is first applied for, what amount of European programming would be "proper" for that channel. At present a licence applicant needs to satisfy the commission that he understands and will comply with the general conditions in section 6 relating to impartiality, taste and decency. Interpretation of these matters is never black and white; there are no clear cut boundaries beyond which a broadcaster may not step. Alleged breaches of these conditions are always looked at very carefully, in the overall context of the programme and of the nature of the channel itself.
But this contrasts with a pre-licence condition relating to quantity. A satellite broadcaster, before he has even had the opportunity to test the market for his product, would be asked to give firm projections of how much European programme content he intends to include, and to convince the ITC of the reasonableness of his assessment at that point. We consider this to be onerous, and potentially counter-productive. Why is the kind of protection inbuilt in the amendment helpful to the European production industry? Why should it not produce what the viewer wants like everyone else in the market place? Knowing that sanctions are available against him, an individual broadcaster will be inclined
266
to make cautious and conservative assessments. That is likely to act as a brake on the development of new channels, because broadcasters are not able to predict exactly how things may develop. Indeed, it might even kill off potential channels before they are born.
The regime which the Government presently operate, where it discusses with individual channels the quantity of European programming practicable to a channel and over what period with the aim of achieving as much as possible, preferably a majority, is a satisfactory regime. It has led to the United Kingdom being in the forefront of satellite broadcasting, with today 100 channels licensed by the ITC.
This administrative regime is delivering what the subscriber wants. I am pleased to say that it is also beginning to deliver what noble Lords wish to achieve by statutory means in their amendment. Just as UK viewers on terrestrial channels demand recognisable and largely home produced programmes, alongside—it has to be said—a preference for American movies, so, too, are these same consumer demands being reflected in the content of some of the satellite channels. The oldest of these, BSkyB, is now making a significant investment in original programming.
In the fiscal year 1995, Sky spent some £328 million in total on programming, which represents 62 per cent. of operating costs; £150 million of this was spent on original programming. Sky still has only 4.5 per cent. of the total audience share, compared with the 90 per cent. of the four terrestrial channels. Therefore, the £30 million per audience percentage point spent on original works compares favourably with, for example, Channel 4, with 11 per cent. audience share, spending £19 million per percentage point. Another, much newer entrant, Turner Broadcasting, also is steadily building up European programming and original production. In 1996 it will spend £70 million in the United Kingdom, with about £55 million of that in original production, which is not bad for a channel with an audience base of well under a million in this country.
We should do nothing in this Bill to affect adversely this healthy industry. We should particularly bear in mind that that figure of 100 today could, with the advent of digital satellite as well as terrestrial channels, easily become 1,000. A regime which encourages European-origin programme content, by means of quotas or quantity, regardless of quality, as in the broadcasting directive, will become as increasingly irrelevant as it would be in a bookshop. This is why the majority of member states in the European Union would prefer abolition of the quota provisions.
We would be swimming against the tide of developments in the broadcasting industry if we were to place an onerous and, in our view, an increasingly unworkable and irrelevant statutory obligation on the ITC in relation to satellite broadcasting. Far better, we believe, to leave matters as they stand. Administrative implementation of our European quota obligations can more easily reflect new developments and changes in Brussels legislation. It is correct that we should continue to expect our existing terrestrial broadcasters to include a proper proportion—much of that is British

267
programming—demanded by their large viewing audience. Even if there was no such statutory requirement, they would produce what their audience expected in order to maintain their commercial viability, and attractiveness to advertisers, and in the case of the BBC, to meet licence fee obligations.
Largely subscription channels are quite different, looking to satisfy particular interests or hobbies to maintain their viability. For that sort of reason, the proper proportion may be zero. It may be, as with some existing channels, as high as 100 per cent. We must look forward to the days of real consumer choice and not backwards to the days of a few monopoly channels where legislation sought to provide the viewer with a varied and quality menu. Provided that proper standards of impartiality, taste, decency and consumer protection in advertising are maintained, we should be less and less concerned with the origin of programme material. Why should not the viewer have what he wants rather than what someone else thinks is good for him or her?
The amendment would seek to make us more and more concerned, and suggest that we are immobilised like rabbits in a car's headlights by the prospect of the future. I urge your Lordships not to go down that path. We believe that the right way to encourage domestic programme making is to have as many channels as possible wanting domestic programmes for their own commercial reasons. I very much hope that this response will explain to the proposers of the amendment the thinking behind the Government's position in these matters.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, my goodness! I did not expect our very modest amendment to provoke such an extraordinary exposition of the total free market philosophy in terms of British broadcasting. When that explanation is read tomorrow morning people will feel that the Minister has abandoned a good deal of what we thought was the main motive of British broadcasting policy: to do what one could to promote excellence in broadcasting. That carried the free market philosophy of just going for the lowest common denominator and the maximum number of bums on seats rather far. When what he said is examined in Hansard tomorrow morning by Michael Grade and David Elstein, I foresee some fireworks in the letters columns of the press on the claim that BSkyB is engaged in more original programming, more original film making, than Channel 4.
However, I am far too sleepy tonight to wish to raise the temperature. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to restrictions on holding of licences]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 79, line 31, at end insert—
("(3A) After sub-paragraph (3) there is inserted—
268
"(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (3) above the ITC may, where it considers that the purpose of an arrangement is to prevent disqualification arising or a breach occurring in any other provision of this Schedule, consider control to arise in that arrangement."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this time of night, in my present state of sleepiness, I am sorry to have to move Amendment No. 86 which is a serious and rather major amendment. It is one on which I need to say a word or two.
I say to the Minister straightaway that I found great difficulty in drafting the amendment which seeks to define more precisely and effectively the control responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission. Therefore if the Minister wishes to say that the amendment is not effective in terms of its wording, I am ready to accept that.
However, underlying the amendment is a real problem which upsets me a good deal and has certainly upset the Independent Television Commission. It relates to the fact that the various franchise holders of the independent television system now have got themselves into a mood—I think encouraged by the climate created by the present Government—that they do not need to observe the spirit of broadcasting law so long as they can find clever enough lawyers to get round it with the letter of the law.
I refer, for example, to the ownership of Independent Television News. We argued a great deal about the pattern of ownership for ITN in the 1990 Act. At the end of the day, the Act emerged with certain provisions which limited the amount of shareholding by individual ITV companies. If I remember rightly, the figure was 20 per cent. In fact, two shareholders—Granada and Carlton—today have 36 per cent. each. The ITC is always patient and understanding in these matters— I think excessively patient in this case. It gave both those companies an extended time beyond the letter of the law to make the necessary divestments by the end of last year. At the end of the year, they did not make those divestments. They engaged instead in the so-called deadlocking formula, blatantly defying the spirit of the law which Parliament passed and the ITC has the responsibility of administering. I noticed that in the proposed merger of MAI and United Newspapers, involving the Meridian television company, the same deadlocking device has been used, defying the spirit of the law and getting clever people to follow its letter. In that case, it went even further.
I have spent most of my working life in Parliament in one way or another. I do not like Parliament being taken for granted. We are engaged in passing a Broadcasting Bill, which has still to go from here to another place and return. Who knows what the final Broadcasting Act 1996 will be after we have managed to persuade the Government to make various amendments? However, there are people using the deadlocking device, getting round the normal definition of "control" in order to take for granted what will finally come out of Parliament and anticipating legislation. Anticipating legislation is not so serious a matter as going in for retrospective legislation, but I find it distasteful. It is particularly distasteful that in the present spirit which

269
exists in certain quarters in the ITV system there is a mood that one can find clever people to get round the undoubted wishes of Parliament and the spirit of the law that the Independent Television Commission has to administer.
I am not privy to such matters these days but I understand that there have been discussions between the Government and the ITC to find a more effective definition of control and more effective legal powers to make control a reality and prevent deadlocking devices being operable. That is the motive behind the amendment. I do not expect the Government to say at this stage that they will deal effectively with the matter. I wish them to say that they are as concerned about the underlying ethics as I am and will consider whether there are remedies for what is undoubtedly an objectionable situation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I vividly remember the discussions that took place during the passage of the 1990 Bill through your Lordships' House. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and myself forecasting precisely the present possibility. My noble friend's predecessor at the Dispatch Box rejected it as not being the kind of thing that broadcasters would do — people would be fair and live within the spirit of the Act. Once again, we come to the problem. The track record of broadcasters, irrespective of the various topics which we are discussing, does not fill one with hope when it comes to people taking apart the carefully expressed wishes of Parliament and driving a coach and horses through them. That is what has happened on this occasion.
I urge my noble friend to listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said. If his amendment does not meet the situation—and I accept the noble Lord's reservations on the drafting which is very difficult— I ask the Minister to come back at the next stage with a proposal which will lock the matter up tight.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, echo the Government's concerns. The amendment is concerned with the definition of "control" in the Bill and your Lordships are anxious that it should be adequate to deal with ownership structures which use devices such as deadlocking and warehousing arrangements in an attempt to get round the limits set out in Schedule 2. Since the 1990 Act, we have seen a number of instances where that has occurred within the letter of the law but contrary to the spirit of it. There is no need for me to enumerate them.
The new definition of control in the Bill is one which we believe will be effective in most instances. However, we recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and others that the new definition of control may not catch all ownership permutations. Indeed, both the ITC and the Radio Authority remain concerned that the definition may not be adequate to deal with all circumstances.
270
We do not as yet have proposals for amendments, but I assure all noble Lords that we are considering this matter very carefully. If we deem it necessary, we certainly shall bring forward proposals for amendments in due course.
I very much hope that my remarks will have provided noble Lords with some reassurance and explained just how seriously we regard this matter.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. His opening sentence in respect of me brought me total reassurance that he has taken this concern on board and that the Government share it. I am very content indeed in this case to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 79, leave out lines 46 and 47.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 102, 113, 114, 127 and 128.
This is a group of highly technical amendments, primarily aimed at removing the operators of cable systems—local delivery service licensees, to use the jargon—from the scope of various order-making powers in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I will willingly expand on these amendments. However, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, if noble Lords are prepared to accept that they are simply technical amendments, I am prepared to move them in that spirit. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 90, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91 or Amendment No. 92.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 82, line 5, leave out from beginning to second ("a") in line 16 and insert—
(".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary of State may at any time refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the holding by any person of one or more licences to provide relevant services falling within one or more of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) or (h) in any case where during the relevant 12 months the audience time attributable to those services exceeded 15 per cent of total audience time for the same 12 month period.
(2) Paragraph 2A below shall have effect in relation to a reference under this paragraph.
(2A) In this paragraph "the relevant 12 months" means, in relation to any reference, any consecutive 12 months falling within the 15 months immediately preceding the date of the reference.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, "relevant service" also includes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two groups of amendments are directed at the issue of imposing a 15 per cent. upper limit on television audience share.

271
I am sorry to detain noble Lords at this late hour, but these amendments were due to be discussed in Committee, when I was "bushwhacked" and did not arrive here in time to move them.
Amendment No. 90 is linked with Amendment No. 96. It seeks to replace the 15 per cent. maximum television audience limit by requiring a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 94 are simply referred to as presenting a different way of tackling the 15 per cent. by resting on the 25 per cent. that is commonly thought to be in line with competition policy. Amendment 95 would exclude the 15 per cent. limit where growth in audience viewing was due to "organic growth" rather than to a merger or takeover.
I must confess, even approaching the witching hour, that a belief I have developed over 40 years of studying economics is that, faced as we are in this particular market with the quite unfathomable uncertainties of rapid change, competitive markets cope, not perfectly, but better than the inevitably bureaucratic procedures, targets and plans of fallible government.
I have already welcomed the general emphasis of the Bill on liberalisation. There are many parts of it that I greatly support. However, I think there are unfounded fears, or well-funded pressure groups, that inhibit the Government from consistent support for competitive enterprise as the best discovery mechanism towards the evolving new structures in television and other forms of broadcasting to which the Minister has referred in other contexts. Instead of opting wholeheartedly for deregulation, the Bill opts in some respects for re-regulation.
I do not know whether, in some years' time, we shall look back with astonishment to our obsession with the phantom threats to plurality and diversity that we all very much uphold. There are already sufficient safeguards in place. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, says that they are not functioning or are being evaded, by all means let them be strengthened, where they are safeguards that have been well established.
I asked my research assistant to let me have a note of some of the safeguards and my fax machine was overwhelmed with yards of material. It told me that there is a two licence limit, positive programme requirements for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, impartiality and consumer protection for all broadcasts. There are of course increasing market opportunities through satellite, cable and digital delivery, and there are competition laws with a presumption against control of more than 25 per cent. of the market. Now the Government are fearful of domination by a company striving and struggling to work from 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 per cent. and breaking through the 15 per cent. limit.
More irksome than any other feature of the Bill is that the 15 per cent. limit on audience share entirely omits the BBC, which already enjoys 43 per cent. of the viewing audience. That gives me an opportunity to say that if we look back 40 years (which is still in the memory of some of those in the Chamber this evening)
272
we may remember that commercial television was introduced in 1953 or 1954. Before then, the BBC enjoyed not 15 per cent. or 25 per cent. but 100 per cent. of television and radio audiences, with the exception, I believe, of Radio Luxembourg. Does that mean that our nation was dominated by the successors of Lord Reith? Did it mean that the BBC ran the country? Was 100 per cent. of television viewing so terrifying? Was that a black period? We had a diverse press and political debate. What is now going on that people should quake in their shoes and stay awake at night worrying about whether it should be 15 per cent. 16 per cent. or 20 per cent?
I wish that there was a better sense of perspective and less fear and fright about all these things. The objection to the BBC monopoly was rather that it enlisted political support to obstruct competition; and, as noble Lords will remember, it relied on the scarcity of wavelengths, which led it in the end even to try to rule out programmes being carried by rediffused wire down in Guildford, because they had not come from the BBC. Rediffusion was radio broadcasting—Radio 1 and Radio 2 or the Third Programme of those days. The BBC was not interested in increasing the number of channels, catering for minorities, 24-hour news, minority programmes or even majority programmes if they were thought to be vulgar.
I must remind the House, which I am sure has a large number of unpaid and voluntary supporters of the BBC's dominating position, that the ITC's Public View showed that a good proportion of the objections and complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Council on partiality and all the rest of it were directed at the BBC. So why should the audience ceiling of 15 per cent. be imposed on commercial programmes, leaving the BBC still with 43 per cent. of the television business? Why is it 15 per cent? It is more restrictive even than the 20 per cent. for television holdings proposed in the Green Paper for the longer term. It is lower than the 25 per cent. in general competition policy.
I do not want to stir up the Minister too much at this hour. But in my view this kind of element in the Bill is more appropriate to the Department of National Heritage and the slightly nostalgic, backward-looking days of monopoly control. There is a certain suspicion of business. I wish that the Department of Trade and Industry was running the operation because it has a real interest in increasing the vigour of this marvellously expanding market.
We have had a 10-fold increase in television channels over the past decade; from four to 40. I have seen that announced somewhere. That great development will continue. This country needs in broadcasting, as in other aspects, strong, expanding companies able to compete with international diversified giants in rapidly-growing world markets. I scorn anyone who supposes that companies will monopolise the eyes, the ears and the minds of an increasingly sophisticated and selective audience. I beg the Government to exhibit less fear about the future and the possibilities that it will bring

273
with it in this exploding information market of television, radio, press, Internet and so forth. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should point out to your Lordships that, Amendment No. 93 having been spoken to, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 94.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in responding to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I do not want to repeat the arguments I gave in Committee for the Government's view that distinct controls on the media are appropriate above and beyond those of general competition policy. The thought occurs to me that in a nutshell it is precisely because broadcasting has been so heavily regulated in the past that wholesale immediate deregulation would have arbitrary and potentially uncompetitive effects. Hence it is important to bear in mind that we are talking about an interim regime. That is why we introduced a measured deregulatory step in the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing to my attention matters of 40 years ago. I am afraid it was more or less before my time—not quite—and I am therefore not in a position to respond first-hand to that. I was slightly surprised to hear his remarks about our fear of the future. Two amendments earlier I was slightly chided by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for taking a face-to-face view of the future. I feel therefore that the noble Lord was being rather unfair in some of his strictures.
The Bill proposes a relatively simple way of regulating television ownership. Companies will be allowed to expand up to 15 per cent. of the total television audience. They will not, however, be able to breach that limit. It will be clear to broadcasters from the outset whether they are likely to breach the limit, and it will be up to them to take remedial action in the event that they do so. A failure to take remedial action could lead to the ITC imposing a fine or revoking a television licence.
The absolute 15 per cent. total television audience share limit was set because television has a uniquely powerful influence and it is important that undue concentrations of ownership are not allowed to develop. In the case of terrestrial television in particular, there is, and will remain, a substantial element of rationing of a scarce resource, given the limited number of channels available. Fifteen per cent. is not an unrealistic limit. Currently, the largest commercial broadcaster in audience terms, Carlton, has a 9.4 per cent. share of the audience. Its nearest rival, Granada, has a 6.9 per cent. audience share. The largest cable and satellite broadcaster, BSkyB, has a 4.5 per cent. share of the audience. The 15 per cent. limit will therefore allow considerable scope for all commercial broadcasters to expand, while ensuring continuing plurality and diversity in the provision of television programming. We believe that the 15 per cent. limit is appropriate for television; that it should remain an absolute limit; and that it should not be subject to a discretionary test.
274
Given the current audience shares for major television companies, I find it difficult to foresee a situation in which a service would breach the 15 per cent. audience limit by organic growth alone. Carlton could not breach the 15 per cent. limit without acquiring further television licences. Similarly, BSkyB could not breach the limit without providing additional television channels. Indeed, Amendment No. 95 seems to acknowledge that through its reference to,
"new services which commence during that period".
The point is that once there is a risk of a service provider breaching the 15 per cent. limit, they should not be allowed to provide new services which would lead to them exceeding that limit.
It follows that we do not believe that there is any need for a separate assessment of the public interest should the threshold be exceeded—either for the ITC or for the competition authorities. I should, however, add and emphasise that media ownership regulation in no way inhibits the operation of competition legislation. Where any merger between broadcasters creates or increases a market share of at least 25 per cent. or involves a takeover of assets exceeding £70 million in value, the Director-General of Fair Trading will advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as to whether or not to make a reference to the MMC. Similarly, the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act will continue to apply to broadcasting in the normal way.
The 15 per cent. television audience share limit is simple and transparent. It was set after careful consideration of the television market. At present no commercial broadcaster has more than a 10 per cent. share and most are well below that. The 15 per cent. threshold will allow considerable concentration within the industry. However, it is up to companies to ensure they do not breach the limit and to take remedial action if they do. The Government do not see the case for making the 15 per cent. threshold discretionary; and nor do we see a role for the MMC.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 94. Our policy document, Media Ownership: The Government's Proposals, published in May last year, made it clear that the Government had concluded that there was a continuing need for specific media ownership regulation beyond that applied by general competition law in order to protect the plurality of the British media industry. As I have said on a number of occasions, the media industry is unlike others because of its ability to influence opinion and engender debate.
In setting the market limit for television at 15 per cent. of the total television audience, which is to include all public and commercial broadcasting services, we took careful consideration of the current market shares of major television companies. At present, the commercial group with the highest audience share is Carlton, with 9.4 per cent. The next largest is Granada, with 6.9 per cent. The 15 per cent. limit really will allow significant room for expansion.
We expect the expansion of cable and satellite broadcasting to continue for some years. The market will also expand significantly with the advent of digital

275
terrestrial television. We may therefore need to raise the threshold from 15 per cent. to say 20 per cent. in the future when there are a substantial number of services available.
If we were to move immediately to a 25 per cent. market share limit for television then it would have damaging consequences for plurality. It would mean one group could control about 70 per cent. of the ITV network. Additionally, such a group could notionally control up to 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation and up to 15 per cent. of the available radio points. I believe that such a move would damage the British media industry because it would allow the development of extremely powerful groups which could undermine the competitive position of smaller media companies. Things may look different in some years' time, if the number and market share of cable and satellite services continues to grow and digital terrestrial services emerge. But for the present, we believe that 15 per cent. strikes the right balance between allowing television companies to expand and maintaining plurality, particularly in the Channel 3 network. For those reasons, the Government oppose the amendments.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says about the Government's position but I find it totally incomprehensible. I find it impossible to understand how even, if I may say so, a young Minister, unaware of the secrets I have revealed about the 1950s, can go on talking as though the BBC can be trusted with 43 per cent. of something, but that Carlton or BSkyB must be content with 15 per cent.—they are, after all, puppies; they have only 7 or 8 per cent. and there is room for them to grow. It is a preposterous kind of condescension coming from someone in the public sector about another part of the public sector.
I welcome the Minister's statement that this is an interim regime between severe restriction and regulation and greater freedom. If I were given to making predictions, I would say that we shall be back with another Broadcasting Bill. It is five years since the last one. It will be less than five years before we come back with substantial changes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 96 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 83, line 33, leave out ("national Channel 3 services") and insert ("a national Channel 3 service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 88, line 4, leave out ("to (f) or paragraph 1(2)(j),") and insert ("(c) or (e),").
Page 88, line 6, leave out ("to (f) or paragraph 1(3)(j),") and insert ("or (f),").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 91, line 44, leave out ("local").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled seven amendments—Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 108, 110, 131, 132 and 134—for the single purpose of attempting to reduce some of the discriminations in the Bill, as I interpret them, against regional and local newspapers which might wish to own regional broadcasting services. Accordingly, although my amendments are scattered within the latter groupings, I hope that it may be for the convenience of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if I save time at this hour by speaking very briefly to all of them in general terms.
As the Bill stands, it disadvantages regional and local newspapers as against national newspapers, which will be able to own radio stations in circumstances in which a local newspaper is prohibited from so doing. Regional and local newspapers compete with national papers for readers and advertising. The Government are making cross-media ownership more available to national media companies as a response to competitive pressures, domestic and international. But the Bill will not give local newspapers the opportunity to create locally-based media companies so that they can exploit for themselves the opportunities for linked marketing, cross-promotion and the sharing of resources for reporting and newsgathering.
Local media will become more diverse with new technologies, with the onset of cable, on-line services, the proliferation of commercial radio services and increased free-sheet distribution. Where news is concerned the strengths of local newspapers derive from the community in which they are based and their strengths need to be sustained if the social need which they serve is to benefit. That cannot happen if local newspapers are weakened, as this Bill will weaken them, in the face of competition.
As they stand, the Government's proposals are likely to undermine diversity, not underpin it. The Bill fails to follow the logic of the current rules, which enable local newspapers to provide news services to radio stations. They should be allowed to own a radio station as well and thereby be able to respond to market pressures and technological opportunities.
In the Bill the Government have separated diversity in local newspapers from competition, but the two are the same issue. If they cannot compete effectively, local newspapers will lose market share, and the plurality and diversity of local media will diminish.
These amendments would strike a better balance. The public interest test would be maintained, but the threshold calculations would be amended; first, to take account of the sales of national newspapers; secondly, to reflect where there is a BBC local radio station or Channel 3 service; and, thirdly, to take the market share to 30 per cent. as the Government first proposed. The amendments would also ensure that restrictions are applied only where newspapers have a substantial penetration of households in the area. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendments and on the arguments which support them, and undertake a more realistic analysis of the market for regional and local papers and media groupings.
I believe that the amendments accord with the aspirations of the regional and local press, which were set out decisively in a letter today in The Times by the director of the Newspaper Society, who wrote:
"The Bill would allow multimedia conglomerates and most national newspapers to purchase local broadcasting outlets, while prohibiting local newspapers from doing so. The former would have massive commercial advantage over the regional press in the day-to-day competition for advertisers, readers, news stories and markets.
To thrive, a lively and locally responsive media sector needs scope to expand and diversify into locally-based media companies by being able to compete on a fair basis with other industry sectors".
I hope that the Minister may be sensitive to those considerations and that he may be willing to consider whether the Government will be able to introduce their own amendments to meet those points at the next stage.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I fear that, as the noble Lord just said, the clause discriminates against local and regional papers, many of which compete with the nationals, although some are owned by the nationals. I am concerned that the Bill might prohibit a regional or local newspaper from owning a radio station in circumstances in which the newspaper's circulation in the radio station's area was modest. It would allow a national newspaper with a high circulation in a licensed area to own local broadcasting stations. I hope that the Government will amend the provisions to make them fairer.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, as I understand them, the amendments seek to ensure that regional newspapers are treated fairly when in competition with national newspapers especially when bidding for local stations in their own areas. Local papers are a major factor in creating cohesion in a local community, often giving greater value for money as they tend to be far more responsible than the national press in that they are directly answerable to the local community that they serve. A regional newspaper with a circulation smaller than that of a national newspaper should not be automatically barred from being able to compete for a local station in its own area. It is with that in mind that I support the amendments.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, having listened to the debate and particularly to the contributions from the two noble Baronesses, I am a trifle concerned. This was precisely the position in many towns and cities in the United States before and after the Second World War when the local radio station was often controlled by the same business group as the local newspapers. It was for that reason that restrictions to inhibit that were introduced by the Federal Broadcasting Commission, later the Federal Communications Commission, because for obvious reasons local business interests took control not only of them but of local politics. While there are good commercial reasons, there are dangerous democratic reasons in allowing the amendment to go forward in its present form.
11 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, spoke also to the other amendments in his name, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to respond in general terms. As he explained, all his amendments are designed to remove or relax the restrictions in Schedule 2 imposed on local newspapers seeking to control local broadcasting services.
I should like to respond for now with a few general remarks. What Schedule 2 does is to liberalise the arrangements for cross-media holdings, while continuing to protect plurality at both national and local level. Indeed, in my view, one of the strengths of this Bill is that it pays particular attention to protection of plurality at local level.
The local market share proposed in Part IV is intended to ensure that no one player can assume a position of dominance in the local media market place; that is, that part of the media which has a specifically local or regional focus: regional Channel 3 services, local radio stations and regional and local newspapers. I am sure that your Lordships acknowledge that national and local newspapers are distinctly different products in terms of their editorial focus.
I accept that national newspapers compete to some extent with local papers for readers and advertisers. They do not, however, provide the local news and information, for which readers turn to local and regional newspapers. Our proposals are about protecting plurality, and not about regulating competition in the markets. Newspaper markets and advertising markets will continue to be subject to normal competition law.
As the Bill stands, local newspapers will be free to buy broadcasters outside their circulation areas and to apply to control broadcasters within their own areas where their circulation is within the thresholds. The 50 per cent. threshold proposed for local newspapers buying into local radio already allows a considerable level of local media concentration. It seems to us that any local newspaper so dominant within its own area as to fall foul of that threshold should not also be allowed to control the local radio station. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Stockton. The inclusion of national newspapers in the calculations would seriously dilute our proposals and remove in practice the protection of plurality at local level at a stroke.
In summary, we remain broadly satisfied that cross-media ownership restrictions as set out in the Bill are needed to limit local newspapers' capacity to buy into local broadcasters. However, we accept that some detailed improvements may be needed, and I hope that with those assurances and explanations of Government policy the noble Lord will feel that he now understands the position that we have taken in this regard.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I understand the position that he outlined, but I still believe that it is mistaken. I do not believe that we can increase local plurality of information by weakening one important group of providers of information. There is no doubt that the Government's proposals in the Bill will weaken the

279
local press considerably. I am disappointed that the Minister felt unable to say that he would consider the issue further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 92, leave out lines 11 to 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 92, line 17, at end insert—
("Public interest enquiries where paragraphs 4 to 8 otherwise apply
.—(1) The restrictions imposed by or under paragraphs 4 to 8 shall not have effect in relation to—

(a) the participation (direct or indirect) of any person in any other person, or

(b) in a case falling within paragraph 8, the control by one person of another,

unless the relevant authority has found that participation or control to operate or to be expected to operate against the public interest.
(2) Paragraphs 10 and 11 shall apply, with such modifications as may be necessary, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply for the purposes of determining whether a situation within paragraph 9 operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I read the Marshalled List, this is the last amendment of substance and I will not detain your Lordships at this late hour. However, I cannot resist remarking that it is perhaps a reflection of a Broadcasting Bill which has not divided us on party lines that an amendment tabled in my name has attracted the support of s, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am fairly sure that this will be the only occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and I will be together on the same amendment. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it is a different matter; he is an old Liberal and I am a new Liberal Democrat. I am professionally a regulator and he is a free marketeer of deep conviction. But we both come from around St. Andrews and we have not always disagreed on everything. Therefore I am happy to see his name attached to the amendment.
The amendment is a re-draft of one that I moved in Committee. I will not weary the House with the detail, but it has been re-drafted in order to meet the various objections which the Minister made to my original amendment. It also seeks to deal with some of the objections which the Minister made to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Donoughue. My starting point was the belief that as regards the particular case of restrictions on national newspapers the right course was to apply a rigid public interest test as to whether ownership of a television contract by any of the great national newspaper groups should be acceptable rather than to apply the arbitrary numerical test which affects only two newspaper groups.
Your Lordships have been very patient with me during our proceedings on the Bill and as you will know I am not an uncritical admirer of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. However, I believe that a provision which discriminates
280
simply on numerical grounds solely against the Daily Mirror and the Murdoch newspapers is the wrong way to approach the problem. As a matter of general principle, I believe it right to apply a rigid public interest test to any aspirations that either of those groups have for the ownership of television stations rather than have them put in this particular position.
That is the background to the amendment. It has been revised in a way which I hope will meet some of the Minister's objections. However, I recognise the fact that it does not meet the basic objection. I simply put it forward again as a matter of general principle. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am pleased strongly to support the amendment. The effect of this on the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, seems to have been to land him in hospital. He will no doubt read the debates with great interest. He asked me to apologise for being unable to be present.
I shall not go over the argument, but shall make two observations. First, this is a joint effort by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and me to rescue the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, from having to put forward the awkward amendment raising the limit to 25 per cent. in order to keep Rupert Murdoch out of reach, but allowing the Daily Mirror under the wire. No doubt if the noble Lord, Lord Desai, were here he would join us in saying that the limits are arbitrary and of all arbitrary limits 20 per cent. is the wrong one to choose.
My second observation is that in a fair world we have the Minister on the run. A moment ago he made a fantastic emphatic appeal saying that television is most important and dominant; it rules the world; we must watch it; it has a unique influence and so forth. Now he says said that newspapers are also important and that we must not have more than a 20 per cent. control of newspapers because owners will control the world and distort our affairs. That is a narrow, blinkered, fearful, backward-looking attitude for a young man, as the Minister is. However, he has time to get better, which is one encouragement. I believe in the idea of moving from a 20 per cent. fixed limit on which you bang your head and must not go above, to having a public interest test, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to add my name to the list of supporters of the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have been inundated with briefs on the subject. However, I rejected them and turned to the Conservative Research Department brief which I found extremely interesting. Addressing the issue of media ownership, it summarises the changes by saying that,
"the main proposals on media ownership in the Bill will allow greater cross-holdings between newspaper groups, television companies and radio stations, at both national and regional levels".
It then covers other points such as the removal of the two-ITV-licence limit and the restrictions on local newspapers with over 50 per cent. of circulation having local television and radio holdings. It concludes that the ITC and the Radio Authority will continue to regulate

281
television and radio and that existing competition legislation will apply to mergers involving broadcasters. It ends up highlighting the new public interest test,
"by which the regulatory authorities can assess and approve mergers or acquisitions between newspapers and television and radio companies. The public interest test will be based on whether the proposed merger poses a threat to diversity and on certain economic criteria".
That all seems very reasonable but, as I said in Committee, it does not mention that the public interest test does not actually apply to everybody. Noble Lords will be aware that some newspapers, by virtue of the fact that they are bought by more readers than others, will not have the privilege of being assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of their case. For the largest newspapers, there is an automatic and insurmountable prohibition on their serious involvement in mainstream television.
My research department brief sounds so obviously reasonable but beyond it there is that great anomaly. Could it be because those prohibitions were included as an afterthought? They certainly do not make sense when considered with the logical and eminently fair system of public interest tests. Getting rid of the 20 per cent. rule is not the same as saying that large newspaper groups will enter ITV. It is merely saying that if the newspaper group is to be refused entrance it should at least have its case properly looked at and the reasons given.
It is not possible to imagine the reasons which might be given—no doubt justifiably. Perhaps permission will be refused because of the newspaper's high market share; perhaps because it has more than, for example, 20 per cent. But at least the ITC will have looked at the issues, weighed them up, and come to the conclusion that the 20 per cent. level is the right one at that time. It may prefer 25 per cent. or 15 per cent. That is fine, but it should say so and rule the merger against the public interest. At least it should do the company the basic decency of listening to its arguments, giving them some genuine thought and giving reasons. That is natural justice at its most rudimentary and removes the capricious nature which otherwise characterises a single and apparently arbitrary percentage figure. Everyone will accept a well reasoned refusal. That is what this amendment is saying. I support it.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, the Government's assertion that those who sell more newspapers are less to be trusted seems rather dangerous. I can think of some very limited circulation broadsheets which I would regard as having a totally corrupt influence on the public consciousness. Noble Lords opposite might not agree with my particular choice. However, the concentration on numerical values rather than, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, having a genuine public interest test will lead the Government into some very strange waters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in responding to the amendment, it may be helpful to go over the background before addressing the particular points raised by the amendment. In liberalising the restrictions on cross-media ownership we decided that there was a need for a public interest test to meet concerns about alliances
282
involving newspapers and broadcasters. Uniting the leading sources of news with the most potent sources for influencing opinion through broadcasting carries the risk of concentrating too much influence in the hands of one organisation and, in our view, is therefore against the public interest. That is why we have set clear thresholds, which we ask Parliament to endorse, to prevent the most dominant newspaper groups from also becoming dominant broadcasters. I sense from the debate this evening that your Lordships do not take fundamental exception to that underlying principle. However, we recognise that there may be circumstances in which a merger between a newspaper group and a broadcaster could still represent a threat to plurality, even though it would otherwise be permissible under the thresholds.
The threshold indicates a level beyond which a newspaper's dominance makes it clearly undesirable for it also to have a leading position as a broadcaster. But there may be cases where a newspaper below the threshold proposes a particular acquisition which might be thought to imply excessive concentration. Hence the public interest test which acts as a kind of safety net, especially given that the current rules simply keep national newspapers out of terrestrial broadcasting (and local ones out of broadcasting in their area).
Plurality of ownership is the key to the test which we propose. However, in developing the public interest test, we realised that, while common ownership of a broadcaster and newspaper might threaten plurality, there may be other over-riding economic reasons for allowing the merger to proceed. For example, a radio station or a newspaper may not be economic as a going concern but may be able to survive if a merger is allowed to take place. In such an instance, the relevant regulator could conclude that the merger did not operate against the public interest, notwithstanding that it would threaten plurality of media ownership in the local market.
In practice we expect the regulators to presume that a merger between a broadcaster and a newspaper group, which is allowable under the thresholds, should proceed unless there is a clear threat to plurality. We think that the regulators will soon be able to determine whether there is such a threat which is worthy of further investigation by reference to the coverage areas and circulation areas of the services concerned. If they conclude that the matter warrants further investigation, they may call for such information as they think fit in order to make a decision. Where the ITC or the Radio Authority conclude that plurality is threatened, they may then extend their inquiries to consider economic matters and, where appropriate, seek the advice of the Office of Fair Trading. Inquiries under the public interest test will not normally need to be lengthy and elaborate. However, that does not mean that the findings will be less thoroughgoing than those of a more formal inquiry, as both the regulators are respected for their knowledge and understanding of the media industry. The regulator will inform the parties of its reasons for concluding that a merger would be against, or could be expected to operate against, the public interest. As with other

283
decisions made by the ITC and the Radio Authority, such conclusions can be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, would introduce a much more formal procedure for applying the public interest test, based on the procedures operated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Fair Trading Act. The regulator, having made a finding on the public interest, would then be required to deliver a report to the Secretary of State to be published in such manner as she thinks fit. We see no reason to give the regulators the power to require the attendance of witnesses, take evidence on oath and order the production of documents on pain of a fine if the orders are not complied with and to require them to produce a report of their findings for publication. The Government's view is that such a quasi-judicial procedure is not appropriate, and, if adopted, would fundamentally alter the relationships between the Radio Authority, the ITC and the media industry.
The amendments would also extend the public interest test to participation in a broadcaster by a newspaper group by way of minor shareholding. In my view it would be wrong to include participation, as opposed to control, within the scope of the test. That would place more of a burden on the industry and the regulators. We intend to bring forward regulations to limit the ability of newspapers and broadcasters to exert a material influence over each other through the shareholdings in due course. That will be done through a replacement for the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991. So there will be clear limits to minority shareholdings by interested players. We are also of course proposing a wide, de facto test of whether a particular body is exercising control of a licence holder. Given that, inquiry into the public interest in a shareholding seems to us unnecessary and bureaucratic.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, would also change the wording of paragraph 11 of Part IV which sets out the matters which the regulators should take into account when applying the public interest test. I am concerned that the noble Lord's wording does not include a reference to "plurality". In our view, plurality of ownership is desirable as well as diversity of information sources.
It is perfectly true that a single owner may promote a variety of information sources, but that is not necessarily healthy in securing a range of different views. I am also concerned that the wording that the noble Lord proposes for paragraph 11(1)(b) is not as precise as the present draft which makes it clear that, in considering the economic benefits, the regulator must have regard to the holding of a licence by a newspaper proprietor as regards the holding of that licence by any other body. The wording used in paragraph 11 has been carefully drafted to keep the scope of the matters which the regulators should take into account as narrow and specific as possible.
What I have endeavoured to do in my remarks—I apologise to your Lordships for taking a little time about it—is to explain how we envisage the system will work
284
and to set that against the consequences of the test of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I dare say the noble Lord will say that he prefers his way of dealing with these matters, but I wanted to make it clear to your Lordships exactly why we have adopted the position we have.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with my amendment at this hour of the night as carefully and as conscientiously as he has. I have listened to his words carefully and will read them even more carefully tomorrow. I am bound to say that if I had thought that including the word "plurality" in one of my amendments would have been acceptable to the noble Lord I would certainly have included it, but, even had I done that, I doubt whether the main thrust of what I seek to do is likely to be acceptable to the Government in their present mood. I still think, in relation to these two newspaper groups, that the present way of dealing with the question of where the public interest lies is a peculiarly arbitrary one. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 92, line 21, leave out ("20") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sadly have to decline the kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to rescue me from moving this embarrassing amendment. I am sorry about that as he and I have had much in common over the years. I have often felt that we both share dislikes. We are both on the liberal extreme wings of our respective parties; he is on the liberal extreme wing of the 19th century Liberal Party, and I of the 21st century Labour Party.
However, I shall continue as my amendment follows on from what went before; namely, dissatisfaction with the arbitrary limit that is imposed on national newspaper groups. My approach is to take the Government's arbitrary limit of 20 per cent. and to suggest my own arbitrary limit of 25 per cent., because if we are into arbitrary limits we might as well have a better arbitrary limit.
The reason behind this, as set out in Committee—there is no need to go over that in detail again—is that the Bill discriminates, ultimately, against one newspaper group. It appears to discriminate against two, but the largest newspaper group does, through its ownership, have a large television presence, whereas the Mirror Group, through an arbitrary limit, and an arbitrary definition of national newspapers—not including local content—is in practice excluded, certainly from terrestrial television in this country. We feel that that is wrong and unfair. It applies to the only major group that supports the Labour Party and so we feel it is doubly wrong: We suggest that that discrimination be removed.
I wonder whether the Minister has anything new to say on that since our exchanges at Committee stage, and any response to what I said about the legal situation. We

285
are advised that this discrimination against the Mirror Group would not stand up in European law. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, first moved these amendments in Committee, he made it clear—as he has done this evening—that he was, above all, concerned about what he saw as discrimination against the Mirror Group. In withdrawing them then, he made it clear that he would return to this matter on Report, and has done so most eloquently.
On current circulation figures, the 20 per cent. national newspaper market threshold will, as the noble Lord said, prevent both the Mirror Group and News International, to which he alluded in passing, from applying to control licences to provide Channel 3, Channel 5, and national and local radio licences. National newspaper groups falling below the threshold will be permitted to control such services subject to the public interest test. As I said, our policy objective is to prevent those national newspaper groups which enjoy a dominant position in the market from also becoming dominant broadcasters and vice versa. National newspaper groups above the 20 per cent. threshold will be limited to a 20 per cent. stake in Channel 3 or 5 or radio licences because those are the most dominant forms of broadcasting currently available. Approximately 98 per cent. of all homes have access to free-to-air Channel 3 services whereas only 20 per cent. of homes have access to cable and satellite broadcasts.
Let us put this into perspective. I emphasise that the opportunity still exists for dominant newspapers to become broadcasters. All national newspaper groups will be free to control licences to provide domestic and non-domestic satellite services, local delivery services, licensable programme services, digital multiplex services and digital terrestrial television programme services. That is the current position. It may be helpful if I explain in some detail the thinking behind our decision to set the thresholds at 20 per cent. I believe that that is the question the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, wished me to address.
The 20 per cent. national market share threshold for newspapers was set after careful consideration of the market. It is not a figure that has simply been plucked out of the air, nor has it been chosen with the deliberate intention of penalising the Mirror Group.
As a result of the consultation on our media ownership proposals, the Government concluded that there remains the need for separate media ownership controls, in addition to normal competition legislation, in order to protect plurality. A 25 per cent. threshold was judged to be too high, as that is the level at which competition law would normally bite. By contrast, 15 per cent., which is the level at which the market limits are set for television and radio, was judged to be too low, because while the opportunity to become a broadcaster is restricted by spectrum scarcity, no such hurdle faces those who wish to become newspaper proprietors.
286
Analysis of newspaper market share figures shows that there is a wide difference in share of circulation between the larger newspaper groups and the medium-sized groups (some 9 per cent. in the case of the Mirror Group and United News and Media). We therefore set the threshold at a level which distinguished clearly between those groups with a large share of the newspaper market. Circulation and audience based measures are used in assessing market share because these best reflect plurality and the ability of individual media groups to influence opinion. No account is taken of revenue measures. These tend to reflect market power, which is subject to separate control through competition legislation.
Because national newspaper groups having 20 per cent. or more of the national market have such a significant share of the overall newspaper market (including both national and local newspapers) those publications tend to have a much higher circulation in the regions than many local papers, whose focus is on that specific region. In preparing our proposals, the Government commissioned independent research from National Economic Research Associates (NERA). This reveals that if the share of national press and share of regional press is calculated for each major newspaper group at national level and for the top four newspaper companies in each ITV region, both the Mirror Group and News International come out among the top four newspaper companies in every single ITV region. The only regional titles published by the Mirror Group are its Scottish titles, the Daily Record and Sunday Mail. News International does not publish any regional titles. Thus the respective shares of these two groups at regional level is made up almost exclusively of national titles. It is this degree of influence that caused us to decide that such dominant newspaper groups should not also be allowed to dominate the more influential areas of broadcasting.
It will be clear from what I have said that it is not just newspaper groups having 20 per cent. or more of national newspaper circulation that are prevented from owning Channel 3 companies; others are also caught by the provisions which are aimed at protecting plurality at local and regional level. It is an important point when considering the possibility of acquisition of Channel 3 licences. We do not consider that it is appropriate to rely on the public interest alone to regulate cross-ownership between newspapers and broadcasters. The Government believe—it is a point I made in response to an earlier amendment—that there must, as a matter of public policy which it is right for Parliament to decide, be a cut-off point beyond which a newspaper group is judged to be too large to be allowed to control Channels 3 or 5 or national or local radio licences.
Finally, the noble Lord returned to the point he made in Committee that the Mirror Group has been advised that the restrictions in the Bill could constitute an infringement of the group's right to freedom of expression under Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are seeking legal advice on this point and I hope by the time of Third Reading to be able to let him know the outcome.

287
I simply wish to say that the threshold was determined solely on market share considerations. I must emphasise that no account was taken of the editorial direction or nature of the products published by individual newspaper groups, not least because they may come and go. Other newspaper groups which may be regarded as being "opposition media", such as the Guardian, are not caught by the provisions because their market share is below the 20 per cent. threshold. But newspapers published by News International, for example, are caught because they are above the 20 per cent, threshold.
The Government have concluded—and this is the crux of our argument—that in order to protect plurality in the media there is a continuing need for specific regulations governing media ownership beyond those which are applied by general competition law. But there is a need to liberalise the current ownership regime. Our proposals will set market limits for holdings in television and radio. Holdings in television will be limited to 15 per cent. of the market, measured by audience share, and in radio to 15 per cent. of the available radio points.
There is no market share limit for newspapers, but we have decided that it is appropriate to set a threshold which will limit the ability of the most dominant newspaper groups to acquire holdings which would allow them to become dominant broadcasters. After careful consideration of the market, this threshold was set at 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation. Similar controls apply at local level whereby local newspapers having more than 20 per cent. of circulation in the relevant area are limited to a 20 per cent. stake in regional Channel 3 licences and local radio licences. We believe that those thresholds strike the right balance and that is why we have adopted that policy.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Government's position. I do not accept it on behalf of the Mirror Group which I still feel is cornered in a way that no one else is.
On the legal question, I was interested in what he had to say, and at Third Reading we shall listen with great interest to his report on what legal advice he receives. If he gets legal advice similar to that which we have had—and I am interested that the noble Lord has seen it, I am sure he read it in a controlled environment—presumably the Government will have to think carefully about not proceeding further along those lines. Another newspaper group will be equally interested. Presumably we would not wish to waste Parliament's time further on something that is legally fragile.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have been in such a controlled environment that I do not believe that I have seen the legal opinion to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, if the Minister would accept reading it in a padded cell with three guards, I should be happy to provide him with a copy. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 92, line 21, leave out from ("shall") to second ("a") in line 22 and insert ("control").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 105 goes with the others grouped with it on the Marshalled List. I would rather move an amendment to my local train timetable at this time of night, so I shall be brief. If the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, will avert her ears, I shall proudly repeat my declaration of interest as an independent national director of Times Newspapers. I have no direct financial or other interest in BSkyB, except that last week, carried away by the debate which I had been listening to in this House, I signed up. I can only say that if you have not got BSkyB you have not lived. Last weekend I had a new experience with marvellous old films, starting with "Lost Horizon" which I had not seen for 63 years.
The purpose of the amendments is to prevent BSkyB being excluded from control of a terrestrial TV company because it is "controlled" by a newspaper, News International, with a shareholding of more than 20 per cent.
The Green Paper is full of encouraging noises. It talks of changing environments; exciting possibilities; breaking down the traditional distinctions between the various media; information technology, and so on. It acknowledges that barriers are already crumbling, and points to a unique opportunity to evolve in previously unthought-of ways. That is pure Hayekian, spontaneous evolution. It talks of a market-place in which risks and rewards are high, both for individual firms and national competitiveness. That was the Green Paper.
Nowhere does the Bill fall further short of this high promise than in Schedule 2, pages 93 to 96, before us now. As I am instructed, this legal gobbledegook has the effect of constructing a wholly artificial barrier to obstruct BSkyB as pioneers of satellite broadcasting—and much else—from enjoying the new freedoms in cross-media ownership conferred on others by the Bill. It achieves that wretched exclusion by a wholly contrived device which I believe mocks common sense and legal logic. In a Gilbertian twist worthy of the hard-pressed Lord Chancellor in "Iolanthe", ownership of more than 20 per cent. of the shares of a satellite by a newspaper group is deftly defined as "control" and used to exclude the offending party from acquiring one of the multiplying terrestrial TV licences.
I really do regard this part of the Bill as an abomination. It is a not very cunning device, aimed like a sniper's rifle at News International, which owns 40 per cent. of BSkyB. We should thank heavens for Sky's pioneering enterprise in all kinds of ways, and even give a nod—which I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and others—in the direction of Murdoch's enterprise for gambling his firm (in American parlance, "betting the farm") on satellite broadcasting when he had not sold a single dish or signed up a single subscriber. Instead of any kind of gratitude, the Bill defines 20 per cent. as "control" in order to ostracise this most galvanising, enterprising force in the television revolution.
We have been over this, and I shall be very brief. It is understood that News International does not, and cannot, control Sky. It is understood that the other main shareholders are Granada, Pearsons and BSB and 25 per cent. are traded in the open market. Stock Exchange rules, etc., require that the company should operate independently of any shareholder with 30 per cent. or more of the voting rights. There is a whole rigmarole like that on which I could keep the House awake about the careful rules and defined issues that should be brought before a quorum at which a majority are non-News International directors. There are 18 directors, and only five are appointed by News International. One could hardly secure News International, in the person of Rupert Murdoch, more from dominating this situation without putting him into a straitjacket or putting him in irons. There is no substance to the fear that there is control. Yet it is used, uniquely, to exclude BSkyB.
I ask the Minister, even at this late hour, whether he will reconsider this excess of regulatory zeal, and think of the benefits that have been derived from this great satellite development—in employment, technical innovation and foreign earnings; in opportunities for new, independent programme makers; although not enough, according to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—in unrivalled support for the British film industry, the consumer electronic sector, with PACE, the de-crypter, providing one in three satellite receivers in Europe; and not least in the marketing of dishes and the management of subscribers.
All of this is very innovative. My advocacy, I hope noble Lords will accept straightforwardly, is not based on the petty interests of a director of Times Newspapers, but rather on my experience as a lifelong, independent economist—winning adherents, I may say, in all parties for Mr. Blair's new-found enthusiasm "for a dynamic market economy". My conviction is that economic and technical progress throughout history owes more than is commonly understood to a combination of exceptional talent, dedication and courage of a rare order. So far—it may be ripe for a fall—BSkyB has turned out to be a conspicuously successful examplar of those qualities. I believe that we should have more confidence in shaping the future by market forces, which is only another way of saying that we should allow the future to be shaped by the free play of consumer choice in both programmes and the means of delivery. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if I understood him, the gist of the noble Lord's argument was that certain barriers had been put in the way of BSkyB controlling the Channel 3 licence because BSkyB itself was controlled by News. I understood that that was not in fact the case, along the lines which the noble Lord described.
The point about the relationship between BSkyB and Channel 3 licence holding is that, for the reasons I described earlier (which I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not accept) we have stipulated that where a newspaper group has more than 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation it may not have more than a 20 per cent. interest in the Channel 3 licence holder. That reads across through other organisations in which it has more than a 20 per cent. share.
290
The point about BSkyB and Channel 3 licences is not that News controls BSkyB. As I explained, I understand that BSkyB is not controlled by News. The point is that BSkyB is 40 per cent. owned by News. That is the reason whereby it falls foul of the thresholds that we have put into the Bill.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 92, leave out line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill currently stands, a newspaper proprietor with 20 per cent. or more of the national market is restricted to a 20 per cent. stake in a corporate body which holds a licence to provide a domestic satellite service. A reciprocal restriction is applied to the stakes that such a licence holder may have in national newspapers. These amendments remove an unnecessary barrier to the potential development of domestic satellite services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 107 to 112 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 115:
Page 93, line 7, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 9 and insert ("local radio service").
Page 93, leave out lines 10 to 13.
Page 93, leave out line 26.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 93, leave out lines 34 to 38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 to 121 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 93, leave out lines 47 to 51.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 126 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 94, line 45, leave out from ("a") to ("may") in line 46 and insert ("local radio service").
Page 94, line 47, leave out from ("newspaper") to end of line 48.
Page 94, leave out lines 49 to 51.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 138 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before midnight.

  EU Airlines: State Subsidies
  EU Airlines: State Subsidies
  Inheritance Tax (Scotland)
  Inheritance Tax (Scotland)
  Prison Rules Held on Computer
  Prison Rules Held on Computer
  Armed Forces: Homosexuality Policy Assessment
  Armed Forces: Homosexuality Policy Assessment
  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Diplomatic Service: Ethnic Minorities
  Diplomatic Service: Ethnic Minorities
  Burundi
  Burundi
  Chechnya-Russia: Detainees
  Chechnya-Russia: Detainees
  Council of European Unions: Forthcoming Business
  Council of European Unions: Forthcoming Business